We talked about this before.

Well, very little oil actually made it to Japan due to the combination of the oil fields being sabotaged and a very effective submarine warfare campaign (which often seems to be overlooked in the Pacific war). So, I'm not sure the difference will be overly large.

Where did Japan get its oil?
 
Where did Japan get its oil?
Mostly from the US, ironically, as the supply amassed in peace-time was the largest source. Imports from Japanese-controlled areas only amounted to about 50% of that supply, which is not insignificant I guess. There was also the small amounts of oil produced domestically.
 

Japhy

Banned
I think adding that many more people, ships, and weapons has to make a difference. oOne thought that occurred to me is that ITTL the invasions of Normandy and Southern France could have happened on the same day. tThat would increase the pessism in the German military. tTherefore there is a more effective effort to kill Hitler. fFollowing Hitler's death there is a power struggle that weakens the German war effort.

Its an interesting idea but all those people need to eat, all those weapons need ammo, all those ships need oil and all the planes and tanks need fuel. And as far as the Ground War goes, just like IOTL there will be a severe supply bottleneck. IOTL the Germans held on to or wrecked every port in Western Europe so that until the start of 1945 every little bit of supply in the Western Front had to be driven from the beaches of Normandy to the front. (Ever heard of the Red Ball Express?)

Even with extra troops, the Germans can still do that, they have to do it, as its the only strategy they can use.

And doing that means that there is no point where the Western Allies can simply push forward like the Red Army can. The struggle for supplies would be made even worse, slowing things down even more.

Its easy to say that wars are won simply by the number of rifles or bayonets on a fireing line but its not, Logistics win wars, and your situation just makes that worse. There's just no way the Allies are going to be able to push much faster just because they have more men in theater.
 
Paul V McNutt said:
Japan would have surrender in 1943. In this scenario, China and Korea would be occupied by US forces. This would help Jaing but I believe only buy him time. The communists would take power in 1951 or so.
Surrender in '43 on that change alone is pretty improbable. 1944, yes. That being so, it's unlikely the CCP wins. With the Sovs still fully engaged, they won't be invading Manchuria, so won't be leaving supplies & equipment behind--& that, AIUI, made a big difference to Mao's victory.

With FDR still alive, it's very possible this means there's no Vietnam War either: he's got more leverage over France.
Paul V McNutt said:
I think the US and UK liberate Prague and Warsaw in November 1944. Poland and the Czech Republic ( There is a not so velvet divorce.) are the front line nations of NATO. Germany surrenders in December 1944. Maybe with less war related stress FDR lives longer.
:confused::confused: I'm not seeing the connection.
 
.

:confused::confused: I'm not seeing the connection.[/QUOTE]

I am assuming you mean FDR living longer. I thought if he life becomes less stressful starting in December 1944, there would be less strain on his weak body and that would buy him some extra time. I don't know how much.
 
Paul V McNutt said:
I am assuming you mean FDR living longer.
No, I mean between Japan's early surrender & more troops. They wouldn't arrive in ETO until past time for Neptune anyhow, & supply in Normandie was marginal in any event. More manpower doesn't change that.
 
Top