Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message

Rankorian -> Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/5/2010 5:44:54 AM)

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?



Capt -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/5/2010 6:30:00 AM)

Japan could not have won the war. Not a chance. Even if they had sunk all the US carriers at Midway, had those carriers escaped at PH.

Japan lacked population, resources, industrial strength, research facilities and the A bomb.

The loss of an additional 6 or 8 carriers would have just further irated the American public. removing the prospect of a a magnanimous peace governed by Proconsul MacArthur.





LoBaron -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/5/2010 8:04:52 AM)

Capt is right.

Just to show wiki is not always crap when looking for data:

The GDP (Gross domestic product output) over the years:

Country 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945

Japan 169 184 192 196 197 194 189 144
USA 800 869 943 1094 1235 1399 1499 1474

quoted there from the "The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison", Cambridge University Press (1998).

At this size its a numbers game. Neither Germany nor Japan would have stood a chance. Reverse Midway, Stalingrad, the Battle of Britain
or any other battle of your liking and change VJ day date a couple of months or 1-2 years maximum.

There is just too much industrial output delta...



Q-Ball -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/5/2010 2:32:23 PM)

I think Germany had an outside chance, provided the US didn't enter the war. And that would have presumed that Hitler would know when to make peace, which probably wasn't happening. Once the US was in it, though, Germany was toast. It is interesting to debate what-ifs around Germany.

Japan, any way you slice it, was going to lose, period. Starting the war was national suicide.

The Allies had it right with the Europe-First strategy.



Lifer -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/5/2010 4:53:24 PM)

Sounds like the possibility of a PBEM with an AAR.  Need to coax an aggressive IJN player with a pretty savvy US with a HR to either remove the US CVs to the East coast or somewhere and not to use them for anything or scuttle them and let the games begin.  Could be a very interesting time for the Allies in 42/43.



vettim89 -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/5/2010 5:35:39 PM)


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?


1. That would have been Enterprise and Lexington lost. Lexington did not survive six months of war and while Enterprise did survive the war, Yorktown and Hornet (her sister ships) did not survive 1942. So maybe PM falls to Japan which likely would have become a liablity more than an asset and no Doolittle Raid for lack of CV's to pull it off. Perhaps Japan's expansion continues into late 1942 versus mid year but IMO worst case scenario is that the war lasts another six months

2. Again, maybe alter the course of the war a little but the 1943/1944 surge of men and material was coming regardless. Perhaps we would have seen a few truly contested carrier battles in 1943 with KB vs Essex class CV's but hard to see the war being extended by more than 6-8 months

3. Here is the kicker. There was still a very strong Neutrality/Isolationist movement in the US late in 1941. PH destroyed that. What if there were no PH? Would the US resolve be as strong? Perhaps there might have been a negotiated peace. That said, if once word of Japanese treatment of Allied prisoners got back to the US, it likely would have stirred up the same feelings that PH did. So while I give this one a little more credence, it still likely would have ended up the same.



LoBaron -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/5/2010 8:03:45 PM)

I agree Q-Ball. Without the US Germany would be on a more even footing.

I still think that this "what if" scenario is very fictional. The US already supported the British Empire long before actually joining the war.
It was only a question of time until a German submarine stumbled across a ship flying a red cross banner or something similar to give the
final reason for joining on the UK side, this would have happened with or without the Japanese attack on PH.

Only operation Sealion could have finished the war on the western side of Europe and Germany was not really in a position to attempt a
successful landing, even more when counting the neccesary support of troops on the British Isles.



pompack -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/5/2010 10:03:06 PM)

Another intersting article from Combined Fleet

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm



bristolduke -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/6/2010 12:51:35 AM)

I'm still trying to get my arms around this game so i can play PEBM, however I have studied the political situation prior to and about WWII so I'll toss a couple of thoughts out.

First, in a war to capitulation Japan has no chance regardless of the starting scenario. The economy numbers are the killer. Remember that the US fought a two front war and allocated only 30% of it's industry to the Pacific theater and it was still too much for Japan to overcome.

