Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What if Pearl Harbor never happened?
Several times it has been asked, what if the Germans had never attacked the USSR in WW2, and the possible outcome for the war. Had the Japanese not launched their attack on the US at Pearl Harbor:
1. How long would the US have remained Neutral?
2. Would the US has joined the war at all?
3. Would this have lead to the Germans holding Western Europe for decades?
4. Would this have lead to the Japanese holding Sth East Asia for decades?

[Image: wildcat10-CougarHuntingDeer.jpg]
1) It would provide weapons to the UK and the Soviets but itself would stay out of the war entirely.

2) I don't think so. The mood was very anti-war prior to Pearl Harbour.

3) No. I think the Soviet Union would have defeated Germany even if the US didn't join the war. The number German soldiers on the Western Front in our timeline was negligible compared to the number of German soldiers on the Eastern Front. Thus, even if all the soldiers on the Western Front were sent to the East, I don't see them being able to prevent Soviet victory and the fall of Berlin.

4) Yes
1, USA wasn't really 'neutral', just not actively involved in full-scale combat operations, since the USN was already
escorting Atlantic convoys carrying freely supplied 'lend-lease' weapons & associated logistical support items.
POTUS FDR was actively inciting a predictable response from the militaristic regime then in control of Nippon.

2, Very probably, since if Japan wanted to move through South East Asia & take the colonial possessions held by
the British & Dutch (as they already had, with French Indo-China) they'd still have to deal with the US forces in the
Phillipines, too. The alternative, moving north against the Soviets in Manchuria would've also been difficult, since
increasing US sanctions (oil embargo), was already biting into the operational abilities of Japanese forces in China.

3, Possibly, since without Hilter's astoundingly misjudged declaration of war (something he very seldom did) on USA,
its likely that US public opinion would've insisted on a 'smash the Japs' focus, & without directly supportive US
military operations, there would be no 'D-day' invasion, & the British bombing campaign would've been defeated.

Likewise, the Soviets would mostly likely not then have defeated the Nazi forces, since the best equipped, hi-tech
German military units were sent West, to contest the landing, inc' most of the panzer divisons & the luftwaffe,
(plus the massive efforts of course, already being made to contend with the 'round the clock' bombing assault).

4, No, the Pacific theatre was only a fairly small part of the US war effort (mainly by USN/USMC & some USAAF),
but if the US forces sent to defeat Germany were instead concentrated on Japan, they'd be totally overwhelming.
(08-12-2019, 09:59 AM)Mondas Wrote: Likewise, the Soviets would mostly likely not then have defeated the Nazi forces, since the best equipped, hi-tech
German military units were sent West, to contest the landing, inc' most of the panzer divisons & the luftwaffe,
(plus the massive efforts of course, already being made to contend with the 'round the clock' bombing assault).

Da fak? There were far, far more German soldiers, tanks and planes on the Eastern Front than on the Western Front. And the Eastern Front was where the vast majority of the German soldiers and equipment perished. The Western Front was basically a sideshow in comparison. Everyone knows that.
^ No. Da flak was mainly located in the West, since that was where the Allied aircraft were most dangerous, & those
many thousands of guns & millions of rounds of ammo were thus not available as artillery in the East.

Same with the Luftwaffe, its best, most modern units were stationed in the West, too. Both for reprisal bombing raids
on London, anti-shipping activities & to defend against the massive air-armadas of 4-engined bombers assaulting
Germany on a 'round-the-clock' basis.

In 1943, during the crucial Stalingrad battle in Russia, German military resources badly needed there were diverted
to North Africa, in a strenuous effort to resist the Western Allies from ejecting Axis forces, but by May, they were done,
& the numbers of troops lost there was on a par with the earlier Stalingrad debacle.

In July 1943, during the bruta Kursk offensive, Hitler again ordered the redirection of many of his best units there
(inc' SS Panzer divisons & Luftwaffe assault formations) to Italy, as the Fascist forces (& indeed, the Mussolini regime)
were failing badly locally, to contain the invasion of Sicily, being conducted by the Western Allies.

& 'bout a year later, the huge 'Bagration' offensive directed by Stalin to roll the German forces out of USSR territory,
would not have been successful, if the mass of the very effective ultra-modern Nazi units, incluing most of the SS
Panzer divisions & Luftwaffe fighter-bombers had still been there, rather than being ground down in Normandy.

You need to understand that Hitler had spent his entire WW I combat-soldier experience on the Western Front,
& he always put his focus there, doing it again in late 1944 for his Ardennes offensive, during which he spent the
forces he perhaps should've used to prevent the Soviet advance on Berlin.

