The Germans pulled out of the Battle of Britain as became evident that the RAF couldn’t be defeated by Gorings strategy; of luring the RAF over the skies of London, where it could be destroyed. To break Fighter command back down to the level it was on August 15th, would of seen the sacrifice of thousands of aircraft and pilots, as Fighter Command was much stronger following mid-September. The Luftwaffe was never the same following August 15th, where around 73 German planes were downed, Germany didn’t have endless supplies of trained pilots or the industry to produce like Britain.

The Germans had the industry and could have set up a sensible policy for training new pilots--had they not invaded Russia. Even so, the Luftwaffe would have had to completely neutralize the RAF--which it was not really built to do--and then the German invasion forces had to get past the Royal Navy, and THEN successfully prosecute a war in British territory against every farmer with a shotgun. With that in mind, Hitler may have seen invading the USSR--which was perceived as fatally flawed and rotten to the core--as the lesser of two evils.

"I would say that the communist could have had and effective economicle policy." Would have been the first, and only, time in the history of communism. Germans were very attached to the principle of private property. They were not, otoh, in the 1930s, a nation of proletarians, ripe for revolution. Neither, otoh, did they have a history like that of Russia, which, a mere generation before 1917, was still, in many ways, quasifeudal. Russian society was still heavily agricultural, and the typical Russian - as opposed to Ukrainian - farmer wasn't long past legal serf status, and had a social tradition of communalism (which wasn't uncommon in feudal Europe). This was the odd thing about how communism actually played out in the world, as opposed to how Marx imagined it. The very few countries where it came to power, internally, rather than being imposed from without, were more agrarian than urban. Russia. China. Even, perhaps, Cuba. Germany, the paradigm Marx had in mind - along with the UK - for all it's real, urban workers, was of a bourgeois mindset. A nation of shopkeepers, at heart, very like the UK. And, of craftsman. The kind of people who tend to be self sufficient and ambitious of wealth and property and not at all inclined to communal ownership. The rural classes of Germany (and the UK) otoh, valued their land and their control of it. Or, their ambition to acquire it.

had the japs gone into russia early on it would have been an ugly massacre. zhukov would have summarily slaughtered them. the japs had truly pitiful armour in tiny quantities and zero appreciation of how to use armour. it wouldn't have been as bad as what zhukov did to them in 45 though.

Zhukov did massacre them, Ehran. At the Battle of Khalkin Gol (Nomonohan), a Zhukov-led army tore apart two Japanese invading armies in a week. Nobody heard about it because it happened the week before Hitler invaded Poland. It scared the hell out of the Japanese, which was one reason they figured they'd better secure more supplies and conquer China before trying the USSR again.

I am sure that the UK or the US would have done over the japanesse in an open battle with armour. I wonder if the lesson of manchuria 45 have any bearing on how the land battle for Japan would have gone had the British and US landed? Would the size of the island make it more suited to big set piece battles that the allies could have enjoyed success in. Or would the japenessse try and move the mountains where the tried and tested defence tactics used in the islands of Iwo Jima Tarawa etc, could have made the invasion terribly costly. If the fighting would have been easy, we would not have the excuse to drop the bomb, thus not allowing the testing the technology and scarring Stalin.!

The American war planners who were planning the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands estimated 5 million casualties, 1 million Allied and 4 million Japanese. Since there were under 1 million casualties from both bombs and since Joe Stalin never used a bomb I think we can conclude that Truman's decision was the best one at the time. Unless someone thinks that 5 times as many casualties and the nearly complete destruction of the Japanese Home Islands was preferable? Or that we would like to see Joe Stalin dropping an A-bomb in 1950 because no one had ever seen one used before and didn't know just how destructive they really were?

One more comment on Japan. The majority of the Home Islands are not suitable to manuever warfare. Only 3% of the land area is actually usable for agriculture, which means somewhere between 5 and 10 percent will be reasonable for any sort of manuever warfare. The majority of the Islands are hills, mountains and cities. Not exactly good places for large set piece battles and manuever warfare.

Second mg's point. Indeed, I think it should be put more strongly. The terrain of Japan is, basically, mountainous. The relatively flat areas tend to be small and separated by rough ground. (Haven't you guys ever watched any Japanese historical epic movies? Those landscapes aren't unusual. They're typical.) Mmmm...perhaps the best parallel as far as WW2 battlegrounds goes is Italy, below the Po Valley. But, Japan has even less flat ground. We might suppose that with control of the seas, manuever might have been managed by water. However, a closer examination of American tactics during WW2 shows that we just never did much of this, at all. In fact, the one great stab as this sort of thing was at Anzio, and that was a disaster. The screw-up was the choice of commander, who threw away a golden opening, but the "lesson", at that time, was as likely to be understood to mean that you just get your forces ashore and work from there. Also, the Japanese had accumulated a huge air force for use as kamikazes in the event of American landings. We would have had a hard enough time maintaining a few landings. Shuttling up and down the coast was likely to be a nightmare.

i've only just read this thread so here's go's my 2 cents worth. The Axis mistakes, whilst you could argue were fewer in number than the Allied mistakes, were of a greater magnitude than the Allied mistakes. If Hitler had've used more panzers and the lufftwaffe more @ Dunkirk then the BEF and the French army involved would've all been killed or captured. With Britain's only real army out of the way, Hitler could then go on with the Battle of Britain and if he only hit RAF airfields, bases, factories, radar locations, etc, instead of bombing cities, the Lufftwaffe would've destroyed the British airforce and then hence with air superiority and some surface and submarine assets, the Germans would have most likely destroyed the RN, this would then give the Germans the complete go ahead for Op Sealion. In Op Sealion, the Germans had about 100 divisions, many of them mechanised, for smashing thru British defenses. Bravery and determination doesnt mean jack when your staring at an incoming panzer tank and all you've got is a pistol. this would've been the situation if Op Sealion had'v gone ahead. With Britain and all of Europe in control of the Germans, Nrth Africa wouldn't have been the battleground that it was and Hitler could then use those extra troops for the invasion of the Soviet Union and Op Barbarossa. Hitler had the numbers (in the right places at least), the quality, the right military doctrine and tactics to overpower the giant 'bear', the biggest mistake was i believe dividing the all conquering German army into 3, and have one go for Lenningrad, one for Moscow, and one for the Caucasus, or Stalingrad. Even at a third of it's strenght, the German army @ Moscow got to within only about a 20 minute drive to red square! Add in another million or so troops to help with the advance and the Russians would've hopelessly and stupidly thrown everything they had at the Germans to stop them from taking Moscow. This has been proved in de-classified documents that Stalin would've done this and hence in one swist, massive battle, the Germans, possibly with the help of the Japanese (the Russian units taken from the Manchurian border were crucial in the Russians beating the Germans, esp @ Stalingrad), would've beaten the Russians and Stalin and the Soviet Union would've capitulated. Now that ALL of Europe is occupied, the Germans could take over Nrth Africa, to prevent a possible American incursion into the 'soft underbelly' of the Axis controlled Europe. Plus they could take over the world's largest oil supply, which was absolutely critical for Germany and Japan as both had next to no oil reserve's. The Germans could concentrate on building a massive blue water navy to challenge the Americans on their home ground and to support a possible invasion force. Also, in all likely hood, the Allies, or now the Americans, would'nt have broken the German enigma code and the U-boats could prevent and control the Atlantic and stop any American advancement (it was the British who broke the code, not the Americans). But now for the 2 factors that alot of ppl dont know and also dont take into account when discussing WW2 what if's. The Germans had nearly completed the prototype for a long range strategic bomber that was capable of hitting the US eastern seaboard. The US B-2 bomber of now, was actually partially deisgned on this German bomber! The German nuclear program was also nearing completion, and with more money, resources and time, the Germans in all likely-hood would've done it. Now the Germans could send their navy towards the US east coast, and with the support of the wolfpacks, established, or at least diverted enough American assets for the German bombers to come in and nuke New York and Washington. This would've utterly capitulated the Americans and their govt, and hence the world is now under full control of 2 countries, Germany and Japan. Regards, Fall Out