Japan falls late 1943 -- effect on ETO

[Sachyriel]

What? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Says you. And instead of constructive criticism, your being an asshole. So tell me, when WW2 does not end with A-bombs, how can anyone ever really develop the MAD theory? How can we know as the public that this isn't just another Morality Boost with no real substance, a propaganda effort with massive amounts of embellishment to make a single weapon better?

It's entirely possible, where without the original horrific association with the War that included Death Camps, most of the continents, flamethrowers, innocent lives destroyed, and the collapse of an entire quarter of the world market in South East Asia to Communism, that the Atomic Bomb wouldn't be that big of a deal with the age of Star Wars, Orbital Weaponry, UAV or ICBMs.

Even riots can be controlled with a crappy sort of A-bomb. The fallout from a semi-controlled Atomic Meltdown to pacify a city rioting over some reason is not beyond the reach of Soviets or DPRK. Bushfire wars like Vietnam that escalated could be contained by the A-bomb or H-bomb.

It could be more of a terror weapon than an actual strategic deterrent.

And next time, offer some aid in the way of helpful hints onto the idea instead of being such a lazy one-shot hothead.

 

[Ofaloaf]

Still, the idea that without their usage in Japan the atomic bomb would not be used as a deterrent is a bit of stretch. Have we ever even used an ICBM in a war? How do we know it's dangerous, then? How come we don't use it willy-nilly?


And how the devil would an atomic bomb solve the Vietnam War? Those things work on concentrated sedentary targets (ex: a city), not spread-out mobile ones (ex: guerrilla fighters).

 

[Sachyriel]

Still, the idea that without their usage in Japan the atomic bomb would not be used as a deterrent is a bit of stretch. Have we ever even used an ICBM in a war? How do we know it's dangerous, then? How come we don't use it willy-nilly?


And how the devil would an atomic bomb solve the Vietnam War? Those things work on concentrated sedentary targets (ex: a city), not spread-out mobile ones (ex: guerrilla fighters).

The United States has used cruise missiles, and although I cannot tell you that they are the same, nor will I try, they were used against people who did not have any way of defending against a cruise missile or anyway of destroying the plane before it was launched. ICBM, with the same principle, do not have to be used in war for us to know they are bad.

However, neither of these leaves fallout and renders the ground inhospitable for years. These two are lasting reminders to the side that didn't win that if you rise up again, your going to get this, again.

Another example is the Chemical Warfare Agents. It's taken multiple wars to prove to each nation that they're horrible atrocities, even terror attacks. It's being used 'willy-nilly' almost every war in the 20th century. But, 175 member nations have banned them, declaring no more usage of these horrible weapons. It took a long time, but it's there.

Vietnam? Uh, perhaps sonar and bunker buster, as the guerillas are not likely to have lead suits, or be able to use them in cramped tunnels. I'm not the armchair general I need to be. I'm an armchair anarchist.

 

[Ofaloaf]

The United States has used cruise missiles, and although I cannot tell you that they are the same, nor will I try, they were used against people who did not have any way of defending against a cruise missile or anyway of destroying the plane before it was launched. ICBM, with the same principle, do not have to be used in war for us to know they are bad.

However, neither of these leaves fallout and renders the ground inhospitable for years. These two are lasting reminders to the side that didn't win that if you rise up again, your going to get this, again.

Another example is the Chemical Warfare Agents. It's taken multiple wars to prove to each nation that they're horrible atrocities, even terror attacks. It's being used 'willy-nilly' almost every war in the 20th century. But, 175 member nations have banned them, declaring no more usage of these horrible weapons. It took a long time, but it's there.

Vietnam? Uh, perhaps sonar and bunker buster, as the guerillas are not likely to have lead suits, or be able to use them in cramped tunnels. I'm not the armchair general I need to be. I'm an armchair anarchist.

Chemical weapons were, after the experiences of the First World War, generally limited to usage against "inferior" fighters (rebels, rioters, third-world armies, etc.) and not much else, for fear that first-world countries would retaliate with greater violence if gas was used against them. Thus, after its use in WWI, gas weapons had become a deterrent in wars between major powers at the very least, and their usage elsewhere would steadily drop as protesters and dissenters continued to campaign against their use.