If you do some study, you'll realize that although the Eastern front was primitive, & bitterly fought in very difficult terrain & circumstances, the Germans always regarded the Western forces as the most dangerous to fight,
& thus of the highest priority for using their best-equipped & trained forces, to have any chance of military success.

Indeed there is evidence that Stalin was prepared to reach an armistice with Hitler in 1943, before the Western Allies
started making real progress, & of course, Stalin was always clamouring for more weapons & logistical supplies from
the West too, with Churchill even sending to Russia the planes & tanks which might have prevented the Japanese from sweeping through South East Asia, down to the Australian Territories, & across to India.
A simple Google search would show you that the number of German troops involved in major battles in the East numbered in the millions or high hundreds of thousands whilst the numbers involved in major battles in the West were always in the low hundreds of thousands. And millions of German soldiers died in the East and only a few hundred thousand in the West. Obviously, Hitler diverted some troops to the West but these were tiny in numbers compared to the overall number of German troops in the East. Like, there were fewer than 100,000 German soldiers in Italy, compared to around a million at Kursk. And the Germans had their best weapons, like Tiger Tanks, in both the East and the West, in greater numbers in the East. Also, by the time the major battles in the West happened, like D Day in 1944 and The Buldge in 1945, the Germans had already lost the war by then, due to massive defeats in the East in the previous years. And Hitler didn't consider the West as the main priority. I agree that the Soviet Union likely would not have won without all the aid it received from the Western allies, especially the US, but Pearl Harbour not happening doesn't mean the Americans wouldn't send supplies to the Russians. Lend Lease got signed into law in March 1941, several months before Pearl Harbour.
^ Yeah, you're missing the point, I stated it was a matter of qualitative, rather than quantitative, & its a fact.
& the elite formations were worth many times their numbers in basic infantry divisions, as events showed.

So you are wrong about the elite formations such as the SS Panzer divisons, see where they were in June 1944,
& the same goes for the Luftwaffe, if you bother to check, 'cept in majority numbers , (as well as qualitatively)
where they were already facing the Western Allies, from mid-1943.

You are also wrong to claim the Germans lost the war on the Eastern Front, & nor had they suffered larger defeats in the East, until 'Bagration' which was lost due to most of 'Hitler's Fire-brigade' (his SS Panzer divisons) which he'd relied upon, along with Luftwaffe ground attack units, to stabilise defenses against Soviet offensives, being absent, due to
the D-day invasion.

You also appear to be ignoring the effects of the Allied strategic bombing campaign & the direct losses/diversion
of resources devoted to defense/rescue & repair they necessitated.

Another aspect is the immense Nazi-science & industrial effort expended on the Atlantik Wall, U-boat & V-weapons
programs which were mostly spent in opposing the Western Allies.

Also, 'lend-lease' was extended to the British, in mid 1941 by FDR, once they'd spent all their gold on 'cash & carry',
plus handing over all their useful miltary development secrets, such as radar/jet-engines/nuke-tech/Ultra, & etc.
This expedient was not advanced to Stalin then, since he was still sending supplies by train & bargeloads to Hitler,
& only after Hitler's irrational declaration of war on USA, was the Stalin regime also made a recipient of US largesse.

But I'd already stated this of course in my initial post above.
I don't think that Pearl Harbor alone caused the Pacific front war.
^ Indeed, it was more of a result, than a cause, even if it was a classic 'bushido' style surprise attack by IJN forces,
(& a classic misjudgement of the likely US reaction to such a "sneak attack" ).
The Germans used and lost a lot more tanks and planes on the East than in the West.

German tanks and assault guns as of 30/06/1943 (From "Das Heer" by Müller-Hillebrand):
East - 2825 tanks/997 assault guns
Finland - 0/20
Norway - 106/14
West - 458/113
South-East - 133/56
Italy - 361/222

The majority of German tanks and planes were lost on the Eastern Front.

"Material losses for the Germans on the Eastern Front included at least 42,700 tanks and assault guns, 154,500 artillery pieces and motars and 75,700 aircraft".

"During World War II, German pilots claimed roughly 70,000 aerial victories, while over 75,000 Luftwaffe aircraft were destroyed or significantly damaged. Of these, nearly 40,000 were lost entirely."

The maths doesn't add up but it's clear that the majority of the Luftwaffe was used and perished in the East.