That being said, both Japan and Germany were really trying to wage limited wars. Japan wanted a negotiated peace. Germany is probably a longer discussion, but there were many political paths which could have been options. There was a very strong anti Europe view in the US. If Hitler doesn't declare war, Roosevelt may not be able to get a war in Europe. England delared war on Japan immediately after PH, in large part hoping for a US declaration of war against Germany/Italy. It didn't happen because Roosevelt couldn't swing it. The US would have persecuted a war on Japan by themselves, but the support to Britian may have slowed down considerably as the US would have had to build for the Pacific first. That is what the people would have demanded.

The key to a negotiated peace scenario with Japan has to do with the diplomatic snafus. If Dec 7 is not a suprise attack and the Japanese actually declare war first. The American public didn't care about China anymore than Europe. If there were a considerable loss of life and a perception that it would be a long war, there very well could have been a public opinion of stopping the war. The Americas(North, Central, South) were the prime domain of US political influence. The public related to that, but sending troops across oceans in what was a very isolationist mindset was going to be a tough sell. Certainly not for the European colonies. Possibly for the Phillipines.

Once there was a surprise attack a negotiated peace was out of the question, but in a normal diplomatic breakdown and attack, things would not have been as certain.



Hokum -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/6/2010 5:23:52 AM)

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?

Anyway, the outcome of the war was decided in Russia, not in the Pacific. (Pretty much just like PH happened because of 1940, not 1937)



LoBaron -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/6/2010 10:02:30 AM)

Interesting conclusions bristolduke.

So are you actually saying that, had the Japanese started the attack on PH with a "correct" declaration of war after stopping the peace negotiations,
the USA could have shown a tendency to negotiate peace and accept a redrawing of borders in the SWPAC/DEI/Philipines?

I´m having difficulties to imagine that. The only scenario I can think of would be, that a prewarned USN was not the Sitting PH Duck, the attack would have had less impact,
and after some losses to both sides and the occupation of the Philipines, the war would draw to a standoff and peace negotiations.
The chances for such a developement are a bit slim in my opinion. Could an industrialized nation at those times simply accept losses in manpower, material and
territory and sue for peace? I think not. Even today, when Argentinian or UK politians make a careless comment on some area as remote as the Falklands the
press is full of (equally remote, admittedly) expectation of a renewed armed conflict.
Was US isolationism so strong to overcome such tendencies?



bristolduke -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/6/2010 12:20:47 PM)

I'm not being absolute on the affect of PH if done "by the rules". What I am saying is that, everything we think is biased because of the surprise attack. That was the crystalizing act, not as much as where it occurred. Also, you have to remember the media dynamics of the 30's. In today's instant media, things like the Falklands are blown way out of proportion BEFORE the politicans can react. Even then the UK didn't have the mindset of wiping Argentina off the map. The videos you are seeing in WWII are movie video not TV, as the communication medium of the day was radio. Just a much different dynamic than we see today.

There is also the fact that history has painted a story for us which we believe because we weren't there and have no real reason to believe otherwise. But living and re-acting to it in real time would have to be in that communication infrastructure and in the prevailing culture, not the post WWI culture. For example, we all believe that the concentration camps were horrible and that the the world wanted accountability. They were horrible, but the world at the time did lillte until after the war. There were camps in 37-88, in which the world's nations did nothing. The Germans wanted the Jews out, but no nation, including the US would take them OR lift a finger to help them, thus the camps were generated. There were a couple of civilian efforts, but there was no way they could be effective. If the world's nations had been willing to take the German/Austria Jews into their their countries, there would probably not have been the camps. After the war, the world wanted to punish the Germans, but that was a huge change from 1938. History doesn't say much of what happenned in 37-38 only the post war results. (Another example of knowing only part of the story from history is how many know of the Hitler assination attempt in 1939?)


So my point is that there were plausible political settlements available in WWII. Those have to be understood and evaluated in context of the nations biases on the first three decades of the century and the communications infrastructure of the time.

And yes, the isolastionist attitude in the US was that strong.



AirGriff -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/7/2010 12:05:45 AM)

I think that if the Japanese would have hit the PI, then the US would have gone to war, or at least a "Police Action" of some sort. We had a bunch of troops there and were planning on putting a bunch more. Dare I make a comparison and pull pin on the political hand grenade of US commitments and troops in S. Korea?

