Surrender? (Full Version)

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



Message

niceguy2005 -> Surrender? (4/8/2006 10:19:46 PM)

I've never seen a thread on allied surrender. Im wondering at what point, if ever, do you think the allies might realistically surrender or negotiate peace? Not that this is an issue in my games the allies will soon be in Tokyo. [;)]



Mike Solli -> RE: Surrender? (4/8/2006 10:22:11 PM)

When they play me.[:D]

















(I wish.)



mogami -> RE: Surrender? (4/8/2006 10:22:50 PM)

Hi, when I run them



Mike Solli -> RE: Surrender? (4/8/2006 10:27:39 PM)

[:D]



Black Mamba 1942 -> RE: Surrender? (4/9/2006 1:50:30 AM)

Never surrender![;)]

Just quit playing![:D]



mogami -> RE: Surrender? (4/9/2006 1:57:38 AM)

Hi, I think I surrender nicely. something like

"well I think you'll get your autovictory but I'll let you continue to pound on me if you want for another 100 turns"

or

"Help me I've fallen and I can't get up"

or

"OK OK Uncle Uncle No mas No Mas Whah Whah you &^%^&* enough already"

(I won't mention any names but their intials are Oleg, Bosun and Oznoyog and Brady and Tom H and well the list goes on.)



niceguy2005 -> RE: Surrender? (4/9/2006 3:57:07 PM)

Funny guys, but I was thinking more along the lines of what gains would a Japanese player really need to force a favorably negotiated peace for Japan. I think obviously the US would have to be hurt bad. maybe if Japan sunk the US fleet and controlled PH. The US would have seen invasion as immenent.



Terminus -> RE: Surrender? (4/9/2006 4:20:03 PM)

I shudder to think what sort of defeat the US would have had to suffer at the hands of Japan before she'd surrender.



Black Mamba 1942 -> RE: Surrender? (4/9/2006 4:24:14 PM)

The US armed forces would surrender if the Japanese were in Washington DC dictating policy.
The civilians would never surrender.[;)]



rogueusmc -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 6:11:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

The US armed forces would surrender if the Japanese were in Washington DC dictating policy.
The civilians would never surrender.[;)]
[sm=00000436.gif]



niceguy2005 -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 7:22:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

The US armed forces would surrender if the Japanese were in Washington DC dictating policy.
The civilians would never surrender.[;)]

Would that change if Japan had attacked SIngapore on the first day instead of PH? You would almost have to think it would.



TSCofield -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 8:20:00 AM)

I think it is a misnomer to think that the Japanese every really planned on the US to surrender.

The goal of course for the Japanese was to make the situation so untenable for the Allies that they would have no choice but to accept peace terms that were favorable for the Empire of Japan.

The US had an idea of total surrender of the Japanese people, where nothing less wouldn't be considered. I don't think the Japanese ever seriously thought that this was possible with a country the size of the US.



rockmedic109 -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 8:43:34 AM)

Never would have happened. What were they going to do? Occupy Washington? If they did {which was an impossibility}, the government would move to New York....and so on.

The Japanese plan was to take everything they wanted and then offer peace. That they thought the U.S. would accept that is a staggering example of colossal stupidity. They only thing dumber was Hitler declaring war on the U.S. {followed closely by his invading Russia}.



dtravel -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 11:34:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

Never would have happened. What were they going to do? Occupy Washington? If they did {which was an impossibility}, the government would move to New York....and so on.

The Japanese plan was to take everything they wanted and then offer peace. That they thought the U.S. would accept that is a staggering example of colossal stupidity. They only thing dumber was Hitler declaring war on the U.S. {followed closely by his invading Russia}.


The Japanese plan was based on the assumption that the US was "brittle" about casualties. That as a country and as a people we were unable and unwilling to pay the blood price necessary to retake the lost territory and carry the fight on to originally Japanese territory.

Amazing how history repeats itself.



rockmedic109 -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 12:13:48 PM)

Colossal Stupidity.

Many people have stated that we never understood the Japanese. Their war aims show that they never understood us.

And yes, history repeats itself.



Terminus -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 12:15:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

Colossal Stupidity.

Many people have stated that we never understood the Japanese. Their war aims show that they never understood us.

And yes, history repeats itself.


Well, a few Japanese understood the US, Yamamoto being the prime example.



Arkady -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 3:17:49 PM)

Well, in case of better media coverage...and propaganda, Japanase should achieve their goal to cease fire and propose peace treaty...

Vietnamese was able to do it, they was beaten hard but finally achieved their goals [8D]



Feinder -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 3:37:47 PM)

Given the magnatude of the surprise attack at PH (or one of similar size at Manilla), I don't think the US would have ever surrendered or have even entered into a negotiated peace. There was never any reason to. The West Coast was never threatened, and was never going to be, and we knew it. Even if we lost Pearl (bah), it doesn't threaten the actual continental US, would could still have utterly clobbered them.

Canada. Again, no point in caving, ever. They're not under any threat, and if they were, they know USA would have something to say about it if somehow Japan managed to convince space aliens to help transport the needed troops for an invasion.

Best scenario for Japan, would have been able to capitalize on a "more fotunate" Germany in Europe. That requires a much more isolationist USA, with less help to Britian.

Britian. I don't want to sell short our friends across the pond, so I'll put as a cavate that I'm not qualified to anwer, but since few others (if any) are actually qualified to answer here also, I'll join the fun. Most of us will cede that things could have gone badly for Britian in Europe. I don't think Germany could have ever invaded Britian, but I think under very specific circumstances (more isloationist USA), Britian could have been strangled into a negotiated peace. That being the most important domino, if Britian is incapacitated in Europe, then Japan would likely have been able to negotiate a similar situation after capturing Malaya and other British possessions. I'd say if
a. USA is isolationist, and not aiding Britian to the extent they did historically,
b. Japan doesn't mess with USA, they don't need to. An isolationist USA means not only less aid to Britian, but less controversy over China (no aid to China, and NO EMBARGO).
could have lead to...
c. Continental Europe has fallen, Germany is strangling Britian with u-boats
d. Bad news in North Africa, Suez under threat or fallen, more bad news
e. Japan rolls Malaya, Burma, mounts credible threat against India.

Then I can see a "negotiated peace" for Britian.

But, given the historical events of Europe, there is never any reason for any of the major Allied powers to surrender or "negotiated peace" with Japan.



niceguy2005 -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 6:18:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

Never would have happened. What were they going to do? Occupy Washington? If they did {which was an impossibility}, the government would move to New York....and so on.

The Japanese plan was to take everything they wanted and then offer peace. That they thought the U.S. would accept that is a staggering example of colossal stupidity. They only thing dumber was Hitler declaring war on the U.S. {followed closely by his invading Russia}.

OK OK Clearly I'm not stating my question correctly. By surrender, I don't mean unconditional capitulation. I mean anywhere from total surrender (which never would have happened) to a negotiated cease fire. In other words, is there any situation in which the US, Japans primary opponent in the Pacific, would have agreed to cease hosilities.



niceguy2005 -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 6:36:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Given the magnatude of the surprise attack at PH (or one of similar size at Manilla), I don't think the US would have ever surrendered or have even entered into a negotiated peace. There was never any reason to. The West Coast was never threatened, and was never going to be, and we knew it. Even if we lost Pearl (bah), it doesn't threaten the actual continental US, would could still have utterly clobbered them.


Very well stated argument Feinder. But as you suggested, what if Japan had avoided the US altogether? Had Japan attacked any of our allies in the pacific I could see the US getting involved on a limited basis, as in WWI, but how dedicated would the country have been at that point. The US was still suffering from a very bad economic depression. Wars cost a lot of money. If Japan hadn't bloodied the nose of the US so bad at PH would there have been the determination? I think so, because I think FDR would have found a way to get the US involved on a full scale basis, but I suggest the the devastation at PH sealed Japans fate, just as Germany attacking Russia sealed Germanys fate.

This is why in WitP I think the way the game is designed ONLY makes sense with a first turn attack on PH. A first turn attack on Singapore would lead to immediate US mobilization.



Feinder -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 7:24:30 PM)

I think it also hinges on the isolationism factor. Without a greater sense of isolationism, given the historical playing field on Dec 6, 1941, if Japan had bombed Sing on Dec 7, the US would have come to the aid of Britian, and you'd see slightly different, but same end, to WW2.

But with an isolationist USA, one that isn't aiding Britian that much to begin with (and/or not saber-rattling over China), I could see the colonies of a tired Britian getting worked over by an opportunistic Japan.

-F-



niceguy2005 -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 9:01:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

But with an isolationist USA, one that isn't aiding Britian that much to begin with (and/or not saber-rattling over China), I could see the colonies of a tired Britian getting worked over by an opportunistic Japan.

-F-

How could the USA be furhter isolated from Britian with FDR in office? I'm also not sure that I see, with the UK already hard pressed by Germany and Italy, that Japan's attack on distant Brittish colonies would have made a difference in terms of activating US involvement. Perhaps an attack on India itself might activate the US.



mlees -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 9:37:12 PM)

So. What would have been Japan's best course?

How should Japan have been able to obtain the resources (Oil, tin, rubber) without giving up China?

War with the UK/DEI only? (And wait for a US DoW?)

What conceivable set of war plans should Japan have used that allowed them to keep their conquests?



Feinder -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 9:38:44 PM)

So USA ignores a Japanese attack on Britian, say at Sing?

If we say purely historical situation is what it is on 12-06-41, you still have

a. Britian has survived The Blitz. But things are acutely uncomfortable at home.
b. Battles rage around Tobruk between British and Italian/German forces.
c. German attack vs. USSR has bogged down in winter.
d. Brtian has signed a separate agreement with USSR of "no separate peace" with Germany, so while Britian can't aid Soviets (who aren't doin that well either), neither are either of them actually alone vs. Germany.
e. USA is sending material to Britian thru convoys and lend-lease. USA program for aid to USSR is getting started.
f. Japan has occupied Vichy SEAsia. and is deeply embroiled in a was vs. China.
g. USA is supporting China.
h. USA has embargo vs. Japan and others.
i. USA is already sharing convoy escort duty with Britian.
j. USA and Britian are already planning coopeation in the event of war (example, Atlantic Confrence).

USA is -not- happy with Japan on 12-06-41. USA is already very much in bed with Britian. So yes, with a purely historical timeline up until 12-06-41, I think an unproked (or even formally declared) war on Britian by Japan, would trigger USA to jump in.

In order to keep USA neurtral, you need more isolationism, at that means before Lend-Lease agreements and certainly before embargo against Japan.

-F-



niceguy2005 -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 9:42:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

So. What would have been Japan's best course?

How should Japan have been able to obtain the resources (Oil, tin, rubber) without giving up China?

War with the UK/DEI only? (And wait for a US DoW?)

What conceivable set of war plans should Japan have used that allowed them to keep their conquests?

I'm not sure there was a winning strategy for Japan other than pull back from China. Feinder makes a convincing argument that IF the US could be further isolated, they might be willing to sit by or only get involved on a limited basis. Attacking PH was a bad idea because A: Japan made it personal, B: the US felt its us or them. Japan had to keep the conflict on a political, diplomatic, low grade war level. Never upping the ante enough to convince the US that it was important enough to go to war over...hard to do with FDR in office.



niceguy2005 -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 9:52:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

So USA ignores a Japanese attack on Britian, say at Sing?

If we say purely historical situation is what it is on 12-06-41, you still have

a. Britian has survived The Blitz. But things are acutely uncomfortable at home.
b. Battles rage around Tobruk between British and Italian/German forces.
c. German attack vs. USSR has bogged down in winter.
d. Brtian has signed a separate agreement with USSR of "no separate peace" with Germany, so while Britian can't aid Soviets (who aren't doin that well either), neither are either of them actually alone vs. Germany.
e. USA is sending material to Britian thru convoys and lend-lease. USA program for aid to USSR is getting started.
f. Japan has occupied Vichy SEAsia. and is deeply embroiled in a was vs. China.
g. USA is supporting China.
h. USA has embargo vs. Japan and others.
i. USA is already sharing convoy escort duty with Britian.
j. USA and Britian are already planning coopeation in the event of war (example, Atlantic Confrence).

USA is -not- happy with Japan on 12-06-41. USA is already very much in bed with Britian. So yes, with a purely historical timeline up until 12-06-41, I think an unproked (or even formally declared) war on Britian by Japan, would trigger USA to jump in.

In order to keep USA neurtral, you need more isolationism, at that means before Lend-Lease agreements and certainly before embargo against Japan.

-F-

Feinder, I don't really disagree with your analysis. However, I don't think US involvment is a given. Look at the other indicators. Congress is still hessitant about getting involved. Small, but vocal peace movement at home in the states. Congress is not entirely happy about the lend-lease program (partly a partisan issue). Depression means country not really interested in the costs of war. The US is already tolerating a war of agression in europe with known autrocities on the side of the Axis. Limited war by the Japanese on the UK may not be enough to push the US to action...at least not in any sort of timely manner. The US was unhappy about the Japanese, Chinese war, but I'm not certain that we would have gone to war with Japan over it. I could easily see the US debating war for another 6 months if it doesnt feel directly threatened.

However, an attack by Japan on any US territory or military unit would, given what you said before mean instant DoW on Japan. That's why PH was a blunder on the part of the Japanese.



Nicholas Bell -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 9:52:43 PM)

I wrote this on Consimworld regarding the boardgame War in the Pacific, but it (my opinion) applies here too.

More to your question, I believe that the historical record shows that Americans become more and more sensitive to casualties & other "sacrifices" the longer the duration of the conflict. War weariness in the Revolution and War of 1812 were quite evident, and it was "fortunate" that events allowed them to be concluded when they did. Casualties during the Civil War certainly played heavily on support of the conflict for both sides. Lincoln was certainly worried in 1864. the US involvement in WW1 was fortunately too brief to put the public to the test, but our casualties/battle day were horrific - as if we were trying to "catch-up" in losses with the other combatants. No need to comment on Korea, Vietnam and other more recent conflicts - they "fit" too well to use them for this purpose, and are after the fact anyway.

