I’ve just been wondering what people think about this. I’m thinking 3 would have been brutal for the allies.
im saying if d-day fails we lose the war but what do i know 8-)
I have to think it is either #3 or #5. The problem is “How big of a failure?” are we talking in #3. #5 could be pretty brutal if Germany could get some momentum from it. Japan attacking Russia is just a bad idea for Japan. What do they need another Asian enemy for? Japan winning at Midway would have really slowed the US war in the Pacific and given Japan time to springboard off of Guadalcanal. Italy taking Egypt would have made the Allied drive across Africa a greater challenge. These last two could have added a year or two to the war.
So I say it is a toss up about the UK losing the Battle of Brittan and the Allies losing D-day in a big way. I think I’d have to go with losing D-Day.
Battle of Britain.
United Kingdom be defeated before United States enter war. Germany air supreme over Atlantic mean United Kingdom sue for peace or starve. U-boat interdiction not countered without air cover, Royal Navy sunk without air cover. United States stay out of war and not join lose side.
Battle of Brittan by far.
Japan tried attacking the Soviet Union. It didn’t work so well for them.
Italy or Germany taking Egypt would have closed the Suez and resulted in a longer fight for Africa but not much more than that. The real war was not Axis and Allies. the Axis were not about to blitz a few tanks around Africa in 6 months and control the continent.
D-Day fails and the US drops an A-Bomb in Europe a year latter. Or possibly not. Germany was already loosing the air war over Europe at that time. While 44 was their highest year of production it was too little to late and the disruption of their logistics due to the bombing raids is often over looked.
A Japanese win at Midway would have put them on track for their original war plans which was to consolidate their gains in the Pacific and sue for peace before the US naval production could out muscle them.
While Operation Sealion was quite questionable any way. There would be far more far reaching consequences. Approximately half of the German U-boat losses were to Aircraft. While I doubt Germany would have total Air superiority over all of England (Scotland is quite a ways from France) I suspect it would have a great impact on the Battle of the Atlantic. And even then if somehow England was able to stay in the fight that means no Allied bomber campaigns over Europe with the diversion of fighter units from Russia that that resulted in.
The failure to take England out early was decisive. It allowed the Brits to regroup and gave America a solid secure base to attack Germany from the air, the sea and eventually on the ground.
Failing to defeat the Russians quickly began the process of wearing the Germans down but victory in the Battle of Britain (and it was there for the taking, had they not shifted attacks to cities and kept on the plan to attack the RAF directly) and somesort of airborne/ limited sea attack might have pushed a shaky England out. Heck just taking Southern England and digging in could have changed the war. Britains Desert forces would have been cut off and not supplied.
And remember the USA did not began Atom Bomb construction until 1942. Might never had started if England was already gone.
True the Brits probably would have fled to Canada and kept up the war but the British Isles were critical to the west.
However many men the Germans lost in an attempted Sealion could not have been as bad as the losses in Barbarossa.
On the others,
Japan had already had its butt kicked by the Russians twice in 1938 and 1939. Nothing to gain there.
Midway as already pointed out just would have slowed the US battle against the Japanese. Those Americans would not have given the fight up so easily as our current populace.
Taking Egypt and the oil fields of the middle east would have helped if the AXIs could have gotten the oil back to Germany and Italy unhindered. However the allies had US oil supplies which would have countered that loss.
A D-Day defeat would have been a huge blow but in his D-Day speech FDR stated that even if we are pushed back we will come again and again until victory is achieved (or something to that effect), he was hedging his bets and trying to let the American people know that the invasion might not succeed. Also remember the Russians already had Operation Bagration planned and the resulting destruction of Army Group Center (more losses than Stalingrad).
Let me throw out this what if…
What if Japan had avoided attacking the US, gone around the Philipeans and simply not engaged the US anywhere. Gone only after the Dutch, French and British forces? Would US opinion have been enough to go to war?
I like all of your comments, though I must say, was Sea Lion a guaranteed? Key word is Air war, though I think it may have been a battle he could have won, casualities would have been incredible IMO.
Japan attacking Russia was just put in because if they had and were succesful, that would have been bad for the Russians, but that was probably the most unlikely one.
Midway could have been more crippling than that, IMO, because there could have been an invasion of Hawaii(let’s just say it was a successful though costly atack), after Midway falls, Hawaii is gone, and presumably little succes at all in the Pacific, how much faith would the Americans have in there leaders? I think it might have lead to peace, but I am not a genius or anything.
Legion3, thanks for the 6th question. I think the US would not have gone to war; we would have been at breaking point, but not war.
I have to go with #5 GERMANY WINS AIR WAR OVER BRITAIN
#1, Japan was in need of Rubber and Oil, attacking Russia would not have met any of these needs for her empire. Also, Japan was already involved in one LAND WAR IN ASIA… why start another.
#2, This would only have prolonged the conflict in Africa. Italy never had the military might or industrial output to win a prolonged war with the British empire.
#3, This too would have prolonged the war but USA and UK would try again with thier mas industrial might and command of the seas. The Russians would still be moving towards Berlin in the East!
#4, This would have been decisive for the Pacific war, atleast in the short term. But it would not have affected the war in Europe.
