We commemorate the 70th anniversary of D-Day, but

[Guest PasadenaCA]

what if Operation Sealion had succeeded? It's not a ridiculous question, in that Germany came very close to winning the war in the west. I'd argue that had two German pilots not accidentally bombed suburban London in the summer of '40, Germany would have greatly incapacitated British radar and irreparably crippled the RAF and Operation Sealion could have gone ahead (well, there was the little problem of landing craft). . The bombing of London, an accident, triggered a response by RAF Bomber Command on Berlin, something that Goring had promised wouldn't happen. As a result, just when a fatal blow was being struck, the Luftwaffe was diverted to attack London.

For those interested, here's a documentary on the subject.

http://youtu.be/8ee_NopIKYo

[Guest PasadenaCA]

Part 2.

http://youtu.be/VO3qidJTzLc

[Guest PasadenaCA]

Part 3.

http://youtu.be/QccmuiF77jI

[Guest PasadenaCA]

The final part, part 4.

http://youtu.be/KcddFExmPTg

[RA1]

I have not yet looked at the documentary but thanks for posting it.

There are a lot of what ifs about WWII and especially Germany's part.

What if they had developed the atomic bomb?

What if Hitler were not the megalomaniac that he was and listened to his generals or didn't attack Russia or on and on?

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest PasadenaCA]

I have not yet looked at the documentary but thanks for posting it.

There are a lot of what ifs about WWII and especially Germany's part.

What if they had developed the atomic bomb?

What if Hitler were not the megalomaniac that he was and listened to his generals or didn't attack Russia or on and on?

Best regards,

RA1

The attack on the USSR is one of those things that historians throw out as being a mistake. I don't agree: it nearly worked. The operation was delayed by three months, because he had to clean up the Balkans. If he had better coordination with Mussolini, Barbarossa would have launched in March and likely worked. The exceptionally cold winter of '41 was the deciding factor; it was an extremely well executed operation-- at least in terms of the elements the Germans could control.

Declaring war on the US was a major error. There is speculation as to why Germany did it, but nobody really knows. If Germany didn't declare war on the USA, America would not have entered the war in Europe in '41. The US would undoubtedly have found its way into the ETO, but most likely in '44 or '45, once Japan was defeated. The war in Europe could have dragged on for another two or three years.

It doesn't look as if Germany would have developed a nuclear weapon; however, the outcry had the world's best chemical weapons. People speculate that it was Hitler's personal experience with gas in WWI that made him hold off on using such weapons. It old have been decisive. Given what the Germans did to various people--those who were Jewish--and how they treated civilians, it is surprising that they held off from using chemicals in warfare.

[RA1]

You listed 3 reasons why the German attack on Russia was a mistake and there were more.

FDR was keenly looking for ANY excuse to enter the war. After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor it was simply a matter of time before the world knew who went first, Germany or the USA, in declaring war upon the other. The USA definitely would not have waited.

Of course there were factors that affected each and every side to the various conflicts but certain ones seem to have an inordinate effect on the ultimate result.

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

... Germany would have greatly incapacitated British radar and irreparably crippled the RAF

LOL, Turns out it was really really difficult to knock down the steel masts of the radar installations given the limitations of bombing in 1940. The Germans never did figure out that their target should have been those flimsy little sheds off to the side that housed all the delicate electronics.

(well, there was the little problem of landing craft). .

The Brits were understandably reluctant to commit valuable warships to the English Channel except in desperate circumstances (Dunkirk). but I have not the slightest doubt that if 3000 Rhine River motorized barges had set out for England, they would have been met by the Home Fleet. Let's see, 3000 unarmed barges chugging along at 3 or 4 knots vs. 200 warships at 30 to 35 knots blasting away at everything in sight. Wonder what the Las Vegas over/under would have been on that battle?

[AdamSmith]

Bombing miscalculations on both sides were you know the topic of a fascinating colloquium, right after the victory and before Nuremberg, between an Allied investigative team led by Galbraith et al., and on the other side Speer. Who was completely forthcoming.

[Guest PasadenaCA]

You listed 3 reasons why the German attack on Russia was a mistake and there were more.

FDR was keenly looking for ANY excuse to enter the war. After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor it was simply a matter of time before the world knew who went first, Germany or the USA, in declaring war upon the other. The USA definitely would not have waited.

Of course there were factors that affected each and every side to the various conflicts but certain ones seem to have an inordinate effect on the ultimate result.

Best regards,

RA1

It wouldn't have worked. Before Pearl Harbor, the vast majority of Americans had no interest in entering WWII. Even after Pearl Harbor, the majority of Americans weren't interested in fighting the Germans. FDR may have wanted it; Congress didn't. If Germany hadn't declared war, the US would not have been involved in Europe for many years after 1941.

