Comments by "Andy Dee" (@AndyViant) on "Who Feared Who? - Which Rivals Did Key WW2 Generals DREAD as Adversaries?" video.

  1. Had they been within range to mount a ground invasion and refloat the sunken US fleet at Pearl Harbour History would be a lot different. Probably the Allies would still have won - American industrial might and resources was a thing, and Australia was far from tapped our from a resources, manpower or production capacity standpoint. India even more so. But not having the Pearl Harbour base to work out of, and a total handover of all those ships to the enemy rather than refloating them for quick allied benefit would have changed things enormously. Overall, I still see an allied victory, based on nuclear weapons capability, but a much longer and more bloody war, extending into probably 1947. New Guinea may well have fallen, and Hawaii too. Buying back places like New Guinea, Hawaii and even places like Guam that occurred in our timeline would have cost a lot of lives - moreso if Japan could employ later tanks like the Chi Nu in defensive positions in much greater numbers. Protecting Japan from having it's industrial might from being bombed and greater effectiveness at resource harvesting by keeping the US carrier fleet from the Pacific would have had major consequences for the war. And this opens possibilities that don't exist in our timeline, like Japan-Russia alliances, land invasions of Northern Australia, Russian land invasions of Alaska and so on. Would it all have happened? Probably not. But if Japan had waited until they had the capacity for a land invasion of Hawaii, then the war would have gone a lot differently. The US would have been forced to commit to a land invasion of Hawaii over Northern Africa, Lend Lease probably would not have existed. Would Moscow have fallen without aid? How far could German troops expanded in Africa? Would Rommel have rebelled?
    6