210cav,

Seeking revenge after a loss is directly circumstancial, and must be examined on a case-by-case basis. Some of the issues that would need to be considered:

Punishments imposed

Degree of military defeat

Post-defeat stability

National character

Considering each point:
* Punishment imposed, and the "fairness" of it. If the punishment strikes at the core of the nation, then resentment carries.
* Degree of Military Defeat, can go either way. Total military defeat may either push toward nationalist movements, or defeat may be spirit-breaking. I don't know how to quantify this much further without research.
* Post-defeat stability. All people, by their nature, desire stability. If post-war situation is unstable, then further hostilities are likely. If the post-war transition is smooth and in-line with national character, then hostilities are less likely. Examples:
Smooth:
* Japan, WW2 (Emperor allowed to stay - in-line with requisite national character)
* Germany, WW2 (Strong authority in place.)
Unstable:
* Korea, WW2 (US uses hated Japanese in post-war roles)
* Germany, WW1 (Weak central authority, against national character)

This can be expanded on in another thread, if someone is interested.
Mika H.

Mika--very nice work. I tank you for the response.
djj

I'd argue that the Japanese did seek revenge - but not militarily. They went the techno/economic route until it severely impacted their own economy. For a while there, it was looking bleak from these shores.

I'd wager that Iraq, in a different form, will seek out a third round. Fanaticism would like to go blow-for-blow militarily (after all, they didn't lose the first or second rounds in their eyes) - but with a more Western ideal introduced in the rebuilding of the country I think the revenge will manifest differently. Perhaps even economically.

I had a kitten about a decade ago. I used to watch her carefully, sometimes she was more interesting than TV. I particularly liked to watch her stalk and then pounce on a toy ball. She'd strike the ball with her paw and then tense. The strike was never to kill, I imagined, but to stun and give pause to wait for options on what to do next. When she grew up, and slapped that unfortunate bird - it made more sense. Now, I know attributing this kind of intelligence to a Cat is unfounded - she wasn't much smarter than a Pet Rock - but the approach was meaningful.

The strike on Iraq served many purposes. Most of them are not overt and emotional crisis responses. It is hard for the public to see the American Cat strike that Iraqi ball - because the reasons aren't always obvious. You'd ask why too. But, if you look at it in the context of sending a message to other powers in the area it makes sense.

The bird used to fly at my Cat while she sat in the window staring out and pondering whatever Cats might ponder if they could. When she grew up, the Cat would go outside and sit on the balcony rail. The bird still swooped and harrassed. Until, one day, the Cat smacked it down out of the air. She stood over the stunned bird, but didn't eat it. The bird came to, paused a second, and quickly sprinted away.

The bird didn't swoop down on the Cat anymore...

I miss my Cat...

I'm glad the bird didn't have any friends...

Gunnie

Mika, you put up a number of good points. Your suggestion about a Vietnam style conflict in China is indeed scarey. If the US had not become involved in the war at all I wonder if they would have become the superpower that they are today? If they had only joined the war against Germany then how would the map of Europe have been diferent at the end of hostilities? Would it have brought a US/USSR conflict even closer than it was during the cold war? Without the war in the Pacific would the West's development of the atomic bomb have assumed such importance? Man I love pondering these "What If?" questions.
Martin

brandydoguk,

IMO, I don't see that the post-war European map would be all that different. Lend lease would flow as it did, the Soviets would still have rolled over Germany as they did. An assumption that goes into this is that the Commonwealth units that participated in the Pacific war would have remained at home to counter the possibility of Japanese aggression so that the balance of power remained as it historically was.

The development of the atomic bomb was underway regardless, so I don't see that it's development would have been altered. It's deployment would have been something else, since the Germans were defeated long before the war was over. Considering the US attitudes regarding the Soviets (Patton excluded), I don't think there was any possibility of the continuation of hostilities between US/USSR.

Let's expand on that though. If there was no nuclear devastation of of Nagasaki/Hiroshima, then the announcement of the bomb would have come through atomic testing in one of the pacific atolls. At that point, both Japan and USSR would have learned of its existence, creating a race for the bomb. I think both the Japanese and the Soviets could have developed it in close to the same timeframe, and without the horrific aftereffects known about beforehand, I believe that nuclear weapons would have been deployed in the Cold War, probably during the Cuban Crisis.

Mika H

Mika-- I am confused by your latest post. Clarify for me that you believe Japan would have developed a nuclear weapon during WW II?
thanks
DJ

210cav,

No, I'm not postulating the possibility of nukes for Japan during WW2. I'm thinking that in the post-war world the US would announce it's possession of the new weapons during some open-air tests. This would allow all potentially hostile nations to see the power of the weapons for themselves, after all, it makes no sense to posture about the new "bigger stick" if you can't back it up. I think the Soviets heard all they wanted to about wonder weapons from Germany, and would be sceptical about similar posturing from the USA.

So, with the open demonstration of the nukes, I think all of the remainder of the nations wanting to be/remain superpowers would have pursued similar lines of technology. The Japanese scientific base would still be fully intact after not participating in the European War of 39-45, so I do believe that they could have developed the bomb in the post war years.

Sorry if I wasn't clear before. No, I don't believe the Japanese had any chance of developing nuclear weapons during WW2 (real history).

