Change one single event of the War...

Many British historians favoured a Neutral Britain and where not concerned with a German or Russian win.

 

An interesting one would be Poland accepting Germanys demands in 1939.
Which would leave the Germans free to attack the USSR in 1940 or 41 without the West being against them.

 

Thank you for the salute.

But I don't deserve the credit for that line of thinking.

If you read the Japanese monographs relative to their pre-war planning, it's obvious they were closely watching, and reacting to the developing situation in Europe, particularly with regard to England's position and Germany's activities. The Japanese saw what appeared to be a triumphant Germany acquiring territory, reordering political realities, and avenging itself against the western Allies, all things similar to what Japan hoped to accomplish in Asia and the Pacific.

Japan knew it was not strong enough economically or militarily to do these things on it's own, but with Britain and the US pre-occupied in dealing with Germany in Europe, they might be possible; Japan thought it was only a matter of proper timing. Japan's leaders spoke of "not missing the bus". When Germany attacked the Soviet Union, that removed the last restraint on Japan, the threat of a belligerent Soviet Union, and allowed them to seriously think about "going south" to seize British, Dutch, and American possessions in the western Pacific.

Monographs 144, 146, 147, 150, and 152 are particularly enlightening.
http://ibiblio.org/pha/monos/

 

The Germans made the demands knowing that the Poles would reject them. Besides the Germans gave them no time to accept them. Hitler needed to go through Poland to get to Russia. How else would Germany have gotten to Russia? If after attacking Poland in 1940 or 1941 the West would have still become involved.

 

The Ribbentrop Molotov pact ended up giving much more territory to the soviets than to the germans if you throw in the baltic states, Hitler didn't even insist the pact's boundaries, that were more favourable to Germany than the historical split, were respected. IMO he was not really thinking of a an attack East until the fall of France.
Had his problem been to just get Poland out of the way he could simply have allied with them, as he did with Hungaria, Rumania etc. instead of with the soviets, the western allies would probably ave been more than happy to stand by while someone took care of "the boscheviks" for them (how's that for a what if). After all the Poles had no love for the soviets and a desire to expand East, they had nearly taken Kiev in 1919. The problem with this approach is that he vould have had to accept the Versailles boundaries unless he could have gotten the Poles to agree to "move East" as the soviet forced them to "move west" in 1945 when a thind of 1939 Poland became part of the soviet union.

 

The provacations and the the staged "attacks" by Poland showed that Hitler did have a desire to attack Poland. It was not a spur of the moment thing. Hitler had a desire to move East as stated in Mein Kampf. Poland was in the way. After stating this I seriously doubt that Hitler would have allied with Poland,

"The Pole is no 'supplementary enemy'. Poland will always be on the side of our adversaries. In spite of treaties of friendship, Poland has always had the secret intention of exploiting every opportunity to do us harm."


"If fate brings us into conflict with the West, the possession of extensive areas in the East will be advantageous. Upon record harvests we shall be able to rely even less in time of war than in peace.
"The population of non-German areas will perform no military service, and will be available as a source of labour.
"The Polish problem is inseparable from conflict with the West.
"Poland's internal power of resistance to Bolshevism is doubtful. Thus Poland is of doubtful value as a barrier against Russia.
"It is questionable whether military success in the West can be achieved by a quick decision, questionable too is the attitude of Poland.
"The Polish government will not resist pressure from Russia. Poland sees danger in a German victory in the West, and will attempt to rob us of the victory.
"There is therefore no question of sparing Poland, and we are left with the decision: "To attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity. [This sentence is underscored in the original German text.] "

Formulation and Execution of the Plan to Invade Poland
Hitler and Poland

 

If I could change only one thing it would be that our boys held out in the Phillippines and that we were speedy with reinforcements. 1.) To keep a better foothold in the region for a base of operation 2.) To stop the suffering of allied soldiers for 3 years under Japanese captivity.

 

Ive thought about this a lot over the years. I think if the army had been left in France for Germany to mop up or whatever in numbers that instead made it home. Things for Churchill would have been somewhat bristly....He wouldnt have changed his attitude. Others though may have made their point more forceably.

The old Halifax taking over under the right circumstances routine, may just have come to fruition in the case of the army not making it home.

Maybe not a surrender to follow, but certainly in my view, an accomodation, and one without Churchill at the head of govt. Not because it would have been his fault. Coming to head the government on the unfortunate date he did. But although Halifax as we know turned down the premiership and Churchill went on to do the necessary, thank God....Halifax could certainly have taken the reigns of govt if enough support was given after the loss of the army manpower. The famous meeting in govt rooms where Churchill was cheeered and slapped on back for his ascertions of final victory etc would never have taken place. Halifax may well have taken his place as Prime Minister at that stage.

Thank God in my view, Gort did his own thing.

 

Question?

Does anybody think that war still would have been imminent with Japan if Germany was neutralized? With her armies in China their backs were going to be aginst the wall with little war material and they seemed somewhat stable with the Soviets. Of course some of that is due to Russia not wanting to fight a two front war. The trade embargo placed on Japan by the United States was going to kill their advance. Japan was very bold and I can't see them withdrawing out of ground they had already gained. I can see them still attacking us.