The next big question would be, what if the Japanese didn't hit any US commitments--only the Brit and Dutch? I still think we would have gone in, but it would have taken every ounce of FDR's political savvy to do it--I believe there was a kind of gentlemen's agreement between the US and British that this would be the case, though we'll never know how far that really would have held since there was ample evidence for months that if the Japanese were going to war the US was going to get hit, too. Plus, I'm not sure the Japanese would have considered this an option with the PI threatening the sea lanes out there.

I love this stuff!



bristolduke -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/7/2010 1:23:54 AM)

Churchill needed the US desperately. He was doing whatever he could to get America in the war. Most of the intelligence we were getting in 39/40 on Japan was from the British. Churchill wanted our ships in the Atlantic convoys knowing they would be sunk as provocation. Despite the Germans sinking merchant ships and destroyers, Roosevelt resisted (or failed to garner enough support) to enter the war. He did not declare war on Germany after PH.

We were going to war in the Pacific because the Japanese were going to declare war on us. It was therefore unavoidable. That's a far cry from giving us the relentless determination due to a surprise attack. Remember Hawaii was not a state, so it was the same as the Phillipines with repect to a base/possession. So we can reasoable expect to be at war in the Pacific. I would contend that would have actually made it harder to become engaged in Europe. The people simply would not have supported it and the military probably would not have either. They supported the Germany first because of the two front war but if already at war with Japan, they weren't going on their own to Roosevelt and saying lets attack Germany/Italy also. We were woofully unprepared.

In looking at the Japanese pre-war mentality, it is the US they are upset with because of the embargo and meddling in China affairs. They knew the European powers were "busy". So attacking the US was the objective. The navy also had a decisive battle mentality ingrained into them (in part because Japan couldn't sustain a long term war). So they were always going to have the big battle plan as part of their initial strike, whether it is the air faction or the battleship faction. They were not looking to conquer the US just get them to stop interferring. They did believe that the US would sue for peace as opposed to fight a protracted war in Asia. One can argue that they should have focused only on the Phillipines as it was critical to their SE Asia sphere. However, they considered Pearl Harbor a threat, so it had to be dealt with. But given their penchant for detailed planning, they could have just as easily set up an ambush to gain their decisive battle.

Given the isolationist view of America, it is hard to envision a scenario where a protracted Pacific war would be tolerated. We were trying to help the Chinese but that was against the communists. A land war in China is the last thing anyone would endorse, so again a limted war from the US is possible unless there becomes another stimulus.

The surprise attack stirred the nation and jolted us out of the view that we could ignore the rest of the world. The resulting industrial revolution propelled us to a powerful nation in conjunction with Russia. The two nations were powers simply because of their size and ability to focus their national resources. Neither started the war with that objective and neither wanted war, but once awakened!!






PaxMondo -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/7/2010 6:14:05 AM)

I'm with Bristolduke on most of this. 

The Dec 6, 1941 Des Moines Register headlines are calling Roosevelt a traitor and asking for impeachment.  Outside of the NE, there was active opposition to the war in europe throughout the mid-west and west.  It wasn't called draft dodging back then, but simply put, the "farm boys" in the west never came in from the round ups and nobody wnet looking for them either.

It is really a close call IMHO about getting the DOW correct on Dec 7.  We can't know about that.  However, I truly do beleive that if the attack was on Manila (as many espouse as a better opening) the USA entry into the war would have been far different ... lukewarm at best.  The BB's would all have been sunk in mid-ocean when some idiot decided to try Plan Orange (and they very well may have been so stupid without a PH to prove otherwise).  That defeat would have been telling on public opinion.

As for Europe .... MO is that if St. Petersburg and Moscow fall in '41 (which as we all know was quite a close thing several times), Stalin is assasinated by coup and USSR leaves the war.  At that point, GER economy is not dwarfed by USA.  Smaller, yes.  But not dwarfed.  And with a single front to contend, the Med is likely closed down and Normandy has to wait two or three years or more.

Worse, GER gets the T-34 design and factories amoung other "goodies".  GER with the T-34 would have been a very bad thing for the allies in the mid 40's.  She also have the materials now to fund the sub warfare on the USA ....  I dont' know.  This becomes a very scary scenario to me.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/7/2010 11:50:56 AM)


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?




