US Neutrality

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

US Neutrality

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> US Neutrality

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

US Neutrality - 4/14/2006 5:57:49 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

I've read about multiple first strikes in some Mods where PH and Singapore were targeted or PH and Manila. But If only Singapore was targeted, and the US ports left alone, would the US have declared war on Japan? If a player choses the "Singapore Option" Could the Japanese player insist on the US assets remain on a neutral footing until US territory was attacked?

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

Post #: 1

RE: US Neutrality - 4/14/2006 9:09:17 AM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

I've read about multiple first strikes in some Mods where PH and Singapore were targeted or PH and Manila. But If only Singapore was targeted, and the US ports left alone, would the US have declared war on Japan? If a player choses the "Singapore Option" Could the Japanese player insist on the US assets remain on a neutral footing until US territory was attacked?

Oh, goody!!! Another "what if!"

That is a very good question though. I'm not sure what the US would have done. FDR sure would have wanted to but I'm not too sure that Congress would have supported it for the same reasons they didn't support war versus Germany. Congress wasn't real hot to go to war on England's behalf. They supported giving aid but little else.

If Japan had attacked both the Dutch and the British, I think it may have been possible to obtain a declaration of war. But even that would have been iffy IMO.

As far as the game is concerned, there is no way enforce neutrality short of grounding or docking every single unit. Any US ships at sea that came in range of a Japanese carrier or airbase would be attacked in the Japanese missions were set to naval attack.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Drex)

Post #: 2

RE: US Neutrality - 4/14/2006 11:20:02 AM

saj42

Posts: 1125
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline

I don't know much about the political situation, but what was written into the ABDA treaty/pact? Did it state that if the sovereign territory of one member was attacked that it was tantamount to an act of war against all 4?

On the question of Japan accidentally attacking US ships, The Germian u-boats sank at least one US destroyer in the western Atlantic in 1941 and got away with it.

_____________________________

Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to Drex)

Post #: 3

RE: US Neutrality - 4/14/2006 1:59:03 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

I don't know much about the political situation, but what was written into the ABDA treaty/pact? Did it state that if the sovereign territory of one member was attacked that it was tantamount to an act of war against all 4?

There was no such thing. It was an ad hoc creation AFTER the war began (if memory serves). It was never well organized, and suffered badly from language difficulties (English-Dutch). There were some bilateral understandings - thus you have Dutch subs patrolling off Malaya -
and American ships hiding in Dutch waters - and retreating to them.
You also had Dutch air units move TO Malaya to fight.

IF you want to game this, I can do a RHS APO (America Passive Option).
It will be wierd - but I can do it. In that case, the Americans will be really passive - not able to move - until activated. Otherwise, you will have to have massive player restraint - a real world problem navies often have to deal with in real life (but which players usually hate). GAMERS love to shoot things - and hate rules of engagement as it were. You could do your own set of house rules - just as players of RHS must - or not - if they play a Russian Active option where Russia is not at war (as in half the RHS scenarios).

(in reply to saj42)

Post #: 4

RE: US Neutrality - 4/14/2006 2:13:24 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

I don't know much about the political situation, but what was written into the ABDA treaty/pact? Did it state that if the sovereign territory of one member was attacked that it was tantamount to an act of war against all 4?

There was no such thing. It was an ad hoc creation AFTER the war began (if memory serves). It was never well organized, and suffered badly from language difficulties (English-Dutch). There were some bilateral understandings - thus you have Dutch subs patrolling off Malaya -
and American ships hiding in Dutch waters - and retreating to them.
You also had Dutch air units move TO Malaya to fight.