Although I do like your thinking it carrys a lot of merit Devilsadvocate.

Respectfully,
Boozie

 

USS William D. Porter (DD-579) actually hits the USS Iowa on November 14th 1943 and Roosevelt, Hull, King, are killed.

I wonder would she be allowed to float or would she be blown out of the water by the Iowa, which did turn its guns on the ship after the mishap.

 

The Kriegsmarine to get around Goering's irrational demand that everything that flies belongs to him, work out a compromise.

The Kriegsmarine can have its own planes, they just have to recruit women instead of men to fly them.

 

Exactly the Germans give them no time to accept.
The British even said they would support what Germany wanted without war.
Given more time the Poles would have caved in.
A reduced Poland could then have become a German client state like Slovakia.
German troops would have been given access to Poland to attack the Soviets just as the Romanians gave them access after that.
Britain would not have gone to war over a German v Soviet confrontation.

 

Actually the French did manage to bre kthrough but they used so little troops and the commanders withdrew after going a few miles. One massive wasted opportunity.

 

Different situation in 1940 with German forces engaged in the offensive and not the defensive in that region.

 

Well, had the French gone through with that initial breakthrough, they had a chance to do some real damage. But the Maginot Line troops were ill-equipped for a fast offense like Hitler's troops, so the Germans, especially the Luftwaffe, would have harassed and probably defeated them before too much damage was done.

 

Wonderfull '09 to all.

On the Allies site: Hitler never met Dietrich Eckart.

On Axis site: The occupation on Malta was a success

edd

 

What occupation? Do you mean Operation? The assualt on Malta never made it past the planning stage.

"The proposed Malta invasion was meticulously planned. In fact, it was the only case of genuine integrated planning by the Axis powers during the war. Not only did Italian and German staffs work together closely, but Japanese experts in amphibious warfare were consulted. The operation was to involve over 75,000 troops in over six divisions, some 1,300 aircraft, and about 200 tanks (including some superheavy KV-IIs captured in Russia), plus virtually all Axis warships in the Mediterranean. To oppose these, the British had no more than about 18,000 combat troops in four brigades, supported by about 12,000 naval and air base personnel, with a handful of aircraft, a few tanks, and whatever meager resources the Royal Navy might be able to commit, it being stretched extremely thin by the demands of a global war. "

"Since the Axis powers had extremely good intelligence as to British resources and dispositions on Malta (a lot of Maltese were pro-Italian, and over a score were hanged for their espionage efforts during the war), the plan seems to have had a reasonable chance of success.
But the operation was never undertaken. The primary reason for this was Rommel’s impressive victory over the British at Gazala (May 26-June 13, 1942). In anticipation of his offensive, Rommel induced Hitler to “lend” him the X Fleigerkorps (”Tenth Air Corps”), the German component of the massive Axis air force just then pounding Malta into ruin. With the Gazala battle won, Rommel was supposed to return the Fleigerkorps. Instead, as the British retreated toward the Nile hotly pursued by German and Italian troops, Rommel convinced Hitler that Egypt (and the Suez Canal) were within his grasp. But Rommel’s drive ended at El Alamein, where, in early July, the British Eighth Army made a stand. The air corps was never returned to Sicily; many of the Italian and German troops earmarked for the Malta operation ended up holding the El Alamein Line, and the interdiction of Malta came to an end. As a result, during the second half of 1942, while Rommel’s troops clung desperately to the El Alamein position at the end of a very long logistical line, Axis maritime traffic to North Africa was once again subject to intensive attack, with material losses reaching more than 35 percent, while British convoys to Malta suffered not a single loss. "

MALTA: PIVOT OR PAWN « War and Game

 

Thanks for info JCFalken.

"With the Gazala battle won, Rommel was supposed to return the Fleigerkorps. Instead, as the British retreated toward the Nile hotly pursued by German and Italian troops, Rommel convinced Hitler that Egypt (and the Suez Canal) were within his grasp. But Rommel’s drive ended at El Alamein, where, in early July, the British Eighth Army made a stand."

What a critical mistake I would say.

I should have made my statement a clearer, sorry for that. I should have said:
Siege on Malta, and critically, before the end of 1940

edd

 

With events mentioned above concerning Malta and Rommel moving east into Egypt in hot pursuit of the Brits following the battles at Gazala, how would an Axis victory at El Alamein play out concerning Operation Torch? Even if defeated in the positions Alamein, the 8th Army probably could have retreated in good order to the far side of the Nile, or even Suez. Lacking sufficient bridging capability, the Afrika Korps wouldn't have been able to do much else after occupying Alexandria and Cairo. I'm sure the pro-Axis-anti-British Egyptian army would have rose in support of the Axis, but that wouldn't facilitate a bridgehead across the Nile. The 8th Army would still tie down the Afrika Korps in far northeast Africa, while fresh British and American forces landed in northwest Africa. The Afrika Korps days were numbered all along. Malta should have been taken earlier 1941. Operation Torch would have still taken place, and the campaign in North Africa would have lasted a bit longer maybe, but still, an Axis defeat was inevitable I believe.

 

Soviets never being attacked by Germany OR the allies losing Operation Overlord!