This arguement always intrigues me. From 1942 until 1945, both Germany and Japan suffered an endless string of defeats and disasters without collapse (until the A-Bomb). Why is it that we always seem to assume that America was going to fold up like a house of cards if things didn't go perfectly?

I've heard the "isolationist" arguement, but Hitler and the Nazis came to power as a minority Government and still held together under the strain of a never overly popular war. Isolationism was losing ground steadily long before the US entered the war.



xj900uk -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/7/2010 12:50:03 PM)

Hmmm, interesting comments...
Germany could have won the war by Dec ’41 if it had concentrated on U-Boat production from day 1 and blockaded Britain into starvation during 40-41 (as Doenitz so desperately wanted). You have to remember that in those days Britain was just about self-sufficient in food, but had to import most of its raw materials for the war effort (especially aluminium and rubber, which it had no home-grown resources), and, perhaps most important of all, all of its aviation fuel and oil.
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.
Contrary to popular belief, the Battle of Britain was not the decisive battle, although it is true if the RAF had been destroyed, there would have been no need for an invasion and German bombers could have roamed wild and free until Britain negotiated a peace, but this was far, far harder for Germnay to accomplish (particularly with Herman Goering in charge of the German effort). The U-boat menace was far more telling and, crucially, hurt Britain far harder than nearly all of the German bombing raids (London docks and Coventry being a few exceptions). That was why, when, faced with an imminent launching of Operation Sealion, Churchill commented ‘they won’t invade’ and sent all of Britains remaining reserves of armour (not much after Dunkirk) to the North African desert.
In his history of WWII, Churchill himself wrote ‘the only thing that really scared me was the U-boat peril’.

Regarding Japan, that’s a toughie. IMO (and I know this is controversial) the only way they could have ‘won’ was fighting a war of very limited objectives and concentrating in the DEI and CBI theatres. The ‘unprovoked’ and ‘unanounced’ attack on PH was what united the US people behind Roosevelt. Even if Port Morseby had fallen, or Guadalcanal, or the IJN had won the battle of Midway, or even if teh IJ had succeeded in invading Hawaii and taking PH (as the US feared at the end of ’41) , the war would have continued and the US would have been just as determined. True, it would have taken a hell of a lot longer, but the result would have been teh same. And I doubt the US would ever have been in the mood to negotiate an early cease-fire.
If, however, the IJ had concentrated in the DEI and CBI theatres, then I doubt even if Guam and the PI had been attacked, Roosevelt would had got anything like the same level of both political and public backing to simply prop up and sustain fading European colonial interest in S E Asia.... The ‘America First’ movement would also have still continued to enjoy a lot of support and encourage isolationist policies. No doubt the US would have fought some kind of campaign, looked to rap the IJ over the knuckles and then negotiate some kind of peace which would guarantee their own possessions and probably little more...



LoBaron -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/7/2010 1:02:14 PM)

bristolduke, PaxMondo, very interesting analysis. I agree on most parts, except for that the fall of Moskow or Leningrad would have
changed anything in the outcome of the war. Prolonged it, yes, changed the outcome, no.

There are so many situations that a conquering force has to overcome, most of all if not supported by the local population.
The larger the German territory grew, the more vulnerable it became to partisan attacks, the longer the frontlines grew the more options were present for counterattack,
the longer the supply lines got, the more impact had the fact that Germany never had a navy to speak of compared to the Allieds.

It comes again down to industrial output and sheer manpower. In the beginning of ´44 the German male population was already streched to the limit,
with 16-30 year olds to being drafted and sent to the frontline. Whether the the Axis offensive was able to continue or not does not change the fact
that Germany was fighting against an enemy continuosely growing in relative strenght, while its own reserves where slowly diminishing.

No technological advance, T-34, Me262 or R4M could have changed this. Longer, yes, bloodier, yes. Axis victory? No.

The only "what if" that makes me really shudder was if the Axis powers were the first to develop the atomic bomb, because when this would
have happened I´d most probably wont sit here and type these lines.



xj900uk -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/7/2010 1:41:48 PM)

Germany had no real interest in the atomic bomb, despite its early success with heavy water experiments. Hitler had no interest in it so no real resources or industrial/R&D might was ever put behind it.

It is, on the other hand, interesting to see what Germany was capable of when it put it's mind to it - look at the success and technological leaps of its rocketry division.
Talkign of the Me262, Goering officially cancelled research on it (and other far-reaching projects) in 1940, a rather unwise move. Willie Messerschmitt continued his development in private, but as it happend development of the engine began to lag behind that of the airframe. You can say that Hitler's final decision to develop the Me262 as a blitzbomber was a crass mistake, but on the other hand you could also argue that without his intervention it would probably never have seen service, as a reliable engine would never have been got ready...



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/7/2010 3:54:01 PM)


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.




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.



LoBaron -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/7/2010 4:27:53 PM)

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.



I think so too. Lets not forget that the UK invested so much energy to hunt down the Bismark because a surface raider of this size
would have posed an extreme threat to the atlantic convoys.
That it turned out the other way was another thing.

You can compare the benefits of building the Bismark versus investing everything in the U-Boats with the knowledge of hindsight.
When you remove that knowledge it comes down to how much stood against how much.

And the longer a war takes, the more reliable you can compare simple numbers and see where it ends.
Germany would have needed a couple of 100 more, very chancy, if´s to avoid being squashed by numbers only in the end.
And what applies to Germany aplies even more for Japan.



bristolduke -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/7/2010 4:38:30 PM)

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.



Q-Ball -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/7/2010 5:39:30 PM)

RE: Japan, attacking JUST the Phillipines, which would have and did kill thousands of Americans, would produce the same result as Pearl Harbor. The same isolationists on Dec 6th were "all-in" a day later, when 3000 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor. Not much difference IMO. Would we really NOT declare war, and just allow several thousand Americans to be killed and captured?

Could Japan have skipped the Phillipines? Not likely. First, that would have meant large US airbases in their REAR, astride communication lines to DEI. Avoiding the US would have allowed us to quickly reinforce the Phillipines. This presumes we didn't go to war, and also presumes that the Japanese wouldn't sink one of our ships by accident eventually, which surely would have happened, and created sensational headlines. There would have immediately been a signficant pro-war faction in the US, including the military and Roosevelt, we would get there eventually. The Japanese knew this, which was why the attacked us preemptively.

Any way you slice it, Japan had two alternatives: War, and national suicide, or humiliating withdrawl from China, and the accompanying loss of face and national prestige.



Grit -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/7/2010 7:08:53 PM)


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.


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.



bristolduke -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/7/2010 8:01:21 PM)

quote:

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


That was only because of the surprise attck. America had lost 1000 lives in the Atlantic up to that point and not declared yet war yet. Yes, we would have been at war because Japan was going to declare war. But it is a different sentiment.

Yes, Japan had to take the Phillipines, No they didn't have to attack Pearl Harbor although it was consistent with their overall miltary approach. But had there been a declaration of war first, then it is a different scenario. Their pre-emptive was not suppose to be a suprise. The Geneva Convention was to be followed. In looking at possible political alternatives, then it is difficult to envision a lot of passion over the Phillipines, if other factors aren't present. The exuberance of war was gone after 1918. No one wanted it again. In 2010, US presitge (or arrogance depending upon your political taste), means we defend anywhere. We had neither the mentality nor the capability to do that in 1941. Without major victories in 1942, would the country really be electing war supporters to congress after nearly 2 years fighting?? Or would the isolationists really have picked up a lot of steam?


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.


A slight mis-representation of what I have been saying.

Three very good reads on the subject are

Burying Caesar by Stewart (it is about Churchill, Chamberlain and the Tory party despite it's apparent misleading title)
Making Friends with Hitler by Gresham
Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War by Buchanan



wpurdom -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/7/2010 8:26:01 PM)

Manila option -
If there is to be no attack on Pearl Harbor, it's questionable whether an attack on the Philippines makes sense with a political attempt to avoid stirring up US opinion. Maybe one just attacks the Bristish and Dutch Empires.
    Might have beens are hard to figure in the political realm (I've never understood how FDR sold Lend-lease given the opposition to lending the Allied powers money - won't lend it, but giving it away is OK?) But in any event, I don't think the American public took the Japs that seriously, so my best guess is that we wind up at war with sufficient support - e.g., the sort of support with which WWI was fought. It likely becomes an uglier war on the home front, since FDR would have been in Wilson's shoes, needing to delegitimize opposition to the war and shut up the Midwestern isolationists. But he would have the cooperation of the elites of both parties and the media, since all were coastal-interventionist dominated.

