What Forced Japan to Surrender

[Dean]

Once the Russians had finished with the Germans, they would have wiped Japan clean off the map. However, the Bomb gave the Japanese the reason to jump before they were pushed.

I don't think that the threat of imminent invasion from the USA or the Russians would have changed the mind of the Japanese militarists. Well,... not until the devastation of their country was almost complete anyway, by which time it would have been too late.

It did not change their minds. However, they did know that they had lost the war, so enough of them killed themselves or retired that the balance of power changed in the War Cabinet. For the first time since the late 1920's, moderates controlled the War Cabinet, and they immediately decided to accept the Allied terms. However, the second bomb was dropped, and the palace coup was fought before the Allies were informed of that decision.

 

[AikiRooster]

Had Japan not been in the war with the U.S. and it was just Japan vs Russia, Japan woulda won.

 

[Dean]

The entry of Russia into the war against Japan helped Japanese peace overtures more than it hindered it though as with the cold war starting western allies were more receptive to a conditional surrender to prevent part if not all of Japan falling to the Russians.

But in the end, Japan did surrender unconditionally. The Allies did decide to give the Japanese some of the conditions for which they had asked in order to ensure that the war stayed over. Among these were leaving the Emperor in place, and ensuring that he was not tried for war crimes. AFAIK, these were among the few benefits that the Japanese received. In order to ensure that Japan stayed outside of Soviet influence, the US extended the Marshall Plan to cover Japan. It was a howling success.

 

[The Other Guy]

Had Japan not been in the war with the U.S. and it was just Japan vs Russia, Japan woulda won.

Had that been the case it would have come down to who ran out of people first. Japan loses, but it's the ugliest war in world history. I'd say over 10,000,000 dead.

 

[AikiRooster]

Not true just about 40 yrs prior.

 

[The Other Guy]

Not true just about 40 yrs prior.

That was a much weaker Russian force not battle hardened and technologically advanced from a war with Germany. And this was a new Communist-driven Russia.

"Remember Comrade Stalin's orders; not one step backward."

It would have been ugly. Very very ugly.

 

[Dean]

Had Japan not been in the war with the U.S. and it was just Japan vs Russia, Japan woulda won.

Not in a million years. Japan had almost no army left, almost no navy, and almost no industrial base left. The Russians had the largest army in the world, one of the largest air forces in the world, the best armoured forces by far, the most mobile army, and all those forces were well experienced, well trained, well motivated, and very disciplined in battle. They had defeated the Japanese decisively every time they met. The one weakness from which the Soviets suffered was that they were unable to mount a large amphibious assault similar to D-Day. However it is patently evident that the Russians could have continued to bomb Japan, destroying what little was left of their industrial base while simultaneously building the ships that were necessary for an amphibious attack. Would it have been bloody? Yes. Would that Japanese have won? No way. The Russians would have gone over, under, around and through the Japanese the same way they did at Khalkin Gol and during August Storm. In both cases, the Japanese never stood the slightest chance.

 

[AikiRooster]

Japan had no army left....I did say had they not had any other war, like with the USA. about 40 yrs prior, Japan kicked their butts.

 

[Dean]

Japan had no army left....I did say had they not had any other war, like with the USA. about 40 yrs prior, Japan kicked their butts.

