Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jpsb

I assume you mean the Germans would have taken the UK out if we had a Pacific First strategy.

I disagree, as I think even with a Pacific First strategy we would have kept enough resources flowing to UK to prevent its fall. Its strategic value as an unsinkable aircraft carrier and base is just too obvious. Could have been designed for the purpose.

OTOH, I tend to agree that USSR would likely have collapsed, or at least been driven beyond the Urals. If so, it becomes highly unlikely, IMO, that UK and US could have successfully invaded Europe without the Eastern Front absorbing the majority of German and allied forces.

IOW, I don’t think D-Day would have happened, and if we’d tried it would have been a disaster.

All this would have only postponed the inevitable, of course and August of 1945 would still have ended in the surrender of both Germany and Japan. Little bit later, possibly, in order to stockpile more Bombs before using them.

What is a really insteresting alternate history flows from the fact, little known in USA, that Hitler declared war on us, not USA on Germany. He was under no obligation to do so, and why he made the decision will never be known. Had he not done so, it is entirely possible we might have been at war with Japan and at peace with Germany for some time, although that “peace” would have been largely theoretical.


63 posted on 03/09/2013 9:55:10 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan
"I assume you mean the Germans would have taken the UK out if we had a Pacific First strategy.

No, I pretty much agree you on that. The US would have done everything it could to keep both the UK and the USSR in the war. I am just saying that a Pacific first strategy (which the USN wanted) would have given Hitler a little more time. And since the Nazis were working on a-bombs/rockets/fighter jets a little more time would have been bad for us. The allies were going to win either way but Europe first was the better strategy in terms of overall cost to us and our allies. Now one could make the argument that allowing the Nazis defeat the USSR might have worked out better in the long run. It's still a little too soon to know if that would have been a better strategy.

Be nice talking to you.

68 posted on 03/09/2013 10:59:34 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan
What is a really insteresting alternate history flows from the fact, little known in USA, that Hitler declared war on us, not USA on Germany. He was under no obligation to do so, and why he made the decision will never be known.

In December 1941, Hitler believed he was on the verge of winning the war. German troops were at the gates of Moscow. He believed that the United States was not in a position to attack him any time soon. By declaring war on the US, he was trying to get Japan to declare war on the Soviet Union.

70 posted on 03/09/2013 11:27:54 AM PST by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson