Slitherine

quote:

Q-ball may be correct in that any approach at PI would have brought the Americans into the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk
Agreed. Morale amongst even the toughest Marine units, and also on Naval ships faced with yet another Kamikaze attack in '45, was definitely starting to crack. Some men broke down in uncontrollable weeping, others just threw themselves overboard - they had reached the end of their line. Ugaki who commanded the Kamikaze units in '45 hoped this might well happen, but the US military rather wisely covered this up at the time and prevented information that morale was getting close to the cracking point from ever getting out, even to the US press.

Must be nice making pronunciamento from a soft, comfy, easy-chair. You have obviously never talked to a Marine.

When troops are interviewed, they tend to tell the truth; and for combat veterans, truth is they feel fear, rage, fear, frustration, and fear. Likely Sargon's troops felt the same way. But to conclude that this implies the Marine's morale was cracking indicates that you should perhaps learn a bit more about combat/conflict dynamics. Being afraid is good, in certain circumstances.

In any nominal combat unit, there are 3 classes of individuals:

5% are hysterical ostriches - they jump overboard, hide, run about shouting - basically interfering with useful activity, frightening and irritating everybody else, and generally making a nuisance of themselves.

5% are hard, cold, and wicked - they have sublimated their fear and turned the emotional energy into focus and purpose.

90% are trained, know what to do, and do ok, but need a kick in the pants to do better (need to be led and directed). Normally, it's the Hard 5% that are the leaders (officially and unofficially), so the 90% will do what is necessary, and what they were trained to do under that prompting. It's a psychological trust thing.

Sometimes, you may get a ship/unit where the Hysterics outnumber the Hard, and swamp the leadership principal. A real witch for the poor 90% pukes; but because it was unusual, it got reported; NOT because it was normal. For Marines, I would guess 2% Hysterics and 8% Hard.

So please don't do contemporary psychobabble when speaking about morale in the mid 1940s. It is both much simpler and more complex than you can imagine.

quote:

Must be nice making pronunciamento from a soft, comfy, easy-chair. You have obviously never talked to a Marine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

There were valid grounds, in both international law and in response to third party pressure, for him to do so.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grit

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

There were valid grounds, in both international law and in response to third party pressure, for him to do so.

Alfred

I agree with much or your statement. But I just had to laugh a little at this. Hitler was well known for following International Law and bowing down to Third Party Pressure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grit

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

There were valid grounds, in both international law and in response to third party pressure, for him to do so.

Alfred

(f) Compliance with the Geneva Conventions with respect to the Western Allies

Warspite1

Thats a joke right?

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Alfred)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grit

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

There were valid grounds, in both international law and in response to third party pressure, for him to do so.

Alfred

(f) Compliance with the Geneva Conventions with respect to the Western Allies

Warspite1

Thats a joke right?

No.

Care to nominate any systematic German contravention of the Geneva Conventions in how they were applied, or not applied as you seem to suggest, to the Western Allies?

Alfred

(in reply to warspite1)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grit

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

There were valid grounds, in both international law and in response to third party pressure, for him to do so.

Alfred

(f) Compliance with the Geneva Conventions with respect to the Western Allies

Warspite1

Thats a joke right?

No.

Care to nominate any systematic German contravention of the Geneva Conventions in how they were applied, or not applied as you seem to suggest, to the Western Allies?

Alfred

Here is an example and you can find many more.

Research of WWII B-24 POW's

_____________________________

(in reply to Alfred)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grit

"Another intercepted diplomatic message from the Japanese Ambassador in Berlin states (D-657):


"At 1 p.m. today [8 December 1941] I called on Foreign Minister Ribbentrop and told him our wish was to have Germany and Italy issue formal declarations of war on America at once. Ribbentrop replied that Hitler was then in the midst of a conference at general headquarters discussing how the formalities of declaring war could be carried out so as to make a good impression on the German people, and that he would transmit your wish to him at once and do whatever he was able to have it carried out promptly. At that time Ribbentrop told me that on the morning of the 8th Hitler issued orders to the entire German Navy to attack American ships whenever and wherever they might meet them.
"It goes without saying that this is only for your secret information.'' (D-657)

Thus, Hitler ordered attacks on American ships before the German declaration of war.

Then on 11 December 1941 Ribbentrop, in the name of the German Government, announced a state of war between Germany and United States."

I'm not an expert on International Law but wouldn't this be a violation?

I'm sure Hitler followed International Law when it was convenient to do so for his long term goals.

I know it's difficult to make a good arguement for anything Hitler did. But I do applaud your effort.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Subs, the US and "international law" are not a good mix if trying to debate from the high ground.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Subs, the US and "international law" are not a good mix if trying to debate from the high ground.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Subs, the US and "international law" are not a good mix if trying to debate from the high ground.