It still would not have happened. Japan was a world maritime power, and to some extent, a land power as well. But if you look at all of their conquests during the war, all of them shared one condition: they were all supported by the IJN. The one exception to this rule was Manchuria, where the Kwantung Army was supported using the road network.
In Manchuria, they could not have gone any further. In terms of logistics, they were at the end of their rope, and in some places, (Mongolia) they stopped even though there was no opposing force in front of them. In the southwest, they were up against a severely weakened, badly supported, but brilliantly led British force, and in the southeast, the Australians held them in check. On the other hand, the Russians were able to support an army that was in constant heavy combat from 1942 to 1945 on a front that was often in excess of 3500 kilometers. They were able to absorb the loss of 30 million of her citizens, and still kick the s**t out of the Wehrmacht. Then, when they finished doing that, they transferred 1.5 million men from Europe to the Russian Far East, and in August, they launched an attack that defeated Japan's largest remaining army in 5 days. They had more resources, more people, better weapons, better tactics, and they were matching their strength against Japan's weakness. (major land battles) (The Japanese were better on the oceans. If the Russians had fought another sea battle against the Japanese, they would have had another Tsushima Strait on their hands.) On land, the Japanese tried on a number of times to test the resolve of the Russians, and they found that Russian resolve, tactics and weapons were no match for Japanese fighting spirit. If you don't believe me, check out the battle of Khalkin Gol and Operation August Storm. Add to that the impossible terrain of which the Russian were masters, and the seasonal input of the Siberian winter. The Japanese had nothing with which they could have dealt with snow or mud. The outcome would never have been in doubt. Furthermore, the Japanese knew it, and after Khalkin Gol, they never bumped the Russians again.

 

[MontyB]

But in the end, Japan did surrender unconditionally. The Allies did decide to give the Japanese some of the conditions for which they had asked in order to ensure that the war stayed over. Among these were leaving the Emperor in place, and ensuring that he was not tried for war crimes. AFAIK, these were among the few benefits that the Japanese received. In order to ensure that Japan stayed outside of Soviet influence, the US extended the Marshall Plan to cover Japan. It was a howling success.

By the terms of the Potsdam conference Japan did achieve conditions as if they had accepted it point number 6 and 10 below would have precluded any chance that the Emperor could have remained on the throne and should have lead to his being tried for war crimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Potsdam Declaration or the Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender:

1. We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.

2. The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist.

3. The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.

4. The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.

5. Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.

6. There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.

7. Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.

8. The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

9. The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.

10. We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.

11. Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.

12. The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.

13. We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So while the document of surrender itself was worded to say that it was an unconditional surrender it is clear that at least one condition had been granted.

 

[senojekips]

Had Japan not been in the war with the U.S. and it was just Japan vs Russia, Japan woulda won.

Against a Russia led by the Tsar,... quite possible, but against a Russia led by Stalin in 1945, with the benefit of having just chased the Wehrmacht back to Berlin, not even a weeny, weeny chance.

 

[Supostat]

Had Japan not been in the war with the U.S. and it was just Japan vs Russia, Japan woulda won.

Well, they could have chance if attacked USSR ir 1941, not US... Forced to fight in two fronts, USSR would be in more difficult situation. However, in such way Japan will loose the surprise, which they had in Pearl Harbor...

 

[Topmaul]

Had Japan not been in the war with the U.S. and it was just Japan vs Russia, Japan woulda won.

At sea yes but not on land could you see those little Japanese tanks up against T-34s?

 

[Dean]

It went a lot farther than that. The Russians were not yet mobilized, nonetheless, they had better tanks, artillery, individual weapons, tactics, command and control, and integration. They used their air forces far more effectively even though the Japanese had far better aircraft. In addition, they had railroads and enough trucks that re-supply was never a problem.

The battle of Khalkin Gol was fought in 1939, before the Japanese started fighting the Americans, and before the Russians had been invaded by the Germans. Nonetheless, the main weakness of the Japanese was apparent; they were unable to effectively move or re-supply their armies. In comparison, the Soviets were well supplied, well prepared and well armed, far more mobile, and Zhukov's tactics worked very well. The worked so well, that when he used the same tactics later on in both Moscow and Stalingrad, he won those battles as well.
At the time of Khalkin Gol, the Japanese were at the height of their power, but the Soviets were not even close to the height of theirs. Even so, the Soviet victory was so crushing (they annihilated the division they were facing, the Japanese could do nothing to stop it) that the Japanese government decided to ask for and get a non-aggression pact. If the Japanese had decided to attack along the entire front, they would have faced the same fate as the Germans. The Russians could have retreated a very long way, then counterattacked wherever and whenever the Japanese logistical tail got too long. (At Khalkin Gol, we found that the end of the logistical tail had already been reached, and passed!) When considering the Russians, the Japanese were smarter than the Germans, but in the end, it made no difference. Just as the Germans completely underestimated the Russians, the Japanese completely underestimated the Americans. In the end, they found that they could defeat neither one, together or apart.

