Except the Soviets then declare war on Japan and slaughter their way through manchuria. Japan has been having problems with China for a while now and a mass rebellion pushes them off the continent. And thats assuming the pacific war doesnt happen anyway since the Japanese are pissed about the American oil embargo and bomb pearl harbour.Megahedron said:
A historical question
- Thread starter rayen020
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nice point, although do you really think the Russians would have stopped in Berlin? The Germans were throwing everything they had on the eastern front and couldn't slow them after 43. they probably could have kept going right up to the coast. it would all depend how they react to having the Japanese so close, would they work with China? with that many people they could use sticks and they'd still walk over them. plus at this point all the German scientists would be on the Russian side as opposed to the Americans, so they would be the first ones with 'the bomb'. and i think they would be alot more willing to use it. could see the japan conflict ending similar to actual events. Interesting point you had though, if Russia did leave them alone and no one intervened in the Pacific, they probably would have pushed through the Med and close to Africa.Megahedron said:
Well, (first) the hypothetical scenario IS no America...Commissar Sae said:
Anyways, my second question is why does Russia declare war on the Japanese? According to Wikipedia (yay!) 13.8% of the Soviet populace died during WWII. If 13.8% of all the people you know just died in a war, how excited are you to start a new one? That's assuming the same casualty rate, most likely the numbers would be higher if they were required to bear the full force of the Germans. There is no way the Russians care enough to take on Japan after that devastation. And as for the Chinese resistance... Well the number of Chinese and Indian civilians killed makes me think the Japanese would have no problem putting down that insurrection if there was no outside interference.
The Russians actually did declare war on Japan after the war in Europe was over, There was more comms chatter in Japan over the fact that Russia defeated the manchurian army in a day than about the bombing of Hiroshima. And an important thing to realise about the Russian leadership is that they straight up did not care about loss of life. Look at the condition of the post war gulags or the tactics they used in the war, people werent important to Stalin, victory was.Megahedron said:
Harry Turtledove wrote a series of books about how different the world would have been had the south won the Civil War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Turtledove#Southern_Victory
World War 1 would have ended differently, because the North would have supported Germany and the South would have been allied with Great Britain. Whether it would have all played out the way he describes is impossible to say, but his books are better researched than any of us could have done in the short time this thread has been around.
By the way, they are EXCELLENT books, so read them anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Turtledove#Southern_Victory
World War 1 would have ended differently, because the North would have supported Germany and the South would have been allied with Great Britain. Whether it would have all played out the way he describes is impossible to say, but his books are better researched than any of us could have done in the short time this thread has been around.
By the way, they are EXCELLENT books, so read them anyway.
The Russians declared war on the Japanese due to the United States. I hate to (no... I don't. I love it) quote wikipedia again, butCommissar Sae said:
"while the latter [conference] included agreement that the Western Allies would invade Europe in 1944 and that the Soviet Union would declare war on Japan within three months of Germany's defeat."
The Soviets declared war because it was part of their agreement with the United States. Aaaand as a bit of a land grab of an already reeling enemy. But I will concede that Stalin didn't care about his men... After almost starting a war over the Berlin blockade thing.
And as for this whole "Who helped win the Second World War" - it's a pointless question. Both sides helped immensely. The Soviets WERE the main fighting force against the Germans, and the Americans WERE the main fighting force against the Japanese (although China did help enormously by soaking up huge numbers (2 MILLION) of Japanese soldiers).
Both sides helped. Both sides lost a lot. D-Day almost certainly would not have succeeded if Russia hadn't destroyed huge segments of the Germany army, and the Japanese would never have lost its south-asian gains if it wasn't for the Americans.
In the end however, if I had to decide between the US and the USSR, I would go with the US. Yes, the Red Army destroyed far more German divisions than the US and the UK combined. Yes, the Russians sacrificed a lot and without them the Land Army of Nazi Germany couldn't have been defeated so quickly.