Exceptions would, of course, occur with governments that did not give a damn about international or domestic opinion.

 

[bm79]

The United States has used cruise missiles, and although I cannot tell you that they are the same, nor will I try, they were used against people who did not have any way of defending against a cruise missile or anyway of destroying the plane before it was launched. ICBM, with the same principle, do not have to be used in war for us to know they are bad.

However, neither of these leaves fallout and renders the ground inhospitable for years. These two are lasting reminders to the side that didn't win that if you rise up again, your going to get this, again.

Another example is the Chemical Warfare Agents. It's taken multiple wars to prove to each nation that they're horrible atrocities, even terror attacks. It's being used 'willy-nilly' almost every war in the 20th century. But, 175 member nations have banned them, declaring no more usage of these horrible weapons. It took a long time, but it's there.

Vietnam? Uh, perhaps sonar and bunker buster, as the guerillas are not likely to have lead suits, or be able to use them in cramped tunnels. I'm not the armchair general I need to be. I'm an armchair anarchist.

The first time that nuclear weapons are used against a major population centre, no matter when or where this occurs in any TL, will change forever the strategic implications of their use. Even in timelines where the first use of nukes is against troop formations as opposed to major cities, once two or more countries have a nuclear arsenal to call upon, their deployment would be at least rare, if not non-existant as in our TL. Look at chemical weapons in our history. Besides the trenches of WWI, the only time I can think of them being used was by the Italians during the Abyssianian campaign and during the Iran-Iraq War.

 

[Sachyriel]

The first time that nuclear weapons are used against a major population centre, no matter when or where this occurs in any TL, will change forever the strategic implications of their use. Even in timelines where the first use of nukes is against troop formations as opposed to major cities, once two or more countries have a nuclear arsenal to call upon, their deployment would be at least rare, if not non-existant as in our TL. Look at chemical weapons in our history. Besides the trenches of WWI, the only time I can think of them being used was by the Italians during the Abyssianian campaign and during the Iran-Iraq War.

Chemical weapons were, after the experiences of the First World War, generally limited to usage against "inferior" fighters (rebels, rioters, third-world armies, etc.) and not much else, for fear that first-world countries would retaliate with greater violence if gas was used against them. Thus, after its use in WWI, gas weapons had become a deterrent in wars between major powers at the very least, and their usage elsewhere would steadily drop as protesters and dissenters continued to campaign against their use.

Exceptions would, of course, occur with governments that did not give a damn about international or domestic opinion.

Sarin Gas Attacks in Japan, Iraq's Kurds, protesters in almost every country, Vietnam, poisoning wells, 1921 Rebellion in the USSR, Italy vs Ethiopia, Japanese against Asian nations, Holocaust Genocide.

We can see many examples.

We can say that the first time a laser is used in anger, that people will be shocked. But they won't be. As long as the weapon is not used on the populace of the people who used it first, it's viewed as 'just another effective weapon'. People in the west only became scared after the nuclear power plants were shown to be barely safe, because they knew MAD would prevent a huge scale war from breaking into their lives suddenly (still scared, they knew there would be signs).

It's more due to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island that people distrust nuclear power than the bombings of OTL.

 

[Roberto]

First of all, nukes were used in tests. During which, the governments of nuke-holding countries observed how the nukes worked. And the majority of them were scared by how well they worked. Consider Bikini island. It's an island before the tests, not it's a series of tiny lagoons. You can bet that even if nukes aren't used in war, people are still going to condemn them. From the tests, you can have a pretty clear idea of what effect a weapon like that will have on a city. I'm not saying that nukes are inherently unusable, just that there is no way that they'd be used for everything from riots to forest fires, as you said.

Secondly, on your list of things that shouldn't have happened above, notice that every single one of them involving gas weapons or the killing of people was fiercely condemned. So, riding with your theory, if there was no Holocaust, genocides would be used from anything from refugee overload to neighborhood gang fights, right?

 

[bard32]

Actually, most people on these boards don't.


What the hell does SP Artillery have to do with being a mechanized force?