Mika H

Mika, I wonder if the development of the Atom bomb would have been so quick if the US had stayed out of ther war? One of the great contributions of the allies was to pool a lot of the scientific expertese under the direction of the Americans because of their industrial strength. Would the British have allowed their best scientists to go to a non beligerant country to help develop weapons with no guarantee that they would be deployed for British use? The same argument could be put forward for the jet engine and radar.
Another thought, it is not inconceivable that without US forces the British may not have able or even willing to invade the continent. The Russians would have probably gone on to defeat Germany but would have in their posession ALL the German technology regarding the atom bomb and rocketry. I would think this would at least put them on a par if not ahead in developing nuclear weapons. Would the countries such as France, Belgium and Holland
have become part of the USSR? If so that could have made Russia the supreme world power. The more I think about it the more I realise the Japanese did europe a favour by bringing the US into the war.
Martin

Martin,

Good point. However, I wonder how easy a time of the Soviets would have had if the United States had not entered the war at all. While I will be the first person to admit that strategic air power did not win the war in Europe for the Allies, I think it did make a major contribution. Assuming that the United States does not enter the war means the RAF has to carry the air burden alone and the Germans reallocate resources to fight the Soviets. I hope this made a little sense.

Shaun

Shaun/Martin--- I am always in fence sitting mode when it comes to the effects of aerial bombardment in Europe and Japan. Just glance at any post war film clip of an aircraft passing over a devastated city. It is gone! You can't do that type of destruction without a reduction of morale and support for the war. Obviously, the lack of a popular resistance movement within Japan and Germany curtailed the marshalling of emotions and efforts to stop the war. Yet, there has to be more to it than that simplistic observation. Why and how did they hang on?
DJ

Martin,

Taking a quick Google for the Manhattan Project shows that the impetus was given by the German discovery of fission in 1938. The Americans succeeded in producing controlled nuclear fission in 1942, so the research was well under way before the USA entered the war. Based on this, I believe the timeline for the bomb would be unchanged based on Japanese entry into the war. Though capture of German scientists would have and did allow Soviets to get a jump up on the development of next generation weaponry, it would not have allowed them to surpass five years of US research.

Again, the jet engine was developed in Britain in the 30's, and radar had been around for years as well, so their development was exclusive of US entry.

Mika H.

Shaun, that is a good point about whether the British could have carried the air offensive without the US. I read once that "Bomber" Harris, commander of bomber command reckoned with 4,000 heavy bombers he could win the war. Even with maximum production the British could never get anywhere near achieving that figure.
DJ you ask a good question there. How does a government stop its people rising up against it when the country is being devastated?
Mika, my point about the radar was that although Britain were at the forefront of its development it was not until they passed their newly invented magnetron to the US that more powerful, or lighter sets were brought into production. Once again the vast industrial might of the US was of prime importance. By the war's end the US were producing much more powerful sets than the rest of the world.
As for the Manhattan project I know that some of the key scientists involved were european and arrived in the US via Britain. I just wonder if Britain would have alowed them to go to a none beligerent country?
Martin

Big question (maybe I should start another topic?) can a poulation survive a massive air bombardment?
DJ

Man, this forum is fun. There are roughly 120 people here at work with me, I am on break
and I bet not one of them knows who "Bomber" Harris was. Thanks everyone. More later.

Shaun

Yes it is fun, I like the thoughts put forward by the guys because, especially on threads like this one where we are discussing hypothetical situations, no one is right and no one is wrong. We can express opinions and put forward theories without anyone being shot down. While I may not agree with one or two theories I can see the arguments behind them and it gives me something to consider, maybe rethinking my own theories.
Great posts everyone
Martin

[quote I am always in fence sitting mode when it comes to the effects of aerial bombardment in Europe and Japan. Just glance at any post war film clip of an aircraft passing over a devastated city. It is gone! You can't do that type of destruction without a reduction of morale and support for the war. Obviously, the lack of a popular resistance movement within Japan and Germany curtailed the marshalling of emotions and efforts to stop the war. Yet, there has to be more to it than that simplistic observation. Why and how did they hang on?
DJ[/quote]

Morale was pretty low on htis side of the pond as well given the tremendous losses the 8th Air Force was taking. It was what, sometime in 1943 when the first crew of a bomber completed its 25 missoins intact (Memphis Belle). Until the P51 was fully availabe with drop tanks for reasonable escort duties, the losses were staggering.

Martin,

In regards to the scientists, and British involvement, I don't know of any/many cases of scientists moving about after the beginning of hostilities, with the possible exception of the Norwegian scientists responsible for the heavy water production. They bailed in 1940. Most of the scientists escaping Nazi persecution had relocated prior to the commencement of open hostilities.

Again, all of my hypothesis is based on the thought that the United States enters the war on the side of the British. In a simple summation, I don't think that the British alone could have liberated Western Europe. This has secondary consequences, in that the British were carrying on the night bombardment, while the US concentrated on day. If the US were not involved in this effort, then either the daytime would be fairly clear, or the forces would have been halved to split the effort. In either of these outcomes, the British alone would have faced a Battle of Germany type of situation, where every loss over enemy territory is out of the war, and the resultant bleed of trained aircrews would have forced an aerial stalemate over Germany.

Without the US on the side of the British, I'm guessing that there would have been a massive intake of commonwealth personnel to make up numbers of the kind to be required for a Normandy invasion by CW alone. It would have to have happened later, due to the distances required, and the logistics in mobilizing the manpower.

Adding in the decreased lend-lease to USSR from the US, they might have been slower in kicking back the Germans, so for the sake of hypothesis, the Battle of Berlin occurs sometime in 1946, after the CW stage their D-Day in the summer of '45.

Thoughts?
Mika H

Morale was pretty low on htis side of the pond as well given the tremendous losses the 8th Air Force was taking. It was what, sometime in 1943 when the first crew of a bomber completed its 25 missoins intact (Memphis Belle). Until the P51 was fully availabe with drop tanks for reasonable escort duties, the losses were staggering. [/quote]

I certainly will agree with your statement. However, morale is a day to day thing. What I am curious about is how a civilian population (read less disciplined than a military organization) braves the bombing we conducted against them. We flattened Europe. Germany was pulverized. Why did they hang on?
DJ