WW2 in Europe only

WI Japan either found ways of obtaining access to China's raw materials and markets in ways that were mutually beneficuak

OR Japan finds of getting enough of its way in China without being so provocative to the US

So Japan does not attack the US or French or Dutch territories.

How much difference does this make to the War in Europe?

Plainly if it prevents US involvemnet this is massive. But what if some time in 1942 FDR manages to persuade a rather more divided US to fight after enough Atlantic incidents.
 
Even if the Japanese dont provoke the Americans to go to war then the British and their allies will still be getting weapon and the like from them, the Japanese had little imact on that.

In Europe Stalin and his Soviets will likely be the only land forces fighting in mainland Europe for a very long time as Britain on its own, stretched as it was, will simply not have the capabilities to invade.

The War in Africa will likely be fought for a bit longer but the second Montgorey comes to command Rommel's great adventure in the desert will be on borrowed time. The reason being that before Monty no British General in the desert got their forces to act like an army and allowed Rommel to dictate the campaign but Monty got his forces working in tandem with each other and forced the Rommel to play his game.

You could see a British and Commonwealth invasion of Italy but without the Americans adding their manpower to their industrial support it is likely that Italy will remain the only point of Britain invasion until they are either driven out or drive the Nazi's out. Then Britain will focus on invading France or the Baltic States
 
Ummm... do you mean the Balkans instead of the Baltic States because I wondering how you think Britain's going to gain access to the latter.

I'm not entirely sure. I'm always slightly confused by that area of Europe...but it sounded right. Your probably right though. I meant that area of Europe with Bulgaria, Serbia and the like.
 
I'm not entirely sure. I'm always slightly confused by that area of Europe...but it sounded right. Your probably right though. I meant that area of Europe with Bulgaria, Serbia and the like.

Yep, he's right.

The US would still pass the Lend-Lease act, since if Europe falls, America will be next on the crosshairs. Possibly with Japan joining in the fray, too.
Britain would be sending some Lend-Lease to the SU, of course, unless the SU gets a separate deal with the US to send Lend-Lease via Britain.

If this happens, probably Western Europe will be Red, at least until Germany (though there's no reason to stop there). Churchill might insist on his 'soft belly' strategy in Italy, but that would possibly end in a stalemate - If Britain is on the winning side, Churchill will realize that Italy isn't so good at stopping the red tide after all, and switches to the Balkans. I don't think there's going to be a D-Day.
 

burmafrd

Banned
What beat Rommel was the supply situation, not Montgomery. Better supplied, I take Rommel over Montgomery any time.
 
What beat Rommel was the supply situation, not Montgomery. Better supplied, I take Rommel over Montgomery any time.

That and the overwhelming numbers on the side of the Allies. Montgomery wasn't that good a commander. Remember Operation Goodwood?
 

burmafrd

Banned
By El Alamein, Montgomery had Rommel outnumbered in everything by anywhere from 3-1 to 5-1. And with virtual total control of the air, Rommel really had no chance at all.
 
(To Derek Jackon. I appoligise for taking this further off subject but I have to defend Monty here. Blame me if you want to.)

To burmafrd:

Rommel put himself in dire striaght over supplies. He ignored his superiors (Albert Kesselring) warnings and overstretched his supply line knowing that he could not be resupplied where he was. It was nothing to do with the Italians, as some people suggest, but more to do with Rommel ignoring Logistics.

Furthermore if his supply situation was so bad why did he then launch another offensive against the British before going to Germany to rest? The Battle of Alam Halfa.

It is a myth that Monty outnumbered Rommel at El Alamein by a ratio of between 3-1 or 5-1. The actual figures are Rommel's Afrika Korp - 116,000 men and Montgomery's 8'th Army - 220,000 men. A ratio of just over 2-1. The ratio or 3-1 or 5-1 is more acurate for the tanks and Anti Tank guns but in Aircraft availble the situation was more equal, Monty being able to call on 530 servicable aricraft while Rommel could call on about 480 servicable aircraft.

Also, following his defeat at Alam Halfa, Rommel had the largest minefield or the war laid at his front from the Mediterrean to the Quatar Depression. He had firmly entrenched his Afrika Korps in the strongest defensive position yet seen in WWII.

Montgomery's near 2-1 advantage in manpower was negated by Rommel defenses. A near 2-1 advantage in manpower is nowhere near enough to be absolutely cirtain of even breaking through the lines of a well entrenched enemy let alone secur victory.