Germany
   Hitler lost the war when he decided to treat all the peoples of the Soviet empire as his future slaves. Again, it's hard to figure the effect of political choices, but the evidence I have seen is that a campaign to obstensibly "liberate" all the peoples of the Soviet Empire would have had the support of at least half the population, if not more. Indeed, the Germans recruited a lot of fighters in the East treating the peoples as Untermensch. Had he taken the Russian war seriously, he would have waited until after the war to treat the people as animals. Of course, the racist ideology that led him to view them as animals probably prevented the possibility of appealing to them politically.

If Russia collapses politically in the late fall of 1941 or even 1942, the war has a whole different complexion and it becomes hard to see the Allies sticking through with a successful invasion and reconquest of Europe.



xj900uk -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/8/2010 11:54:11 AM)

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

One of the biggest problems is that even at the end of '40 Nazi Germany and the occupied countries were not on a double-shift system in its factories - had the resources and manpower to work flat out, but simply wasn't doing so because Hitler and his pals thought the whole thing would be a bit of a breeze. As a result even during the BofB there was a marked shortage of Me109 planes and other vital war machines.
Contrast this with the UK that was working a double-shift and in some cases even a triple-shift system (ie round the clock) in many vital factories. Also they were trying every which way (like in the CRO) to keep planes flying for the BofB, repairing, combingin and cannibalising to ensure there were enough planes, tanks and boats etc when they were needed. Putting Beaverbrook in charge of war production was something of an early master-stroke by Churchill, and it is proof that during the BofB Britain's major problem was not planes but pilots.

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

Russia was Hitlers pet project for months, years in advance, and yes I agree given Stalin's popularity amongst many of the outer Soviet territories no real effort was made by Hitler or his political advisors to talk to revolutioniary and nationalist politicians in places like Belorussia and the Ukraine. As far as Hitler was concerned, all Russians regardless of origin were 'sub human' and beneath his notice.
However Russia still sucked up Hitlers armies and airforces and bled them dry over the years and no matter how advanced and detailed his Operation Barabrossa was, three things combined to defeat Hitlers armies prior to mid-43 :
(1). Its immensity and the appalling state of its roads. The majority of the 3rd Reich's supply transport was also horse-drawn until well into '44 and the Russian roads were amongst the worse in Europe
(2). January
(3). February



SqzMyLemon -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/8/2010 6:40:27 PM)

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.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/8/2010 7:14:12 PM)


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.



Actually, the US did very little to Japan in support of China..., in spite of such well-publicized atrocities as the Panay Incident and the Rape of Nanking.
The Oil Embargo didn't come about until the Japanese seized French Indo-China.
Even then, refusal to sell your products to an aggressor is hardly an act of war..., only an expression of disapproval by voluntarily relinquishing a market. Even the "Flying Tigers" came about only on the very eve of the war.

Might have been far better had the West embargoed ALL exports to Japan immediately following the Marco Polo Bridge attacks in 1937. That would have brought Japan to heel before millions of deaths occurred. But the West still suffered from the Depression, and China was far away. So they expressed their displeasure quite ineffectively until it was too late.



Grit -> RE: Grognards. PH. Midway. Phillipines (6/8/2010 7:37:13 PM)

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.


Japan did have another option besides going to war. Become a peaceful nation and stop it's aggression in Asia. Did they really expect the rest of the world to look away while they pillaged whatever they wanted? The Japanese leadersip had choices and they consistently made the wrong choices.

Stalin didn't fool anyone. Mr. Churchill and FDR knew exactly what they were dealing with in Russia. In hindsight should the Allies have kicked Russia back to their own border, probably. Many felt that way in 1945 without the benefit of hindsight. FDR/Truman/Marshall had a different plan, rebuild Europe. They also had another war to win.

It is fascinating to go back and say What If. I personally think the world was very lucky to have men like Mr. Churchill and FDR at that time in history, they saved the world.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.859375