Also, a simple google search would show that the Germans deployed more tanks and planes in major battles in the East than in the West:




"The number of military forces at the disposal of Nazi Germany reached its peak during 1944. Tanks on the east front peaked at 5,202 in November 1944, while total aircraft in the Luftwaffe inventory peaked at 5,041 in December 1944.By D-Day 157 German divisions were stationed in the Soviet Union, 6 in Finland, 12 in Norway, 6 in Denmark, 9 in Germany, 21 in the Balkans, 26 in Italy and 59 in France, Belgium and the Netherlands."

Yes, it also says this:

"However, these statistics are somewhat misleading since a significant number of the divisions in the east were depleted; German records indicate that the average personnel complement was at about 50% in the spring of 1944",

Which was the case because Germany suffered very high casualties in the East.

Over 60% of the German Army was on the Eastern Front throughout 1943, 1944 and 1945:

Moreover, "Official OKW Casualty Figures list 65% of Heer killed/missing/captured as being lost on the Eastern Front from 1 September 1939, to 1 January 1945 (four months and a week before the conclusion of the war), with front not specified for losses of the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe":

The vast majority of the German military was deployed on the Eastern Front and the vast majority of it died on the Eastern Front, it was clearly the number 1 priority for Hitler. And if Hitler's experience on the WW1 Western Front influenced his mind like you say, then he would not have considered Britain a non-threat and attack the Soviet Union despite already being at war with Britain and with far more force than he was attacking Britain with.

And the US signed the first protocol of lend-lease to be sent to the Soviet Union on 7th October 1941, before Pearl Harbour and before German declaration of war on the US.

Anyway, by now, I'm convinced that you're trolling since you stated/implied that "Germany didn't suffer large defeats in the East until Bagration" (although everyone knows that Germany suffered colossal defeats at Stalingrad ,almost universally considered to be the turning point of WW2, and Kursk and several other major defeats too, prior to Bagration), plus claims like "German forces in the West were qualitatively many times superior to the German forces in the East" or "German troop losses in North Africa were on par with German troop losses at Stalingrad" are nonsense and I'm sure you know this but you still make these claims anyway, thus I'm not going to argue with you any longer, it's a pointless headache. Bye
That said, although several of Mondas' claims are just plain wrong, they did cause me to do some searching and I found out that German troop numbers on the Eastern Front were around 60% to 65% from 1943 to 1945, which, though higher than on the Western Front, is lower than I previously thought.

If those forces were in the East, then perhaps Germany could have defeated the Soviet Union, though I'm not sure. However, not all of those 35% to 40% would have been in the Soviet Union even if the US didn't join the war. The Germans were fighting the British in North Africa before the US joined and the British defeated the Germans in El Alamein in 1942 without the US.

Plus, large numbers of German soldiers were stationed, doing nothing, in places like Scandanavia due to Hitler's stupidity and that would have been the case even if the US didn't join.

Moreover, even Britain was largely outproducing Germany in tanks and warplanes during the later years of the war. And Britain had plans to drop 5,000,000 anthrax cakes on Germany by 1944 if the situation didn't improve, thus I still think Germany would have lost even if the US didn't join.
^ No, Speer ramped up German production latterly to exceed British numbers in tanks & aircraft, despite the damage & difficulties caused by the Allied strategic blockade & bombing campaigns, but what he could not do, was ensure
old to run them, & well-trained men to operate them.

You should check some of the numbers, too.

German forces were inflicting a larger % of casualties & capturing more prisoners than they suffered losses in the East,
right up to Bagration, whereas this was not the case in the West, where in 1943, more than twice as many Axis soldiers were captured at Tunis, than at Stalingrad.

The majority of Luftwaffe forces (& combat losses suffered) were focussed in the West from mid 1943, likewise.

You have not shown that any of the assertions made in my remarks were incorrect,
& in fact, it seems you've had to revise your views, as a result!
Overall Axis casualties (killed + missing + wounded + captured) were far higher in Stalingrad than in Tunis.

Everyone knows that the Germans were inflicting more casualties on the Soviets than they themselves suffered. But they couldn't replace their losses to the extent the Soviets could. If the US didn't enter the war, then the Germans could have had roughly 30% more men in the East in the later stages of the war than they did in real life. I don't know if that would have been enough to turn the tide.
^ Sure, since the Stalingrad meat-grinder was the culmination of 'Operation Blue', the major Nazi offensive of 1942,
& Tunis was the result of a 'too little too late' response to the combined 'Operation Torch' & the El Alamein defeat.

But more USAAF airmen alone were casualties of the assault on 'Festung Europa', than combat costs in men for the USMC/USN amphibious assaults - on the fortified forces of Nippon - in the Pacific, sure goes to show the scale of effort...

So, yeah, if the USA was not at war (directly) with Nazi Germany, its more than likely the Stalin regime would've folded...

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)