[RA1]

FDR was already providing armed escort for the supply convoys sending war material to the UK under the Lend-Lease program. This before Pearl Harbor. FDR was just daring the Germans to attack American ships and the Germans were doing their very best to oblige.

Regardless of how well Hitler got along with Italy and Japan, he either felt he should join Japan in declaring war or used it as a handy excuse to do so. Provocation by both the US and Germany was going to continue and escalate until war was declared.

Germany already had a heavy water research plant going and seemingly definitely were on the right track to develop the atomic bomb. Allied destruction of the heavy water plant slowed the development down to the point of them not being able to complete it during the war. Hitler ran hot and cold on several "radical" or new ideas. Some he pursued actively for extended periods and others he dropped after running into some problem or other.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

Speer is hilariously droll and snide on exactly that point about Hitler and the bomb. Besides Hitler's brushing it off as "the Jewish physics" (he at least knew that much), Speer says it "obviously strained his intellectual capacity."

Then too, as you note, Speer relates that a continual danger in trying to work administratively with Hitler is that he would resist some idea too long, then suddenly embrace it and demand absurdly immediate results. And then for good measure would misapply whatever had been developed, usually from his WWI thinking in the vastly technologically more capable WWII world that he did not ever really get.

Cf., e.g., Von Braun and Peenemunde.

[AdamSmith]

Another major impediment to Germany getting the Bomb in wartime was the vast scale of industrial infrastructure that turned out to be necessary to manufacture the rather modest amounts of fissile material required for even just a few bombs.

Bohr for one was astounded to visit and see that Oppie and Groves had actually built such a thing -- he said, "You have turned the entire country into a bomb factory" or some such. But he had a point: in 3 years, from nothing there was created a bomb industry on the same scale as the entire U.S. car industry at the time (worth some $3 billion on some measure or another, according to Richard Rhodes's The Making of the Atomic Bomb).

[Guest PasadenaCA]

FDR was already providing armed escort for the supply convoys sending war material to the UK under the Lend-Lease program. This before Pearl Harbor. FDR was just daring the Germans to attack American ships and the Germans were doing their very best to oblige.

Regardless of how well Hitler got along with Italy and Japan, he either felt he should join Japan in declaring war or used it as a handy excuse to do so. Provocation by both the US and Germany was going to continue and escalate until war was declared.

Germany already had a heavy water research plant going and seemingly definitely were on the right track to develop the atomic bomb. Allied destruction of the heavy water plant slowed the development down to the point of them not being able to complete it during the war. Hitler ran hot and cold on several "radical" or new ideas. Some he pursued actively for extended periods and others he dropped after running into some problem or other.

Best regards,

RA1

The issue is different. There was no popular support for war. The US would not have declared war on Germany as a result of Pearl Harbor. It ultimately would have happened, but many years later.

Germany was producing heavy water, but its nuclear program was way behind that of the US. With one exceptiom, i think scientists weren't motivated to help make a bomb. Other technological developments were quite astounding. For example, one other error was delaying deployment of the ME 262 by a year to give it bomber capabilities--a dumb move. If deployed in '43, it could have done real damage. Had the US not been in the war in Europe, the Germans would have had at least two more years for the development of technology. Despite what movies show, for many years, the war was not close. I end up appreciating the sacrifice of those that fought even more.

[Guest PasadenaCA]

Another major impediment to Germany getting the Bomb in wartime was the vast scale of industrial infrastructure that turned out to be necessary to manufacture the rather modest amounts of fissile material required for even just a few bombs.

Bohr for one was astounded to visit and see that Oppie and Groves had actually built such a thing -- he said, "You have turned the entire country into a bomb factory" or some such. But he had a point: in 3 years, from nothing there was created a bomb industry on the same scale as the entire U.S. car industry at the time (worth some $3 billion on some measure or another, according to Richard Rhodes's The Making of the Atomic Bomb).

There's no question that the Manhattan Project was incredibly impressive. It was a flywheel that drove science in the US for a generation.

[AdamSmith]

There's no question that the Manhattan Project was incredibly impressive. It was a flywheel that drove science in the US for a generation.

Well, the flywheel hypothesis I think is unclear even today. Was what the Project did to post-war science productive, or distracting, or evil?

[RA1]

Is science for science's sake good, bad or indifferent? Must there be a moral imperative for every effort by mankind, i.e., is it "good" for all? Everyone should have their own answer to this question, shouldn't they?

Best regards,

RA1