Furthermore, in this engagement, Montgomery was new to Tank warfare and he proved inept at handling his tank forces in that battle. He learned quickly as he chased Rommel across the Desert but at El Alamein Monty didn't apprieciate what armour could do and didn't really know how to use it, so it was deployed quite poorly.

The Battle of El Alamein was slugging match. Two armies, one the veteran Afrika Korp that had bullied the British over the whole desert and the other the newly retrained 8th Army that was now firmly Montgomerys and nobody else could have commanded it, fought each other for every inch of land. It has been described as WWI in WWII, such was the situation. But in the end Rommel's Afrika Korp was simply out fought but Monty's 8th Army.

From then on, in the desert at least, Rommel was never able to oppose Montgomery.

Monty realized his advantages over his enemy and brought those advantages fully to bear against him. Monty used everything availble to him to do what no other commander had been able to, defeat the Desert Fox and drive him out of Africa. IAnd that is a sign of a great commander. It is something he shares with U.S. Grant.

Both Bernard Law Montgomery and Ulysses S. Grant share at least two things in common. The first is that they both managed to realize their advantaged over their adversary and used those advantages to the fullest, Monty against Rommel and Grant against Lee, the second is that they are both Lambasted by history (Grant less than Monty) for utilizing those advantages to their fullest.

It's a damned if you do damned if you dont scenario.
 
Last edited:
That and the overwhelming numbers on the side of the Allies. Montgomery wasn't that good a commander. Remember Operation Goodwood?

I want to start the campaign "Mile Dempsey for Accountability".

Throughout the Normandy Campaign Montgomery is criticized for dawdling in the British sector while the Americans broke out. This wrong and it ignores a very vital part of history.

That vital bit of history it ignores is Montgomerys position in the Normandy Campaign. Allied Ground Forces Commander.

As Allied Ground Forces Commander Montgomery was resposnible for the overall strategical planning for the Campaign. He worked with his suboordinates, the American commander Omar Bradley and the British and Commonwealth commander Miles Dempsey, to reach his strategial goals.

It was up to Bradley and Dempsey to come up with the tactical plans for the army. Montgomery's job was to review their plans and decide whether or not they would help in reaching his overall strategical goal.

Montgomery should take much of the blame for things that went wrong but he should also take much of the praise for things that went right because he was in overall command of the whole Campaign (Eisenhower taking command after the campaign was over), but Bradley and Dempsey must take thier share of the blame as well.

Dempsey came up with Operation Goodwood and submitted it to Montgomery at the same time that Bradley came up with Operation Cobra. Montgomery decided that the best way forward would be to launch Goodwood in tandem with Cobra so that the German would send more troops to the British sector and make the America sector easier to break out in.

Goodwood launched on time but Bradley delayed Cobra until two later.

Montgomery must shoulder some of the blame for the failure (or limited sucess depending on you point of view) for Goodwood but Miles Dempsey must be held directly accountable for it.

It has been the habit of historians who dislike Monty as a person to blame him for everything and ignore the actions of his suboordinates. In the desire that such historians have to blame Monty for everything they remove the accountability of his suboordinates such as Dempsey.
 
Dempsey came up with Operation Goodwood and submitted it to Montgomery at the same time that Bradley came up with Operation Cobra. Montgomery decided that the best way forward would be to launch Goodwood in tandem with Cobra so that the German would send more troops to the British sector and make the America sector easier to break out in.

Goodwood launched on time but Bradley delayed Cobra until two later.

Remember this from some decades old issue of Strategy & Tactics - Goodwood succeeded in tying up the German armoured reserves, even if it didn't achieve advance.

But if that is so - and from your post I read so, then Goodwood could be ascribed a success even if a failure in achiving advance and a failure in losses. Depends on your view and the last on what had been deemed acceptable losses!
 
Since Montgomery came up I feel I should pass on a story about him. A Very Senionr military person, something like Chief of the Imperial chief of the General staff talked to King George VI

Military chief "You know I think that Monty's after my job."

The King "I suspect he's after mine."
 
But if that is so - and from your post I read so, then Goodwood could be ascribed a success even if a failure in achiving advance and a failure in losses. Depends on your view and the last on what had been deemed acceptable losses!

I was speaking in terms of equipment wasted. It seems rather high for me, several hundred tons of bombs. Though the Allies can replace it in a couple of weeks/ days, it still seems rather high... Not as high as Seelow, though.
 
I was speaking in terms of equipment wasted. It seems rather high for me, several hundred tons of bombs. Though the Allies can replace it in a couple of weeks/ days, it still seems rather high... Not as high as Seelow, though.

That is the usual approach but rather objectives reached should be the meter.
And one ought to preserve resources in the process!
 
Top