But the US were developing the Atomic Bomb. Even if the USSR had fallen, the US would have still won eventually. Hitler dismissed Atomic science as "jewish" science and failed to put money into the German atomic bomb project. Even if D-Day had failed, even if the USSR had been overwhelmed, the US could have just nuked Germany to the ground.
Both sides helped. Both sides lost a lot. D-Day almost certainly would not have succeeded if Russia hadn't destroyed huge segments of the Germany army, and the Japanese would never have lost its south-asian gains if it wasn't for the Americans.
In the end however, if I had to decide between the US and the USSR, I would go with the US. Yes, the Red Army destroyed far more German divisions than the US and the UK combined. Yes, the Russians sacrificed a lot and without them the Land Army of Nazi Germany couldn't have been defeated so quickly.
But the US were developing the Atomic Bomb. Even if the USSR had fallen, the US would have still won eventually. Hitler dismissed Atomic science as "jewish" science and failed to put money into the German atomic bomb project. Even if D-Day had failed, even if the USSR had been overwhelmed, the US could have just nuked Germany to the ground.
ThongBonerstorm said:Because the whole African and Italian and Normandy and Battle of the Bulge...ect, NEVER HAPPENED. Let me guess, you work for the Iranian section of Fox News.tanis1lionheart said:
You're kidding, right?
If it wasn't for the Americans, and the few 'Allies' left pressuring the Axis from the North, South, and West the Reich would have lasted a long long time after the Soviets tried to get rid of them from the East.
Unless, you know, you're one of those people who think history is being rewritten by some massive conspiracy headed by Xenu.
The actual war had little effect. The innovations and methods that were used did help to define modern warfare.rayen020 said:
The Civil War took place because Southron politicians (and one Northern Abolitionist) over-(re)acted on the perceived issue of slavery. The South tried very hard to get foreign powers such as England and France to officially recognize the Confederacy by creating a shortage of cotton exports. Had the South received that recognition, they may well have received foreign aid and troops. Perhaps an expanded war would have had a greater impact on the larger world.
The Union Armies were finally victorious, not because of the do-nothing General McClellan, but because of greater numbers, better logistics, and the use of new technologies and infrastructure as "force multipliers." The Union made use of the telegraph for sending intelligence to centralized war department (largely President Lincoln himself at the telegraph office), railways for delivering troops while General Sherman notoriously destroyed railways in the south, and adopted into service the first repeating rifle. The Union suffered horrific defeats, and these advanced medical knowledge and led to great improvements in the treatment of disease. It was around the end of the ACW that surgery began to supplant wholesale amputation.
Personally I wouldn't add Gettysburg to the list. I know that the American Civil War was important and that Gettysburg was an important turning point within the conflict, but I honestly doubt the North would have lost the war. The Civil War was one of attrition, and the North had more men, guns and money. I wouldn't name it a world defining battle.
Ok we'll slow this down for you. You know that at the height of the western conflict the allies never faced more than 20% of the German forces, they were all on the eastern front trying to hold back the Russian push after Stalingrad. The Germans were getting pushed out of Europe in 43, quiet a bit before D-Day.tanis1lionheart said:ThongBonerstorm said:Because the whole African and Italian and Normandy and Battle of the Bulge...ect, NEVER HAPPENED. Let me guess, you work for the Iranian section of Fox News.tanis1lionheart said:You're kidding, right?
If it wasn't for the Americans, and the few 'Allies' left pressuring the Axis from the North, South, and West the Reich would have lasted a long long time after the Soviets tried to get rid of them from the East.
Unless, you know, you're one of those people who think history is being rewritten by some massive conspiracy headed by Xenu.
The only reason the Americans were even able to be there in the first place was due to a mistake made by the Germans in not invading the British islands when they had the plans all ready to go. That's got to be one of the biggest mistakes of the war, they had a pretty good shot up until that.