 

[Papashah41]

It went a lot farther than that. The Russians were not yet mobilized, nonetheless, they had better tanks, artillery, individual weapons, tactics, command and control, and integration. They used their air forces far more effectively even though the Japanese had far better aircraft. In addition, they had railroads and enough trucks that re-supply was never a problem.

The battle of Khalkin Gol was fought in 1939, before the Japanese started fighting the Americans, and before the Russians had been invaded by the Germans. Nonetheless, the main weakness of the Japanese was apparent; they were unable to effectively move or re-supply their armies. In comparison, the Soviets were well supplied, well prepared and well armed, far more mobile, and Zhukov's tactics worked very well. The worked so well, that when he used the same tactics later on in both Moscow and Stalingrad, he won those battles as well.
At the time of Khalkin Gol, the Japanese were at the height of their power, but the Soviets were not even close to the height of theirs. Even so, the Soviet victory was so crushing (they annihilated the division they were facing, the Japanese could do nothing to stop it) that the Japanese government decided to ask for and get a non-aggression pact. If the Japanese had decided to attack along the entire front, they would have faced the same fate as the Germans. The Russians could have retreated a very long way, then counterattacked wherever and whenever the Japanese logistical tail got too long. (At Khalkin Gol, we found that the end of the logistical tail had already been reached, and passed!) When considering the Russians, the Japanese were smarter than the Germans, but in the end, it made no difference. Just as the Germans completely underestimated the Russians, the Japanese completely underestimated the Americans. In the end, they found that they could defeat neither one, together or apart.

Excellent assessment Dean. But if the Japanese had attacked along a wide front in late 41, the units so needed to stop the Germans would not have been sent, and when mobility was possible in mid spring 42, the soviets may have found themselves in a precarious position. Without the much needed re-inforcements, Germany may well have taken Moscow.

 

[Dean]

Excellent assessment Dean. But if the Japanese had attacked along a wide front in late 41, the units so needed to stop the Germans would not have been sent, and when mobility was possible in mid spring 42, the soviets may have found themselves in a precarious position. Without the much needed re-inforcements, Germany may well have taken Moscow.

I used to think the same thing, but I am not sure anymore. When considering the terrain and the long distances that the Japanese would have had to cross, I do not believe that it would have taken many divisions to hold the Japanese in check. After all, the Australians did it with far less, and the British operation in Burma used very few troops.

During the entire war, the Russians kept troops facing the Japanese in Manchuria, even though they were somewhat sure the Japanese were not going to attack. Those troops could have been used on the Eastern front (Russia's western front) but the Kremlin decided to keep the Siberian and Central Asian Military districts pretty much up to strength. They did take some units out as were needed, but they never completely stripped them bare.

In the end, the Japanese (IMO) did not have the horses, trains, tanks, and trucks that were necessary to take Russia. Imagine the front they would have created: It would have stretched from Burma in the south to the Arctic Ocean, and even if it had been a straight line, which is impossible, it would have been about 5,900 kilometers long. I am not sure if all of the Allies together could have managed such a front, but one thing is for sure, the Japanese could not have.

I also believe that after the Germans attacked Russia, the Japanese war cabinet had to have looked at the situation maps and considered attacking Russia. I bet they looked at it, checked their logistics, checked the terrain and then decided, "Nope, ain't gonna happen". There must be some reason that the Japanese did not support their ally, and a non aggression pact was not it. It had to have been a conscious decision, or else an attack would have occurred. Had that happened, I believe that the Allies would have won even sooner. The Japanese Army and Air Force would have been bled white in less than a year, (particularly when you consider that their main strength, the IJN, would have been completely useless) and the US/Japan Pacific war would not have happened. This would have allowed the US to concentrate on Germany, and D-Day would have occurred earlier. (I also believe that the US would have been drawn into the war by Germany for some other reason even if Pearl Harbour had not occurred. Too many US interests were being affected.)