Actually war had already been triggered...

here is a quote from somewhere...I'll have to dig up the source..

quote:

A part of the story that had hitherto been largely overlooked, even by many Revisionists, concerned the secret agreements Roosevelt had entered into with the British and Dutch and which led to America technically being at war with Japan four days before Pearl Harbor. As Barnes succinctly explained, in April 1941 the U.S., British, and Dutch agreed to take joint military action against Japan if the Japanese sent armed forces beyond the line 100 East and 10 North or 6 North and the Davao-Waigeo line, or threatened British or Dutch possessions in the southwest Pacific or independent countries in that region. The agreements were known as ABCD. Thereafter, Admiral Stark said that war with Japan was not a matter of if, but rather when and where. Roosevelt gave his approval to the attendant war plans in May and June. On December 3, 1941, the Dutch invoked the ABCD agree ment, after Japanese forces passed the line 100 East and 10 North, and were thought to be headed toward Dutch territory as well as the Kra Peninsula and Thailand. The U.S. military attache in Melbourne, Australia, Colonel Van S. Merle-Smith, was contacted by the Australians, British, and Dutch and informed that the Dutch were expecting the U.S. Navy to offer assistance. Merle-Smith relayed this information to his superiors by coded message. It should have reached Washington in the early evening of December 4.

Now whether the US would have acted is another matter....

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 5

RE: US Neutrality - 4/14/2006 4:17:11 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

I think that most likely FDR would have convinced the nation that war was needed to stop the Japanese from swallowing the western Pacific however it would most likely have gone along the lines it historically did (seperation of effort) The US military in particular (as well as Congress i'm sure) was not keen on spending any American lives defending what they called "Colonialism" Sending planes and ships was one thing, but not ground troops.

US efforts would probably have resulted in a similar type ABDA situation while a varient of the old WPO was mulled over for a drive on Japan. Maybe even an attempt to reinforce the PI's

Who knows in the end....its here though that you have your only real possibility of Japan realistically acheiving a negotiated peace....without the "outrage" generated by the "dasterdly" sneak attack on PH.....the US public and Congress could potentially be soured by a costly "Asian war" that would appear to some to be mainly for the benefit of England and her Allies.

Now if Germany does what she did historically....throw all THAT out the window

Now it's truely a world war and a fight to the finish between the democracies and the dicatorships.

gotta love what ifs.....

What if i won Lotto....? ah....................

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 4/14/2006 4:18:36 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 6

RE: US Neutrality - 4/14/2006 5:32:30 PM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

First of all, see thread from a week ago about Allied surrender. I think we talked a lot about this topic.

Second, as to the question of should the allied player have to keep his forces neutral...I don't think the game should be played that way. It is designed for a mobilization schedule that reflects a PH style attack. I think even if there were a gentelmens agreement about US neutrality there would have to be a point at which the other powers are threatened that activates the US. Both players knowing this trigger, would make their movements and tactics gamey.

Third, NIK brings up a great point about PI. Even if the US were technically neutral from the outset, they would undoubtedly start to mobilize. That would include reinforcing US territory like Wake, Midway Guam and in particular PI - also probably a joint deal with OZ and NZ to build up islands in the South Pac. Imagine the US entering the war with 5-6 Fleet CVs, all her BBs, several US divisions and hundreds of bombers and fighters already in the PI. That would be the short route to Japan's defeat.

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 7

RE: US Neutrality - 4/14/2006 5:39:13 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Now whether the US would have acted is another matter....

There is no doubt that the US would have entered the war eventually..., the Japanese attacking the other powers in SE Asia would just have been another log on the fire. Of course there is also the question of how long the Japanese could stand aside and let the US build up in the Philippines and elsewhere. And how much could the US afford to let the Japanese gain towards cutting off Australia and New Zealand. It's certainly the most interesting of the "what if" possibilities..., and probably the hardest to model.