There was no individual battle in the American Civil War which effected the entire world on a grand scale as the US was far too isolated. The importance of the ACW on a global scale is that it presented to the world just how deadly warfare using Napoleonic tactics with modern weapons could be. Against Gatling guns, rifles, and accurate artillery using a total war strategy, the cost of life was enormous on a scale not yet seen in human history.
Unfortunately for the Europeans, not many were taking notes when WW1 broke out. Que some of the most bloody fighting in history as waves of men were thrown to their certain death from machine guns and entrenched infantry. That's not even counting how accurate artillery had become. Men had it down to an art form, and even used advancing barrages of artillery to attack. Artillery killed more men than any other weapon in that war.
Unfortunately for the Europeans, not many were taking notes when WW1 broke out. Que some of the most bloody fighting in history as waves of men were thrown to their certain death from machine guns and entrenched infantry. That's not even counting how accurate artillery had become. Men had it down to an art form, and even used advancing barrages of artillery to attack. Artillery killed more men than any other weapon in that war.
Thats just the author's list. And he's been accused (and looking at the list, certainly is) of being Eurocentric:
"Creasy's descriptions of the battles and their impact on history are from a decidedly Eurocentric"
"Creasy's descriptions of the battles and their impact on history are from a decidedly Eurocentric"
Hitler cancelled the invasion of Britain because HE COULDN'T PULL IT OFF. He lacked air-superiority, and he was smart enough to recognize that without air-superiority his troops would get chewed up crossing the English Channel. Remember how many troops we lost invading France on D-Day? Add in the fact that he would have also lost troops on the crossing. He recognized that without air-superiority he stood no chance of completing an invasion of Britain, and called off his forces.ThongBonerstorm said:
Now, the DUMBEST thing he did was invade the Soviet Union. It divided his forces when he already had a front in Africa and an invasion from the west to worry about. (The second dumbest thing he did was trust the Italians to hold off an American invasion from the south once he lost Africa.) Had he waited until he was able to neutralize Great Britain, he may have been able to pull both off, but a series of blunders pretty much assure that he couldn't achieve any of those goals.
At the time the invasion was set to go, the British were just about out of supplies, and the bombings were going pretty well unchecked. if he decided to launch the landing i don't think the British would have had the time to scrape together enough to throw at them to stop both the aerial assault and the land invasion.Spade Lead said:
opting to just go after the RAF gave the brits enough time to get the shipments across the ocean to put up more of a fight, even so they still had a hell of a time during the BoB.
First 'modern' war?! That's a massive oxymoron if I ever heard one. First 'industrial war', maybe.LobsterFeng said:
LOL, just LOL! Two point two million soldiers, six thousand tanks, thirty-five thousand artillery pieces and five thousand aircraft. Man, that would be a hard movie to make without CGI!Korolev said:
Don't forget Austro-Prussian War.Commissar Sae said:
No, invading the Soviet Union wasn't the dumbest mistake (because with his resources it could've been done). The dumb thing about Op Red-Beard was kicking it off in summer, which was exactly what Napoleon did. Stage in Poland in November, get everyone used to shit weather, then set off. Then march away and arrive in Moscow in June/July, then there's fuck all the Russians would be able to do. (Yes, I know, simplified, but justifiable.) Will agree with the whole Italy thing. I think there was only one Italian who wanted a fight.Spade Lead said:
OT: ('OT'... after all this?)
As far as warmaking is considered, the ACW had no effect whatsoever, because (at the time) the Prussians did it better (stockpiling, railroad transport etc.) only on a smaller scale, so that was kinda understandable. Geopolitically, there was relatively little effect as well, seeing as how the rest of the world did little except watch or do their own thing. However, it was the subsequent era with their industrial development and 'unifying' the remainder of the what is now the American nation that would have been subject to alteration should the outcome of the war been different. But since that's the field of speculative history (of a time and geography that I have little expertise in) I won't entertain any conjecture, other than a tentative 'things would've developed a couple decades late', though I think a page 1 poster beat me to that...
Look at the world as it is today. How much of that view changes without the United States? Screw the things that can be seen as either good or bad, depending on persepective. Let's just go through the broad strokes.