Something else. If the Germans had succeeded in taking Moscow, it would not have ended the war. Stakva had already decided that the Soviet Army was ready to retreat all the way to Alaska if need be, but a surrender was out of the question. In the end, the Germans basically ran out of gas while the Russians finished filling up theirs, and the Russian tank only ran out during August Storm.

The Soviets were always in a precarious position. But when you consider their economic power at full war mobilization, their population, their land mass, their tactics, and their strategic position, Japan and Germany together could only have won if the other Allies had not declared war and come to Russia's side. Another way to think of it: Japan spend the better part of 20 years BEFORE the war preparing for it. The Russians built everything they needed to win DURING the war, as they lost virtually everything they had from before the war during the first six months of Barbarossa. Germany's tank production never beat 500 a month, Japan's was significantly smaller. Russia, at the time of Stalingrad was churning out 2,200 a month, and later on, the figure was even higher. It goes on and on. The only things that the Russians were not making more of was heavy bombers and ships, but the Brits and US were taking care of those. In the end, I believe that the situation could have become even more precarious for the Russians. They still had space to fall back into, their industries were still intact, and they had manpower that Japan and Germany could only watch and drool at. Japan's loss was, IMO, predetermined.

Counter-arguments, Gents?

Dean.

 

[MontyB]

No counter arguments here other than to add that there was really nothing strategically to gain by attacking Russia.

Other than maybe the use of Vladivostok they would have become the proud owners of miles and miles of nothing as the Germans would have laid claim to everything west of the Urals.

 

[Papashah41]

I used to think the same thing, but I am not sure anymore. When considering the terrain and the long distances that the Japanese would have had to cross, I do not believe that it would have taken many divisions to hold the Japanese in check. After all, the Australians did it with far less, and the British operation in Burma used very few troops.

During the entire war, the Russians kept troops facing the Japanese in Manchuria, even though they were somewhat sure the Japanese were not going to attack. Those troops could have been used on the Eastern front (Russia's western front) but the Kremlin decided to keep the Siberian and Central Asian Military districts pretty much up to strength. They did take some units out as were needed, but they never completely stripped them bare.

In the end, the Japanese (IMO) did not have the horses, trains, tanks, and trucks that were necessary to take Russia. Imagine the front they would have created: It would have stretched from Burma in the south to the Arctic Ocean, and even if it had been a straight line, which is impossible, it would have been about 5,900 kilometers long. I am not sure if all of the Allies together could have managed such a front, but one thing is for sure, the Japanese could not have.

I also believe that after the Germans attacked Russia, the Japanese war cabinet had to have looked at the situation maps and considered attacking Russia. I bet they looked at it, checked their logistics, checked the terrain and then decided, "Nope, ain't gonna happen". There must be some reason that the Japanese did not support their ally, and a non aggression pact was not it. It had to have been a conscious decision, or else an attack would have occurred. Had that happened, I believe that the Allies would have won even sooner. The Japanese Army and Air Force would have been bled white in less than a year, (particularly when you consider that their main strength, the IJN, would have been completely useless) and the US/Japan Pacific war would not have happened. This would have allowed the US to concentrate on Germany, and D-Day would have occurred earlier. (I also believe that the US would have been drawn into the war by Germany for some other reason even if Pearl Harbour had not occurred. Too many US interests were being affected.)

Something else. If the Germans had succeeded in taking Moscow, it would not have ended the war. Stakva had already decided that the Soviet Army was ready to retreat all the way to Alaska if need be, but a surrender was out of the question. In the end, the Germans basically ran out of gas while the Russians finished filling up theirs, and the Russian tank only ran out during August Storm.

The Soviets were always in a precarious position. But when you consider their economic power at full war mobilization, their population, their land mass, their tactics, and their strategic position, Japan and Germany together could only have won if the other Allies had not declared war and come to Russia's side. Another way to think of it: Japan spend the better part of 20 years BEFORE the war preparing for it. The Russians built everything they needed to win DURING the war, as they lost virtually everything they had from before the war during the first six months of Barbarossa. Germany's tank production never beat 500 a month, Japan's was significantly smaller. Russia, at the time of Stalingrad was churning out 2,200 a month, and later on, the figure was even higher. It goes on and on. The only things that the Russians were not making more of was heavy bombers and ships, but the Brits and US were taking care of those. In the end, I believe that the situation could have become even more precarious for the Russians. They still had space to fall back into, their industries were still intact, and they had manpower that Japan and Germany could only watch and drool at. Japan's loss was, IMO, predetermined.

