Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rankorian

Since there are a lot, I see, experts in this forum:

1. If Japan had sunk all the US CVs at Pearl Harbor, would they have won the war? Was the Japanese plan fundamentally flawed, or any simulation which does not take into account American resolve? (My vote, the plan was flawed.)

2. Same with Midway. Reversed result. Japanese win war?

3. This, to me, is a more unknown issue: If Japan had only, as far as US territory, attacked the Phillipines/Guam, and had not Germany foolishly declared war soon after, is it possible that American public opinion might have led to something other than total war/victory?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hokum

Militarily, Japan alone had no chance. But then again, public opinions change really fast, a string of defeat in Normandy and in the Mariannes and who knows what the US public would have thought?

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

A determined U-boat blockade could have strangled British industry in 40-41 and completely negated its ability to wage war, a negotiated peace favourable to Germany would have been the inevitable outcome no matter what Churchill thought.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
Problem with this arguement is that it would have required a decision in 1936 to forgo an expanded and prestigeous surface navy in favor of total concentration on U-Boats..., and Hitler wanted the prestige for political ends. With both the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht in expansion modes, there was no "extra" to be diverted to U-Boats..., something would have to be sacrificed.
Same reasoning also led the British, French, Italians, and even the Russians to building Battleships in the late 1930's.

It's a nice piece of hindsight, but not a realistic one. And the same reasoning could lead to the British building a hundred long ranged escorts instead of the KGV's. You can always come up with reasons why something else would have been a better choice..., but nations have to fight wars with what they have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bristolduke

I hadn't really commented upon the Russian campaign, but one option here was not to alienate the western Russia provinces. The Ukrane in particular would have run to help the Germans defeat the communists. Hitler was just too blind to see the advantage here, which was odd given his acknowledgement that he needed the Finns and Rumanians. So I am probably of the opinion that a settled peace was possible if Moscow is taken. Particularly if one believes that Stalin could have been overthrown (not sure of that because of the absolute control he exerted even at the province level). But liberated provinces could have been used.

With respect to Britan, the appointment of Churchill really hurt peace initiatives because of his bulldog mentality. Hitler wanted the British to help fight the communists. Many in Britan were supportive. There was never a great love with the French and England knew the Versalles Treaty was too harsh on Germany (also the British and German royal families were relatives). Hitler paused at Dunkirk to allow the British troops to escape (it was the last time Hitler tried to court the British - the problem was the British officials advising Hitler didn't have enough power on their own.). Also, there were German officials send peace feelers to England to avoid a repeat of the French imposed conditions prior to the Polish invasion.

Churchill was not a popular political candidate and there could have been pressure from the party to replace him in a blockade scenario. It was a coalition Government after all, but any negotiated peace between Britian and Germany would have to occur after the repacement of Churchill.

quote:

The same isolationists on Dec 6th were "all-in" a day later, when 3000 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor

quote:

Interesting viewpoint.

Churchill was the warmonger and Hitler was just looking for peace. Based on history I'm sure Hitler could have been trusted with any agreement/treaty he signed with Britain.

quote:

Problem with this arguement is that it would have required a decision in 1936 to forgo an expanded and prestigeous surface navy in favor of total concentration on U-Boats..., and Hitler wanted the prestige for political ends. With both the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht in expansion modes, there was no "extra" to be diverted to U-Boats..., something would have to be sacrificed

quote:

I hadn't really commented upon the Russian campaign, but one option here was not to alienate the western Russia provinces. The Ukrane in particular would have run to help the Germans defeat the communists. Hitler was just too blind to see the advantage here, which was odd given his acknowledgement that he needed the Finns and Rumanians

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

What I often wonder is, would Japan have attacked the United States at all, had there been no raw material and oil embargo imposed against her because of Japan's aggression in China, and would the United States ever go to war if Japan had limited her aggression to just China? The United States certainly cared about China enough to bring tough political and economic pressure to bear on Japan, almost guaranteeing war would be a result. From what I've read the Americans were completely unwilling to compromise on the China issue, which was for complete Japanese withdrawal, something Japan was at first unwilling to do, (they had to save face, a concept the West was completely oblivious to) but later considered and proposed prior to the breakdown of communications between the two countries to avoid war. By then though, Hull and company flatly refused to even consider it. Faced with economic strangulation by the United States, was it any wonder Japan decided to roll the dice and risk everything on war, better to die with their boots on than a slow economic death. Japan's leaders felt there was no better time to strike, while every delay made them weaker to the point of not being able to fight eventually at all in the years to come.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Great discussion.

What I often wonder is, would Japan have attacked the United States at all, had there been no raw material and oil embargo imposed against her because of Japan's aggression in China, and would the United States ever go to war if Japan had limited her aggression to just China? The United States certainly cared about China enough to bring tough political and economic pressure to bear on Japan, almost guaranteeing war would be a result. From what I've read the Americans were completely unwilling to compromise on the China issue, which was for complete Japanese withdrawal, something Japan was at first unwilling to do, (they had to save face, a concept the West was completely oblivious to) but later considered and proposed prior to the breakdown of communications between the two countries to avoid war. By then though, Hull and company flatly refused to even consider it. Faced with economic strangulation by the United States, was it any wonder Japan decided to roll the dice and risk everything on war, better to die with their boots on than a slow economic death. Japan's leaders felt there was no better time to strike, while every delay made them weaker to the point of not being able to fight eventually at all in the years to come. It's a parallel with modern times, if the United State's energy needs were threatened or actually cut off, would she not possibly go to war to guarantee access?

Another thing I find facinating, is how Germany and Japan were viewed during the war, yet the Western Democracies allied themselves with arguably just as nasty a nation in the Soviet Union. And after the war, the Soviet Union was in fact almost as repressive to many "liberated" countries as the enemy had ever been. Stalin killed as many, if not more of his own people, than what the Germans had done. I am in no way condoning what Germany did, just stating they weren't the only bad apple in the barrel. As they say, the victors write the history books.

Just some thoughts.