The horse artillery was the second-line troops. And to be specific, I didn't say
that most people on this board think that. I meant most people in general. I read this an old War Monthly magazine.

 

[Roberto]

The horse artillery was the second-line troops. And to be specific, I didn't say
that most people on this board think that. I meant most people in general. I read this an old War Monthly magazine.

Look bard, old magazines don't really convey what historians think.

 

[CalBear]

The horse artillery was the second-line troops. And to be specific, I didn't say
that most people on this board think that. I meant most people in general. I read this an old War Monthly magazine.

The German Army used horse drawn artillery and supply wagon for virtually ALL of it's infantry formations. It couldn't afford to supply enough trucks to their non-mechanized formations to become a completely motorized force. The U.S., and through Lend-Lease, her British & Soviet allies, were the only forces that managed to effectively motorize during WW II (Even the Soviets had to rely on horses until very late in the war. In October of 1943, the average Soviet infantry division had 550 horses as part of its TOE.).

Once again, you have taken a couple of half understood facts and created an entirely unsubstantiated falsehood from them.

 

[alt_historian]

Have you ever read John Birmingham's Axis of Time trilogy? In the last book,
Final Impact, D-Day was a month earlier. If Japan fell in early 1944, then it would mean everything in the ETO would also be accelerated. D-Day, (Operation Overlord, ) was originally supposed to begin between late May and June 4, 1944. That timetable had been thrown off due to two things. The fall of Rome and the weather. Especially, the weather, which forced the Allied invasion fleet to return to port.

We meet again, Non-Sequitur Man...


Right. I'm using my ignore list, for only the second time since I've been here.

I will be glad to be free of your utterly irrelevant - and yet entirely serious - references to films, 'educational' tv, and fiction books. As well as your grab-bag of half-understood and half-remembered - "I think I saw it on the History Channel" - 'facts', and stream of consciousness rambles.

Bye.

 

[strangeland]

I'd think the US Marines would actually be very effective for operations in Norway and in the Aegean. Their logistical tail and lack of heavy weapons, motorized transport, and armor wouldn't be an issue. Also, they were well-suited to operate in harsh terrain.

 

[bm79]

I'd think the US Marines would actually be very effective for operations in Norway and in the Aegean. Their logistical tail and lack of heavy weapons, motorized transport, and armor wouldn't be an issue. Also, they were well-suited to operate in harsh terrain.

Unfortunately, the Marines were well suited in getting chewed up in harsh terrain OTL. Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa were all exceptionally costly battles. The Germans wouldn't have defended their positions as fanatically as the Japanese OTL, but still, I imagine a "once bitten, twice shy" attitude developing about attacking defended islands in Europe. In most cases, these places were not strategically important, and like in OTL, most would be left to wither on the vine.

 

[burmafrd]

Thats right the Germans were no where near as fanatical as the Japanese were. The USMC was very flexible in its tactics- and it adjusted them several times early in the war. They would have no trouble doing it again. If the Pacific War ended early then at least 10 army divisions would be available for the ETO and they would certainly come in handy in 1944.

Marshall and all US high command wanted NOTHING to do with the Balkans (they were Churchills pet obsession). So it is very doubtfull we would have had anything to do with them.

There was a proposal to land troops in the Antwerp area in late August in order to quickly take the port. A division of Marines along with the support forces brought from the pacific would have come in very handy then. Montgomery screwed the pooch in taking Antwerp by not making sure the Scheldt was attacked and that kept the port closed for another month.
The supply situation was critical since cherbourgh was not big enough and too far away to really supply the allied forces.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

There was a proposal to land troops in the Antwerp area in late August in order to quickly take the port. A division of Marines along with the support forces brought from the pacific would have come in very handy then. Montgomery screwed the pooch in taking Antwerp by not making sure the Scheldt was attacked and that kept the port closed for another month.
The supply situation was critical since cherbourgh was not big enough and too far away to really supply the allied forces.

I doubt you want to use marines there.

You can't land near Antwerp, as Antwerp isn't close to sea. You could use the Schelde, but I wouldn't, at least not untill you controll both sides of that river. IRL the allies didn't use the Schelde, so why would they now?
IMHO you're better off using the motorized Canadians to get to Antwerp faster.