Counter-arguments, Gents?

Dean.

I pretty much agree with your assessment. But sometimes it's not what an Army is capable of but what your opponent thinks you are capable of.

Port Arthur was still in the minds of a good portion of the emaciated Soviet High Command. This could explain Stalin's refusal to initially move forces west after Richard Sorge's intelligence windfall concerning Japanese intentions. To say Stalin wasn't one of the brightest bulbs shining over the Kremlin, is definatly an understatement. If it wasn't for Molotov and a few others, Stalin could have botched the whole war.

The threat itself may have been enough for Stalin to keep all his forces in the East intact there. The Japanese needed only to recon and maybe strike at some border opportunities to keep Stalin worried enough to not release his Eastern Divisions. But of course this is all surmise.

If the German's were able to take Moscow, the war would not neccessarily have been over. True, but this action would have split the country in two. It would also have destroyed communications, as Moscow was the communication hub of the country. It most definatly would have been easier for the German's to conclude the war had they taken Moscow.

These points are all surmise. But what if scenario's are interesting and for lack of a better word, FUN.

What I do believe is this, Hitler should have stayed away from the Soviet Union for the time being and focused elsewhere.

But when he did attack he got some nasty surprises. These surprises were the T34 and the KV 1 and the KV 2. Also let us not forget the excellent fighter aircraft the Soviets had at the time, eg: the Yak, the Lavochkin LaGC-3 and the Mig 3. The Soviets lacked a large pool of good pilots, but their aircraft were equal to the Germans and in some cases better.

Hitler should have come to some accomodation with Stalin. Stalin would certainly have been receptive.

 

[Dean]

I pretty much agree with your assessment. But sometimes it's not what an Army is capable of but what your opponent thinks you are capable of.

Very Very true....

Port Arthur was still in the minds of a good portion of the emaciated Soviet High Command. This could explain Stalin's refusal to initially move forces west after Richard Sorge's intelligence windfall concerning Japanese intentions. To say Stalin wasn't one of the brightest bulbs shining over the Kremlin, is definatly an understatement. If it wasn't for Molotov and a few others, Stalin could have botched the whole war.

Stalin was not a very bright light in some ways, but he could be brilliantly pragmatic when he had to be. In addition to being a great organizer, he was a total sociopath whose only real interest in life was ensuring he kept his position. (Remember that this is the man who said, "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.") In order to keep his position, he had to defeat the Germans, and he did so. He did indeed make a great many mistakes, and some of them resulted in the greatest consequences that the world has ever seen. But remember, in terms of mistake making, he was eclipsed by one other man and because of that, he won the war. The other man's name? Adolf Hitler.

The threat itself may have been enough for Stalin to keep all his forces in the East intact there. The Japanese needed only to recon and maybe strike at some border opportunities to keep Stalin worried enough to not release his Eastern Divisions. But of course this is all surmise.

They were not kept totally intact. Stalin did take some divisions out of Siberia, and some of them, particularly the 284th Motor Rifle Division performed very well in Stalingrad even though it was pretty much destroyed in the fighting. But yes, Stalin was far too paranoid to leave nothing facing the Japanese. But on the other hand, he could not be blamed for being overconfident where the Japanese were concerned. He had good reason to be.

If the German's were able to take Moscow, the war would not neccessarily have been over. True, but this action would have split the country in two. It would also have destroyed communications, as Moscow was the communication hub of the country. It most definatly would have been easier for the German's to conclude the war had they taken Moscow.

It would have been somewhat easier for the Germans, but the other fronts would have continued fighting. From what I have read, the other fronts would probably have continued fighting even if Stakva had have ordered them to surrender! The Soviets had moved all of their armaments factories behind the Urals, so most of their armaments no longer had to transit Moscow. The one pain that it would have caused is that little of the lend lease supplies entering through Murmansk could have made it to where they were most needed. They did not like US tanks (for good reason) but there were three things they loved, and needed. Those were locomotives, trucks (and jeeps) and food. The loss of Moscow would probably have affected that.