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 8

RE: US Neutrality - 4/14/2006 8:25:45 PM

509th Bob

Posts: 40
Joined: 12/1/2004
Status: offline

I agree. The US would have entered the war eventually. A reference was made above regarding the US destroyer sunk by a U-boat in the Atlantic. Why was it sunk? Because the United States had decided that it owned the Western half of the Atlantic, and undertook to escort convoys to/from England and the US. The US was actively seeking a provocation to overcome the isolationist Congress. In the Pacific, undoubtedly the US Navy would have undertaken similar large-scale convoy sorties - right through Japanese supply lanes moving to and from the DEI. Thus, unlike in Europe, the US would have countless opportunities to provoke a hostile Japanese action. But, it would not have changed the Europe First strategy that FDR had already agreed upon by that time. As to whether that strategy/what-if would have benefitted the US is difficult to say, although it would be unlikely. Like their pilots, the IJN fleet was highly trained and prepared to fight. The USN was not so well trained. Thus, had the WPO conflict occurred off Mindinao, like both sides essentially planned, the USN would likely have suffered horrifically. Thus, perversely, IMHO we were better off with PH happening.

_____________________________

"Casualties many. Percentage of dead not known. Combat efficiency - we are winning."
-- Col. David M. Shoup, Tarawa, Nov. 21, 1943

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 9

RE: US Neutrality - 4/15/2006 2:20:16 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 509th Bob
As to whether that strategy/what-if would have benefitted the US is difficult to say, although it would be unlikely. Like their pilots, the IJN fleet was highly trained and prepared to fight. The USN was not so well trained. Thus, had the WPO conflict occurred off Mindinao, like both sides essentially planned, the USN would likely have suffered horrifically. Thus, perversely, IMHO we were better off with PH happening.

Pearl Harbor WAS a "blessing" for the US in that it ended all controversy and pissed off all 140 million of our citizens. Made Roosevelt's job easier. There seems to be an almost universal conviction that the US Navy was automatically going to sail West to a total disaster based on some war plans from the 30's. I find this a lot more speculative as it depends on a "sea train" we hadn't built yet, and an "automatic rush by an undertrained force" to meet the Japanese. Eisenhower shot this down in a staff study in December of 1941 in real life...and it's hard to see with "Germany First" in operation things were going to be much different. Especially as MacArthur would have continued to recieve the equipment and reinforcements he claimed he needed to make the PI "unconquerable".

One also needs to remember that the loss of the P-O-W and Repulse would certainly have served as a warning about sailing BB's without air support into enemy waters. Which makes a "sacrificial lambs sortie" by the old US BB's that much less likely. It's one of the things I meant when I mentioned that this situation would be quite difficult to model.

(in reply to 509th Bob)

Post #: 10

RE: US Neutrality - 4/15/2006 12:11:32 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

quote:

Third, NIK brings up a great point about PI. Even if the US were technically neutral from the outset, they would undoubtedly start to mobilize. That would include reinforcing US territory like Wake, Midway Guam and in particular PI - also probably a joint deal with OZ and NZ to build up islands in the South Pac. Imagine the US entering the war with 5-6 Fleet CVs, all her BBs, several US divisions and hundreds of bombers and fighters already in the PI. That would be the short route to Japan's defeat.

Simply put the geographic position of the Philippines (astride the shipping lanes from the SRA to Japan) requires that they be either in Japanese possession or in the hands of a friendly government. Since neither condition prevailed in 1941, they had to be attacked in order to secure the trade route. Thus there was no way to avoid war with the USA and obtain free and secure access to the resources needed to continue to prosecute the war with China.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 11

RE: US Neutrality - 4/15/2006 8:14:52 PM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

Third, NIK brings up a great point about PI. Even if the US were technically neutral from the outset, they would undoubtedly start to mobilize. That would include reinforcing US territory like Wake, Midway Guam and in particular PI - also probably a joint deal with OZ and NZ to build up islands in the South Pac. Imagine the US entering the war with 5-6 Fleet CVs, all her BBs, several US divisions and hundreds of bombers and fighters already in the PI. That would be the short route to Japan's defeat.

I agree with your analysis. The US probably would not have issued an immediate declaration but would have waited until the PI had been significantly reinforced along with the establishment of a supply train that Mike mentioned.

With a strong PI sitting astride the Japanese supply lanes, we would have had our hands on Japan's throat the moment the first shot was fired in our direction. If Japan had allowed that to happen, it most definitely would have resulted in a major conundrum for Japan and a considerably shortened war.

