"thunder" wrote in message


It's fun speculating, but I'm not sure Sea Lion would have worked. The
RAF may have been in ruins, but the Royal Navy was still quite powerful
and the Germans didn't have the naval assets to support an invasion. They
intended to use river barges as landing craft, far from an optimum
solution.

Wasn't the Royal Navy running to us for safe haven? I'm a little fuzzy here,
but I thought that Britian was offloading ships to US and Canada so they
wouldn't be fair game.?


Again, I'm speculating, but if England had lost, I'm wondering if we would
have entered the war in Europe.

I doubt it, we would have been busy driving Japan from the Pacific. Again I
speculate that had Hitler not declared war on US after Pearl, we might have
taken a "Pacific 1st" position anyway. I sure don't see us running out of
our way to help Joe Stalin.... LOL. It's only in hindsight that we know
that Hitler was a monster of the same caliber as old Joseph. Had Germany
won, most of the evidence of the incredible atrocities would have been
hidden and erased. I know I never would have believed in "stray rumors" of
the systemic death factories without some evidence. The mind is slow to
believe that which boggles it so profoundly. I can at least comprehend (but
not agree with!) how Stalin could have "purged" the Soviet Union of
"unbelievers" , since theoretical communism needs everybody on board to even
hope to work. But I would have had a harder time swallowing systemic
genocide based on race or religion only - without evidence.


-W

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:16:38 +0000, Clams Canino wrote:


Wasn't the Royal Navy running to us for safe haven? I'm a little fuzzy
here, but I thought that Britian was offloading ships to US and Canada so
they wouldn't be fair game.?

That would be news to me. Warships?



But I would have had a harder time swallowing
systemic genocide based on race or religion only - without evidence.

One would think, but it seems too common throughout history.

Clams Canino wrote:

I'll let Dunkirk lay for now and address that of which I'm *sure*.

What Hitler did not know, is that he had come very close indeed to finishing
off the RAF by concentating his bombing on RAF installations and coastal
defences. While he didn't have the strategic bombers, the Stuka and JU-88
had indeed delivered enough of a blow to the RAF that had Hitler *not*
switched to bombing London, he could have finsished off the RAF in a couple
more months.

I don't know about this... it was a war of attrition with the British getting
resupplied by the US. Seems to me that percentage wise, the Luftwaffe was losing
more strength more rapidly than than the RAF (or was it the RFC at that time).
Anyway, the more planes the Germans lost, the less air strength they could put
over any given stretch of front for a blitzkrieg. In other words, success in the
air war over Britain equals failure at their other war operations.




Had the Germans stuck to "the plan" they would have rendered the RAF
innefective and then been able to launch the planned "Operation Sea Lion"
which was the reverse of our D-day cross-channel invasion. Given the weight
they could have thrown at that (as opposed to attacking Russia) there is
little doubt that Nazi occupied England could have come about just as Nazi
occupied France did.

I doubt it very strongly. Now, if there was a land bridge, sure. But facing off
two armies on dry land is a *very* different proposition than trying to ferry an
army across water. It's possible the Germans could have won, if they had been
able to get enough tanks across intact to hold a port for landing the rest of
the army... but that would take significant air cover, too, which they were
losing in your earlier scenario.


Now tell me? What good would all those B17's have done us without a ready
staging area in England? And regardless of our "eventual" intentions to get
more involved in Europe, the fact is we let Britian flap in the breeze too
long as it was, and we would not have been able to react quickly enough to
stop Hitler from crossing the channel.

Agreed. But remember, there was significant political opposition to getting
*any* involvement in a European war... Roosevelt was doing a lot for the
British, and ramping up US war industries, but we couldn't have helped them *if*
the Germans had got a strong foothold in England. And while it was proven that
one could fly B-17s off carriers, it wouldn't be an effective plan on a large
scale IMHO.



I can easily see a scenario where if Hitler took England correctly, left
Russia alone, and Japan bombed the US at Pearl (holding our interest) that
he could have easily consolodated his power in Europe. Perhaps *then* he
could have still gone after Russia too - taking enough time to do it right.

It might well have come down to "Who comes up with The Bomb 1st" as we in
the US could not have mounted anywhere near as effective an attack on Europe
without England.

Yes, it's easy to armchair quarterback it now..........

Well, if the Germans had gotten The Bomb first, it would have doomed England for
sure, and Russia later; it wouldn't have mattered whether they could
successfully invade either. You could even propose that they could have adapted
V-2s to be carried by subs and attacked the US with enough strength to stop us
from coming after them. But the 'brain drain' was a very real phenomenon; there
were relatively few German scientists who could build an atom bomb and the best
two said quite plainly afterward that they weren't going to (despite that they
pretended to in order to save their necks... can't say I blame them).

Now Japan with atom bombs is a little scarier, and they were closer from what
I've read.... that's what the balloon bomb project was really all about.

DSK

"Clams Canino" wrote in message news:RzGOb.83926$nt4.128065@attbi_s51...