Secondly, when approaching Antwerp, you're also on grounds suitable for motorized/mechanized formations. IRL the Germans used some of those around Nijmegen under Model, you have no guarantee you won't run into these around Antwerpen.

 

[Hannibal.Caesar]

Problem 1: The Balkans are a bit bigger than Italy, providing room to manouver.

Problem 2: Who´s going to stop you? Certainly not the Germans, they had nothing there and once the Balkans switch sides they can´t get troops there in time.

Problem 3: Where could the Germans get the troops from? France ... that might be quite helpful for the allied casue.

If the Allies invaded the Balkans, they would be fighting through terrain that was as bad, if not worse, than what they faced in Italy. It may be true that the Germans didn't have many front-line troops there in the Balkans at the time, but I'd contend that even second-rate troops can do a hell of a lot of damage to an enemy that is bottled up in mountain passes and small beachheads. IMHO the Allies, depending on where they invaded, would manage to liberate a country or two but would not be able to provide a war-ending knockout punch to the Germans. The best thing I think they'd be able to provide would be more stress on the Germans and the other Axis members.

 

[Alexius]

The butterflies this causes in the Far East are going to be extremely interesting. Stalin will not have declared war on Japan, so there will be no invasion of Manchuria. Therefore, perhaps no Communist China, as the PLA will not have Manchuria as a base. Also, even if China does go Communist, there will be no North Korea. Unified Korea will look like OTL South Korea, just bigger and richer (pre-war IIRC much of the industry was in the north). It will still have a very heavily-defended northern border.

What will happen to Japan ITTL? Will the surrender terms be as harsh as they were IOTL, less so, or more so? This could have its own effects...

 

[HJ Tulp]

The butterflies this causes in the Far East are going to be extremely interesting. Stalin will not have declared war on Japan, so there will be no invasion of Manchuria. Therefore, perhaps no Communist China, as the PLA will not have Manchuria as a base. Also, even if China does go Communist, there will be no North Korea. Unified Korea will look like OTL South Korea, just bigger and richer (pre-war IIRC much of the industry was in the north). It will still have a very heavily-defended northern border.

What will happen to Japan ITTL? Will the surrender terms be as harsh as they were IOTL, less so, or more so? This could have its own effects...

Not to mention the decolonisation process.

 

[CalBear]

If the Allies invaded the Balkans, they would be fighting through terrain that was as bad, if not worse, than what they faced in Italy. It may be true that the Germans didn't have many front-line troops there in the Balkans at the time, but I'd contend that even second-rate troops can do a hell of a lot of damage to an enemy that is bottled up in mountain passes and small beachheads. IMHO the Allies, depending on where they invaded, would manage to liberate a country or two but would not be able to provide a war-ending knockout punch to the Germans. The best thing I think they'd be able to provide would be more stress on the Germans and the other Axis members.

Amen brother. The Balkans are a nightmare. Besides the Germans, you also have a very nasty multi-sided civil war to contend with.

"Tough Old Gut."

 

[Earling]

No, the Balkans could be forced easilly, just like Italy for that matter, but only if the USA was willing to make it the prime front for the Western Allies. They were not in OTL and I cannot see it happening here. The US would press if anything for an earlier invasion of France rather than messing about in the Balkans. Its possible you would get an invasion and it would push up into Serbia only to then be forgotten about as priority shifts to the Normandy landings.

As for the Marines, forgive me if I am wrong but the USA had equipment to burn/send to Moscow. Giving them trucks, armour, artillery/uniforms should be more than possible. They might suffer in their first engagement, every force did, but why couldn't they adapt?

Lastly, the 'Balkan' powers putting up much resistance.. hmmm.. not so much. By 1944 all the pro-Nazi regimes were essentially resting solely on Nazi bayonets and collapsed the moment they were withdrawn or hurled out. Whether this was because of active betrayal or simply because the Balkan armies were completely obsolete by this period doesn't really matter, the Anglo-American forces would have little difficulty going through them. In 1943 the German core which permited some resistance to the Soviets is still straddling Ukraine and cannot very easilly be withdrawn.