Once Japan chose to go to war, she had to attack the PI. To do otherwise would have left her in a very bad position right from the start.

Chez

_____________________________

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 12

RE: US Neutrality - 4/15/2006 8:37:42 PM

KDonovan

Posts: 1157
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

If a player choses the "Singapore Option" Could the Japanese player insist on the US assets remain on a neutral footing until US territory was attacked?

I've always thought that would be an interesting start to the game. It would allow the americans some flexibility in the defense of PI after the outbreak of hostilities b/t japan and the british/dutch/aus. At the same time japan can strategically cut off PI from the south by taking base's in Bornea, Celebes and New Guiena, before they decide to declare war. There would a cool strategy on japans part on when to decide to attack PI, before the defense's become strong.

of course, since US would be "neutral" japan would have to let passage of ships to Guam and PI unfettered. So all naval attack missions would have to be stood down east of PI to allow for such missions. But such missions would be risky for the US as at any minute japan can "declare war" and those ships would be subject to attack.

(in reply to Drex)

Post #: 13

RE: US Neutrality - 4/15/2006 9:11:42 PM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

As Niceguy2005 mentioned above, the game is set for planes to attack all allied ships so this would have to be taken into effect. The US could deliberately "trip" the war footing by deliberately sailing a lone transport into harms way and letting it be sunk by Japanese air. So even if you surrounded the PI. all your planes woyuld have to be set to "search" . Also, as long as the US holds PI, they can interdict the precious supply line from DEI. Not a feasible condition in the long run. But perhaps there is a way.

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to KDonovan)

Post #: 14

RE: US Neutrality - 4/15/2006 9:27:55 PM

KDonovan

Posts: 1157
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

The US could deliberately "trip" the war footing by deliberately sailing a lone transport into harms way

well you would have to make a house rule against that.

quote:

So even if you surrounded the PI. all your planes would have to be set to "search"

not all of them. For instance, if you didn't want US in the war on Dec 7th...and lets say you wanted 2 weeks to run around the DEI/Mayala before you 'provoked' the US into war. All your planes west and south could be set to naval attack, as there isn't any US ships in those areas, and nor should there be. Of course this means that arrangements should be made for the CL marblehead TF, flush deck TF, and Boise TF as they are at sea when war would break out. Should be no problem, as even with naval attack on, those ships hardly ever get attacked on day 1...and by day 2 they can be long gone.

only the planes in Palua, Siapan, Truk, Marshalls would have to be set to search only...as US ships should have freedom to move through those area's unfettered

IMO i think its entirely possible to create game where you play "US neutrality" for a short period of time 2-4 weeks at the most, with the right house rules and restrictions on air groups at certain bases

(in reply to Drex)

Post #: 15

RE: US Neutrality - 4/15/2006 11:39:10 PM

YankeeAirRat

Posts: 633
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline

US neutrality wouldn't of lasted very long because the Imperial Government would of forced the issue soon enough with incidents at sea and in the air between the two powers. It had happened earlier when in 1937 some IJN bombers "accidently" bombed the USS Panay a river gun boat trying to pick up all westerners out of Nanking. Though the government apologized, it was found out after the war that some members of the Imperial government turned a blind eye to incidents caused by thier ambitious young officers. So even if the US wasn't struck in 1941 then they would of eventually been attacked in some way or some how with in the next few months. It might of been accidently rammings or errant artillery or some incident that would of lead to the lost of life and destruction of US property.

_____________________________

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an �International Incident�.

(in reply to KDonovan)

Post #: 16

RE: US Neutrality - 4/16/2006 6:49:43 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

"only the planes in Palua, Siapan, Truk, Marshalls would have to be set to search only...as US ships should have freedom to move through those area's unfettered"

You forget that aircraft on search will attempt to attack as well. The only the Japanese player could do would be to carefully adjust maximum range for each squadron as to prevent them from overflying any US shipping...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to YankeeAirRat)

Post #: 17

RE: US Neutrality - 4/16/2006 2:09:15 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Imagine the US entering the war with 5-6 Fleet CVs, all her BBs, several US divisions and hundreds of bombers and fighters already in the PI. That would be the short route to Japan's defeat.