You should never use words of more than three sylables, or mention topics that require a certain degree of intellect for understanding, when engaging wargamers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

you sound like SLA Marshall.

quote:

You should never use words of more than three sylables, or mention topics that require a certain degree of intellect for understanding, when engaging wargamers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


Sometimes I am a bit dense and don't quite understand what is posted by others.

If your last post was meant to suggest that I am adopting the high ground to excuse or justify the German U-Boat actions, then clearly I have not been exact enough in my posts. But if you are suggesting that the US had the high ground, which I don't think you really are, then that would not be correct either.

Neither the Germans nor the Americans held the high ground during the undeclared shooting war before Pearl Harbor. My point was that it was precisely because they were not operating from the high ground that the Kriegsmarine was so keen to get Hitler to declare war, and why when presented with the opportunity to comply with his treaty obligations, Hitler saw an opportunity to climb out of the murky depths (yes pun intended).

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

You should never use words of more than three sylables, or mention topics that require a certain degree of intellect for understanding, when engaging wargamers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


He's doomed by his name: Nik-a-de-mus

4 Syllables!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rankorian

1.  I respect the opinions here, but am a tad concerned that the US and even Roosevelt of 1941 is being viewed too much through post D-Day eyes.  Political winds can change quickly, and still suspect (perhaps erroneously) that there could have been some sequence of events in 1941-42, even accidents (US carrier explodes while under construction, where it is clearly the fault of some private company, with much loss of life, and a congressional investigation into corrupt business practices which distracts the Congress and the country), that could have lead to something less than full US war mobilization, despite Japan gaining access to DEI oil.  Again, this would presume someones very shrewd in the Japanese high command.

2. Changing the victory conditions so that the Allies lose if they take a certain absolute amount of troop/plane/ship point losses seems both historical to me, and would make the game more interesting in late years.  I am not sure relative losses affected American thinking.  The "we lost x soldiers this week, but the other side lost 5x, so we are winning" did not work well in Vietnam, and I doubt most Americans cared if the US owned Guam. 

3. Consider Japan waiting until it is right up against the resource wall before attacking--say, November 1942.  What result in Europe and the Pacific?   Russia gets all of Germany, because D-day is delayed?  Would the US/British/Dutch been unbeatable a year later, or further weakened--drawn towards Europe?

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

Agreed, but I've said all along there was little mood both amongst Congress and also the American public (thanks largely to isolationist pressure groups like 'America First' which Roosevelt found to be a right 'pain in the butt') for America entering a Pacific War largely to prop up ailing European Colonial interests in S E Asia. OK perhaps there could hve been limited US intervention, or a similar situation to the Atlantic (with Roosevelt commiting sea assets to run supply convoys to beleagured Dutch and British possessions) but a large scale commitment of troops and air assets? I think not.
Even if the IJ had attacked the PI only, again I feel that there wouldn't have been the level of commitment from the US both politically and socially. OK so the PI had been US-controlled since the last century (when I think they wrested it from the Spanish, although somebody feel free to correct me) but it was still never regarded as being US soil and US citizens. Congress and the War Office might have been furious, and tried their utmost to implement Orange to try and maintain control of it or wrestle it back (eventually) but a full scale effort right across the board in all areas? Again I think not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

True, I've never said that a US war intervention wouldnt have been inevitable at some point rather tahn just sticking at Lend-Lease. However it was the attack on PH which gave Congress and the public the impetus and determination to wage all-out total war with 'unconditional surrender' (at least of Japan) rather than a more limited intervention which would probably have happened had the IJ forces confined themselves to attacks in CBI and also the DEI.
Risking US lives purely to prop up UK and Dutch colonial interests in S.E. Asia? Not for long I don't think!

If the PI had been attacked as well, because of more US interests in those islands I honestly don't know how far the US would have responded (and with what aims/goals) but I doubt it would have been all-out unconditional surrender-type as was earnestly waged after PH

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

No, it was the decision and commitment by the IJN to hit PH and the installations on Hawaii that galvanised the US Congress and public opinion like no other & insured US commitment in full and 'to the bitter end'. And there were three main reasons for this :

(3). (And perhaps most tellingly of all) the IJ had never declared war in advance. Although Nakamura had tried to deliver the 14-part declaration in Washington (to Stimpson I think) to coincide to the second with the first planes going in, and US intelligence and code-breakers were well ahead of his translation of it in some areas), thanks to the lack of a skilled typist and other factors he actually delivered it some 40 minutes after the attack had begun. This fact seems to have been largely consigned to history, and was glossed over from the US public at large.