No doubt you recall the ditti "Golden Gate in '48" supposed coined based on the estimated return to San Fransisco based on the rate of advance toward Japan up the Solomon's. One has to wonder if we actually would have had the stamina to "see it through" until 1948. In late 1944 and 1945 the _increasing_ casualty rates caused by fanatical Japanese defenses certainly caused alarm in the US. I also believe there was a great deal of war weariness and desire to "get it over", but some of this perhaps was caused by the "the light at the end of the tunnel" effect. And of course the estimated casualties expected in the invasion of Japan certainly had some impact on thed decision to use the atom bombs. All this despite the fact the people of the US sacrificed MUCH less than other major combatants in terms of blood spent or standard of living (the US standard of living during the war was still better than many Western nations at peace).

Essentially, I think we Americans are much less resilient than we like to believe. The post WW2 record clearly supports this, but as I mentioned, pre-WW2 conflicts also demonstrate the American unwillingness to put up with long wars and great casualties - *in comparision to other countries*

Therefore, I think it is at least a possibility that had Japan been able to drag the war out while inflicting heavy casualties that the US may have "settled" for something less "unconditional surrender" and occupation. After all, Dugout Doug didn't really make Japan surrender unconditionally, did he? (how he got that power I don't know!)

Is was unlikely given Japanese strategy, tactics, weapons and industrial output though. Although the SSBS and Overy make it clear that Japan clearly could have increased their industrial output with a more rational approach; and while Japan could have introduced convoys and escorts to reduce shipping losses, and increased pilot training programs, eliminated interservice conflict, etc etc to increase their capacity to fight the US, introducing these factors into a simulation of the conflict might be interesting, but they would make the Japanese decidely UN-Japanese in nature.

To me, playing a game like WitP is more about seeing how it happened more than who will win. Sure the Japanese player(s) will avoid all the mistakes made in the conflict, but so will the Allied player. I estimate the end result of any games actually played through will be higher casualties for both sides at a faster rate, with the war ending sooner. But that's just my opinion, as is everything said above.



Sneer -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 10:06:49 PM)

there is nothing like winning or loosing war when playing as Japan as there is no way to win a war- i don's care about abstract AV issue-
i consider winning game by being in control of pace of enemy forces and successes as well as doing better than historical in expansion period. if i manage to put allies off balance - to delay important offensives and to inflict losses bigger than historical - i consider in control of events - this is "winning" condition in my game - if i can provide it i loose , if i can't provide it any more i should consider surrender as a player



niceguy2005 -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 10:12:00 PM)

Hi Nicholas, welcome to the forum and thanks for the post.

I would agree that casualty levels play a huge part in any nations decisions about how long to pursue a conflict and I think in that idea is an answer as to how Japan could have worked the war more to its advantage.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

Essentially, I think we Americans are much less resilient than we like to believe. The post WW2 record clearly supports this, but as I mentioned, pre-WW2 conflicts also demonstrate the American unwillingness to put up with long wars and great casualties - *in comparision to other countries*

I would have to disagree with this statement. I think Americans have been consistantly under-rated in their ability to make sacrifices...something I have never really understood. Maybe it is our apparent pre-occupation with comfort that gives a false impression.

I would argue that no era of US history really supports the statement that the nation lacks resillency. Certainly Vietnam does not. The fact that the US finally witdrew from the Vietnam conflict in no way shows a lack of resillency. I would say that we stuck with a marginally important conflict (in terms of US interest) far longer than most would have any right to expect. I would certainly not point to the Korean conflict either.

I would say the way to neutralize the US is dont threaten them militarily or economically. Keep any conflict with them low and punctuate it with severe casualties in a seemingly unimportant conflict...see Lebanon circa 1982.

The mistake Al Queda made was attacking the US on its own territory...its PH all over again.





Feinder -> RE: Surrender? (4/10/2006 10:12:44 PM)

quote:

How could the USA be furhter isolated from Britian with FDR in office?


I just think FDR pushed towards defending Britian from the outset (thru Lend-Lease and embargo), esp after re-election in 1940.

[we're getting into some politcal ground here, that I'll quickly admit that I know little about]

I think FDR is key here. With FDR staying in office, we continue to push Lend-Lease, which leads to embargo.

I'm trying to Google Lend Lease, I still can't find the vote margin (would give an idea of degree of isolationism). Can't find it yet. Beuller... Beuller...

Also looking up that "Willkie" fella, ran against FDR in 1940. Election was a clear FDR victory, but "what if this guy had won..?" Dunno, never heard of him, more Google, seems to dislike New Deal, but endorses Lend Lease etc after losing election...

(* shrug *)

-F-



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.6875