pasternakski -> RE: Who is going to play the game after 43??? (5/3/2004 7:33:11 PM)
|
Thanks, Zippy! Good analysis. It's really not sufficient to string together conclusory statement after conclusory statement about "coulda, woulda, shoulda." As far as Germany winning WWII in Europe, the Soviets had absorbed the entire offensive punch of the Wehrmacht by late 1943. On the Western Front, no one I know of has demonstrated that Sealion was ever destined for a decent chance of success under any circumstances, and the Germans had gone over to the strategic defensive by mid-1942. Italy's days were numbered from the very outset. Then, there is the problem presented by the emergence of the economic juggernaut on the other side of the Atlantic. I just don't see how "the Japanese could have gotten a negotiated settlement" makes any sense. The anti-Japanese sentiment among the American public was absolutely virulent after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and other sad disasters born of lack of preparedness. Both of these powers might have done better than historically, but the eventual outcome is not in doubt. It would have taken an invasion and conquest of the United States in order for the Japanese to have prevailed - something that just wasn't in the cards. Germany might have managed some sort of stalemate, but their leadership would likely have prevented any settlement, and the tide had turned before such a possibility even presented itself for consideration by the Axis side. So let's play these simulations as presented and leave the fantasy to designers who want to dabble in the "what ifs" of alternate reality. We engage in this to a degree, of course, when we play wargames, but the game itself, if it intends to be a "historical simulation," presents circumstances that were actually faced (or that could reasonably have been faced) by the combatants involved.
|
|
|
|