These points are all surmise. But what if scenario's are interesting and for lack of a better word, FUN.

True enough. It really makes you think outside of the box.

What I do believe is this, Hitler should have stayed away from the Soviet Union for the time being and focused elsewhere.

He should have built up his forces, particularly his navy and air force. With more surface ships, along with more FW-190s and ME- 262s, the Germans could have taken air superiority over Britain and ended up invading them using their improved navy. (BTW, this is, I believe, the event that would have brought the US into the war if the Japanese had not bombed Pearl Harbour.)

But when he did attack he got some nasty surprises. These surprises were the T34 and the KV 1 and the KV 2. Also let us not forget the excellent fighter aircraft the Soviets had at the time, eg: the Yak, the Lavochkin LaGC-3 and the Mig 3. The Soviets lacked a large pool of good pilots, but their aircraft were equal to the Germans and in some cases better.

You forget the men. The Soviets came up with army after army after army of men who were, after Stalingrad, trained and better equipped than the Germans were. Every time the German high command thought that the Red Army was finished, the Soviets mounted yet another huge counter offensive that showed the Germans how wrong they were. Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad, all of them came after the Germans thought the Russians had no army left, and in the end, it was the men who made the difference. The Germans had a counter for the weapons the Soviets used, but noyt the numbers those weapons came in. Finally they they definitely did not have the manpower to stop the Soviet onslaught.

Hitler should have come to some accomodation with Stalin. Stalin would certainly have been receptive.

Depending on when. A few months after Barbarossa, maybe, but later on, Stalin was not gonna stop until Hitler was dead. In the end, he sent many messages demanding if his generals had found Hitler's body, and he was very relieved when they did.

 

[BritinBritain]

Air Superiority Over Brtiain

With more surface ships, along with more FW-190s and ME- 262s, the Germans could have taken air superiority over Britain and ended up invading them using their improved navy. (BTW, this is, I believe, the event that would have brought the US into the war if the Japanese had not bombed Pearl Harbour.)

The Luftwaffe were numerically far superior to the Royal Air Force during the Battle of Britain, with more highly trained pilots, although the Royal Navy Home Fleet were still a force to be reckoned with.

The FW190 and ME 262 were not in production during the summer of 1940 at the height of the Battle. The FW190 went into squadron service in August 1941, while the ME262 first flew with jet engines 18th July 1942.

However, if the Air Ministry had listened to Frank Whittle, the RAF could have fought the Battle with Gloster Meteors, but thanks to their bungling and Rover Car Company making a total **** up of Whittle's engine the Meteor didn't go into service before July 1944, only after Rolls Royce had taken over production. Whittle and his Power Jets Ltd company was forbidden to produce engines thanks to Rolls Royce skulduggery.

The loses during the Battle were horrific, many young pilots were killed on their first sorte. Aircraft production was keeping pace with loses, but the problem was replacing the pilots. Thank God many pilots from across the globe volunteered including three US Eagle Squadrons, Czechs, Poles, Australians, Canadians, South Africans, Rhodesians, New Zealanders and others, without whom the Battle could never have been won.

The other hero's of the Battle apart from the pilots, ground crews and radar operators were Hugh Dowding, CO Fighter Command and Keith Parks, CO of 11 Group, who as history shows husbanded their Squadrons absolutely correctly. After the Battle was over, Trafford Leigh Mallory along with Douglas Bader stabbed Hugh Dowding in the back for his handling of the Battle. Both Leigh Mallory and Bader as you are all aware, were supporters of the “Big Wings” theory, which in practice failed dismally. Hugh Dowding was shamefully fired and given 24 hours to clear out his desk. Never were truer words spoken when Winston Churchill said “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”

Dropping the two atom bombs certainly made their minds up to pack it in. I am still of the opinion however, that the Japanese Emperor Hirohito should have hanged for war crimes along with Tojo and the rest of his crew.