Ah - maybe not. Maybe a short route to a much longer war - because we have no way to defend them. The key is air power - and we lacked air control - or much grasp of how to get it. It is hard to duplicate in a game the mentality of the period - but I think as Japan I would prefer ALL the US carriers in the PI on day one - make em easier to find and no worries about them coming long at embarassing moments a few months later. As for battleships - with them you bring battleship admirals - and so what you have is slow heavy cruisers with battleship admirals leading them. You can bring as many as you like. The only trick is to get them to leave port - since sunk in deep water they won't be coming back a year or two later as phib support ships.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 4/16/2006 2:11:03 PM >

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 18

RE: US Neutrality - 4/16/2006 2:15:36 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

It had happened earlier when in 1937 some IJN bombers "accidently" bombed the USS Panay a river gun boat trying to pick up all westerners out of Nanking.

Note, however, that it is merely the opinion of people - many of them civilians - on an oil tanker and a gunboat - the attack "must have been deliberate." All the pilots in question did not believe the ships were American, and they were quite surprised about the hubbub. There is not much room to wiggle on this: it is only an insistence "all Japanese must be lieing" that permits one to believe the attack was deliberate. At that time Japan did NOT want a war with the USA, was NOT in a good position to deal with one, and surely would NOT have started one in such a way. Japan - when it starts a war - always attacks without a warning - but it is a serious attack on the main fleet base of the enemy.

(in reply to YankeeAirRat)

Post #: 19

RE: US Neutrality - 4/16/2006 7:43:52 PM

Oznoyng

Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat

US neutrality wouldn't of lasted very long because the Imperial Government would of forced the issue soon enough with incidents at sea and in the air between the two powers. It had happened earlier when in 1937 some IJN bombers "accidently" bombed the USS Panay a river gun boat trying to pick up all westerners out of Nanking. Though the government apologized, it was found out after the war that some members of the Imperial government turned a blind eye to incidents caused by thier ambitious young officers. So even if the US wasn't struck in 1941 then they would of eventually been attacked in some way or some how with in the next few months. It might of been accidently rammings or errant artillery or some incident that would of lead to the lost of life and destruction of US property.

The result of such an engagement would not automatically be US entry into the war. As others have pointed out, the US suffered losses in war zones before Dec 7, and the losses did not result in war. The location and magnitude of the event would definately effect the result. Americans, contrary to world opinion, can read a map. An suprise attack on PH is very different than an attack on a task force carrying a shipment of supplies to a war zone around Java and Malaya.

PH made FDR's stand for war unasailable. Congressmen are political animals, and they could not oppose war and remain in office in the wake of PH. However, you take away an attack on American soil and the political calculus changes - not just for a declaration of war, but for all kinds of events related to war. Let's face it, some congressmen with doubts about the war would oppose it without WW2. Some congressmen with more interest in poilitical gain would use it for political gain. That adds up to no cakewalk for FDR. In the absence of PH, I seriously doubt the American public would have put up with rationing, drafts, debt, and other domestic realities of WW2. Certainly that would have had an effect upon the quantity of men and material available to prosecute the war - and it would have been very significant. When little Johnny get's drafted off Ma and Pa Smith's farm and sent to die in a place Ma and Pa can't pronounce, they want to know why. PH was all the answer Ma and Pa needed. Without it? When Pa can't fill up his tractor because of rationing, he's going to want to know why. When prices rise and Ma and Pa can't buy a new radio, they want to know why. The list goes on.

I have no doubt something could have been manufactured. I also expect that we would have entered the war in 95% of potential scenarios. However, I think that the America that entered such a war would be vastly different than the one that entered WW2.

_____________________________

"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

(in reply to YankeeAirRat)

Post #: 20

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> US Neutrality

Page: [1]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

3.906

Slitherine

US Neutrality