2. Attacking Russia when he did. Also failing to consult with or get
support from his Ally Japan in going after Russia. Russia wasn't a player
till he made them a player. Russia could have waited, it was *imperative*
however that he either take England or force it into a treaty.

3. Declaring war on U.S. after we declared war on Japan. Hitler had enough
problems without ****ing us off. And Japan didn't declare war on Russia to
follow Hitler, no need to be reciprocal there. That little move is what led
us to a "Europe 1st" decision.

The Japanese and Russians fought a little known war in 1939.

http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/jay...tjapan1939.htm

Apparently, the Russians delivered the Japanese such a setback (that
and the fact the Japs soon had their hands full with US, British,
Chinese, and various "homegrown" forces (Philipino, Vietnamese, ect))
that the Japanese were never again in any position to help their
German ally with another attack on the USSR or even to tie down
Russian forces. The last Russian reserves, which stopped the Germans
on the outskirts of Moscow were these same troops who had defeated the
Japanese.

Also, I believe CaliBill is refering to the siege of Leningrad.
Stalingrad was not a Russian retreat but, a victory which led to
elimination of over 250,000 German troops (killed and captured).
--
SJM

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:03:29 -0500, DSK wrote:


Well, if the Germans had gotten The Bomb first, it would have doomed
England for sure, and Russia later;

I'm just wondering. Inventing the Bomb, and manufacturing it in
sufficient quantities to make a difference are two different things. If I
remember correctly, the two bombs we dropped on Japan were all we had.
Were any of the powers at that time capable of sustaining nuclear
production?

thunder wrote:


I'm just wondering. Inventing the Bomb, and manufacturing it in
sufficient quantities to make a difference are two different things. If I
remember correctly, the two bombs we dropped on Japan were all we had.
Were any of the powers at that time capable of sustaining nuclear
production?

Probably not. The US had the most money, the most manpower, and the best
access to the materials, and as you noted we only could build two.

But... if the Japanese knew we only had two, would they have surrendered when
they did? *If* either Germany or Japan had built even one atom bomb (and I
don't think they could have, given the expense and material requirement) who
would have called their bluff?

DSK

Well, Viet Nam was lost by the politicians. As to Germany, they were on the
way to "The Bomb' but we strategically bombed some of the parts supply. We
bombed a dam that they used to produce Deuterium.
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
thunder wrote:


I'm just wondering. Inventing the Bomb, and manufacturing it in
sufficient quantities to make a difference are two different things.
If I
remember correctly, the two bombs we dropped on Japan were all we had.
Were any of the powers at that time capable of sustaining nuclear
production?

Probably not. The US had the most money, the most manpower, and the best
access to the materials, and as you noted we only could build two.

But... if the Japanese knew we only had two, would they have surrendered
when
they did? *If* either Germany or Japan had built even one atom bomb (and
I
don't think they could have, given the expense and material requirement)
who
would have called their bluff?

DSK





Not to join the family of rec.boats nitpickers but, in fact, we had at
least three atomic bombs on line or close to on line at that time, if
you include the Trinity Test of 16 July 1945.

Here are the observations of Fermi on that test:


My Observations During the Explosion at Trinity on July 16, 1945 - E.
Fermi

On the morning of the 16th of July, I was stationed at the Base Camp at
Trinity in a position about ten miles from the site of the explosion.

The explosion took place at about 5:30 A.M. I had my face protected by a
large board in which a piece of dark welding glass had been inserted. My
first impression of the explosion was the very intense flash of light,
and a sensation of heat on the parts of my body that were exposed.
Although I did not look directly towards the object, I had the
impression that suddenly the countryside became brighter than in full
daylight. I subsequently looked in the direction of the explosion
through the dark glass and could see something that looked like a
conglomeration of flames that promptly started rising. After a few
seconds the rising flames lost their brightness and appeared as a huge
pillar of smoke with an expanded head like a gigantic mushroom that rose
rapidly beyond the clouds probably to a height of 30,000 feet. After
reaching its full height, the smoke stayed stationary for a while before
the wind started dissipating it.

About 40 seconds after the explosion the air blast reached me. I tried
to estimate its strength by dropping from about six feet small pieces of
paper before, during, and after the passage of the blast wave. Since, at
the time, there was no wind I could observe very distinctly and actually
measure the displacement of the pieces of paper that were in the process
of falling while the blast was passing. The shift was about 2 1/2
meters, which, at the time, I estimated to correspond to the blast that
would be produced by ten thousand tons of T.N.T.

-------------------------------------------------

It should be pointed out that "superior firepower" is not necessarily
the key to victory. We had superior firepower in Korea and came away
with a draw. And despite what the revisionists claim, we were handed
our butts in Vietnam, even with our superior firepower and technology.

The reality is that U.S. forces did not win the two serious wars in
which they were engaged subsequent to World War II. We have done well in
skirmises against poorly motivated, grossly outgunned forces. I wouldn't
bet on the US defeating the Peoples Republic of China, if war ever broke
out between us. The Chinese are as tough at the North Vietnamese and
Koreans were, and they have far better equipment and military leadership
than those countries had. And they have the ability to mount massive
attacks against the US homeland.




--
Email sent to is never read.