Without a strong, unified United States, John F. Kennedy's reaction to Soviet missle placements in Cuba never occur. Marxist Communism isn't held back from the Western world.
Continuing with the "JFK" theme, there was never a mandate that the U.S. Space Program reach the moon within a decade. Russia wins the space race, and continues to develop technologies that revolutionize multiple fields. But, it's the Soviet Union, so thos things never see the light of day, because those advancements would be seen as detrimental to the State.
Going back a bit farther, in 1942, the United Kingdom was, for all intents and purposes, the only nation still in a position to fight the Axis advance in Western Europe. Without the United States, the UK would eventually run out of supplies, and be forced to retreat to Britainia. That is, if the Axis didn't just send the air fleet to wipe them out, entirely.
On the Pacific theatre, without the United States, the Chinese military never receives any support against the Japanese invasion of the mainland. Japan, with a vastly superior Air Force, wins the war on that front, adding almost a billion (at the time) people to its population. That's right. Without the United States, the Axis wins World War II.
But, then again, without the United States, World War II may never have happened. Think about that, for a second. The primary catalyst behind World War II was Germany. Germany was led to action by Adolf Hitler, who was using the Jewish people as a scapegoat for what was enacted by the Treaty of Versailles. But, in 1917, England was in the same position in which they found themselves in 1942. They, for all intents and purposes, were alone, against a vastly superior force, and fighting outside of their supply lines. So, without the United States, Germany wins World War I, meaning that World War II may have never occured.
Is that enough? Or, shall I go into the advances in medicine or technology that never come to pass without American ingenuity? I know that some people around the world don't like to admit this.... Hell, some people in the United States don't like to admit this.... But, the world IS a better place because of the United States. I'm not saying that we're "The best country on Earth." But, I am saying that history has proven that far more people have seen their lives measurably improved by the United States than have seen their lives harmed by the United States. It's really not even close.
Without a strong, unified United States, John F. Kennedy's reaction to Soviet missle placements in Cuba never occur. Marxist Communism isn't held back from the Western world.
Continuing with the "JFK" theme, there was never a mandate that the U.S. Space Program reach the moon within a decade. Russia wins the space race, and continues to develop technologies that revolutionize multiple fields. But, it's the Soviet Union, so thos things never see the light of day, because those advancements would be seen as detrimental to the State.
Going back a bit farther, in 1942, the United Kingdom was, for all intents and purposes, the only nation still in a position to fight the Axis advance in Western Europe. Without the United States, the UK would eventually run out of supplies, and be forced to retreat to Britainia. That is, if the Axis didn't just send the air fleet to wipe them out, entirely.
On the Pacific theatre, without the United States, the Chinese military never receives any support against the Japanese invasion of the mainland. Japan, with a vastly superior Air Force, wins the war on that front, adding almost a billion (at the time) people to its population. That's right. Without the United States, the Axis wins World War II.
But, then again, without the United States, World War II may never have happened. Think about that, for a second. The primary catalyst behind World War II was Germany. Germany was led to action by Adolf Hitler, who was using the Jewish people as a scapegoat for what was enacted by the Treaty of Versailles. But, in 1917, England was in the same position in which they found themselves in 1942. They, for all intents and purposes, were alone, against a vastly superior force, and fighting outside of their supply lines. So, without the United States, Germany wins World War I, meaning that World War II may have never occured.
Is that enough? Or, shall I go into the advances in medicine or technology that never come to pass without American ingenuity? I know that some people around the world don't like to admit this.... Hell, some people in the United States don't like to admit this.... But, the world IS a better place because of the United States. I'm not saying that we're "The best country on Earth." But, I am saying that history has proven that far more people have seen their lives measurably improved by the United States than have seen their lives harmed by the United States. It's really not even close.
Hey I'm not the one who said it. It's what I've been taught in my history classes.SckizoBoy said:
http://www.aeragon.com/03/