#5. Had Germany WON the Battle of Britain, England would have to surrender under constant bombardment or invasion. Germany would have gained the British fleet OR it would have been lost to the Allied cause like the French fleet before it. USA would not have the base of England for operations in Europe and this would have lead to the collapse of the British Empire to the Gain of Russia, Germany, Italy and Japan.
I love the poll question!
I voted for the Italians taking over North Africa and the Middle East.
Here is my reasoning for my choice.
Japan could not inflict a death blow to the U.S.S.R. The U.S.S.R, with one arm tied behinds its back, would destroy the Japanese front line units and quickly advance into China.
If D-Day was won by the Germans that victory does not change the situation on the Eastern Front. The Russians would keep advancing and four to six months later another invasion of Western Europe would be attempted.
If the U.S was defeated at Midway the Japanese defeat would only be prolonged. Japan could not replace the aircraft and air crews needed to wage the type of war needed to defeat the U.S.
If the Germans won the Battle of Britain, the Germans still have no Navy to support an invasion. The Royal Navy would risk it’s destruction to stop an invasion.
However the if Italians were strong enough to take North Africa and the Middle East without German support war is won.
Battle of Britain is not have Germany invade United Kingdom. Maybe small invasions to annoy United Kingdom but not big invasion. If Royal Air Force destroyed, Germany U-boats can do what they almost do anyway with Royal Air Force still alive, make United Kingdom starve.
U-Boats plus Germany coastal Fighter plus V-1 rockets plus Germany Bomber make United Kingdom sue for peace. Russia fight Germany alone, Russia lose. United States not enter war on lose side. Battle of Britain happen before Pearl Harbor.
If the Germans won the Battle of Britain, the Germans still have no Navy to support an invasion. The Royal Navy would risk it’s destruction to stop an invasion.
But with no air support The RN would have had a real tough time. And the invasion would have been both by sea and air.
The Italians might have been strong enough if the British Isles were not functioning as a supply base for the Western Desert Force. While manpower could come from India and Austrailia equipment had to come from the UK and if the UK is fighting on its own soil, even in a limited German invasion, might have made the difference.
On the other hand the Italians might never have been strong enough as they had numbers and supply and lots of equipment but that is not always enough. :|
What would be the cost to the German bomber force to destroy the R.A.F? I believe the Royal Navy under the cover of darkness could with ease destroy a poorly supported German invasion attempt.
I’ll to go with ABWorsham here
My problem with this poll is that the option that seems to be the winner is rather self-reflective or at least not well defined. Think about it for a second. What is the definition of winning the airwar? Isn’t it quite simply to win the war? Why did the allies win the airwar? Because they won the war!
So “impact on the war”? yes sir
In my opinion there was no such thing as an “airwar” (there was a war) and the “Battle of Britain” was just Göring’s and Churchill’s propaganda and media-battle about a little dogfighting in the airspace over Kent and Essex.
Cheers
without a doubt it was the Battle of Briton scenario, it would have opened up the UK to Sealion, crushed the heart of the Commonwealth, let the Germans put more troops in the East, and would scare the hell out of the US.
Battle of Britain is about Atlantic.
Invasion of United Kingdom is minor point and be small for morale issue. Main point is Royal Air Force no longer exist to kill Germany submarine. Royal Air Force no longer exist to bomb Germany. Royal Air Force no longer exist to destroyer Germany ship. Royal Air Force no longer exist to fight Germany Air Force.
Exactly what F6F said above. Germany really did not have the navy to pull off operation Sea Lion anyway and that is why I said it was questionable in my original post. The Germans came very close to winning the Battle of the Atlantic at one point, with the reduction of Allied Air patrols out of England they would have done so for certain.
I voted for Battle of Britain, this happened way earlier than D-Day and would affect the war much more than later battles during WW2. In 1944 the war was over, Germans had already lost.
If D-Day failed maybe we Norwegians would be ruled from Moscow rather than Washington during the cold war, but apart from that, WW2 was already decided when Germany failed on the eastern front, so if anything could change the outcome of the war it had to happen before 42-43, and it had to happen in Europe somewhere, Japan got stuck in mainland Asia, and never had any chance to win against the US.
Battle of Britain for World War II, no doubt.
A successful invasion of England would probably have left the USA out of the war and allowed Japan Access to Empire assets almost unchecked.
However, D-Day is the most important event for the post war. D-Day, as an operation did not really change the result of the war. Germany would have been beaten back the the Soviet Union, it may have taken longed, but it was looking inevitable.
However, having Empire and US forces in Western Europe at the end of the war stopped Stalin from creating a full communist europe, and probably won the Cold War for the USA in the long run.
I am tempted to say the Battle of Britain ending in Nazi victory, but I also do not believe that an invasion of Britain would have not occasioned a United States intervention. The America First people in the US would have been pissed, but Roosevelt would not have allowed Britain to fall for a ham sandwhich, and Britain was iconic enough that it would have swayed enough public opinion. My vote is for the Japanese attack on Russia INSTEAD of the British, Dutch, and American possessions. Roosevelt could not have sold US intervention over another war between Russia and Japan. Sinophiles in the US had failed to do that even with heavy losses in China which the United States regarded as crucial to their interests. Certainly the whole “let’s go to war with Japan to save the Communist Soviet Union” battlecry would have falled pretty flat. Basically, any scenario that either delays or prevents American intervention is what would have had most impact on the war. The Japanese attack on Russia instead of the Western powers would have done just that.
