WWII: How Close Were We?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

To get back to what was my initial point, and hence back on topic, I'll put it this way: Adolf was no Genghis Khan.

Certainly, Russia is a vast reality, call it Eurasian which is presumeably what Eric Arthur Blair meant by the term in '84, and I'm sure the US Gov't was seriously concerned with Nazi-Fascism but it was politically tricky. Before PH there was much debate about whether to get involved. If the Brits hadn't been in a so much more immediate danger, Roosevelt and co. would not have attained so much advantage from the whole deal. Quite justly, whether or not their judgement was correct, many US citizens were wary of getting into it.

Absolutely, isolationists such as Joseph Kennedy and Charles Lindberg were against any US involvement in Britian's war with Germany and Japan. Most Americans did not have a real view of Hitler and helping Stalin and Soviet communism did not seem right. Then Pearl Harbor occurred and all Americans were ready to fight.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Racoon

I am a huge World War II History Buff

Me too I’m also a big fan of Fletcher Pratt’s Naval Wargame, though I’m such a poor model-builder that I make do with crude ship profiles, rather than the beautiful 1:2400 scale miniatures proper players use.

What are your thoughts?

I believe commander of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor vice admiral Nagumo committed a serious tactical error in his decision to withdraw after 2 air strikes against pearl harbor, rather than following staff recommendations to launch a 3rd strike against American fuel depots and ship support facilities. Although Pearl Harbor was technically a tactical victory for the Japanese, buying them 6 months breathing room from American naval attack and the eventual blockade of Japan, following up on their advantage at Pearl would have, I believed, gained them even more time, and possible even improved their resistance to the inevitable American naval campaign.

Nagumo showed a conservative tactical style. In the business terminology of the 1980s and 90s, we would call this style “risk adverse”. I believe the whole Japanese officer’s corps was dominated by this overly cautious style, that it effecting not only tactics but strategy, and was responsible for the US defeat of Japan in WWII.

Here’s my shallowly-researched concept of a alternate Japanese war strategy which I think might have resulted in a Japanese victory or, depending on the outcome in the European theatre, an favorable armistice, in its war against America:

• Pre 11-12/1941
  • As historical
• 11-12/1941
  • 3 carriers, 6 battleship/cruisers, destroyers etc. attack Pearl Harbor
  • 5 carriers, 12 battleship/cruisers, destroyers etc. attack San Diego
  • 4 battleship/cruiser, troop transports, destroyers etc. support invasion of San Franscisco
• 12/1941
  • Available ships and troops of 11-12/1941 engagements support capture of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
• 1-6/1942
  • Cruisers, destroyers, troop ships support continued invasion of US West coast
• 2-9/1942
  • Invasion of Philippines, etc, as historical

The long term goal of this strategy is to occupy the US with defending North America, while controlling all of the West Pacific. Despite a huge numeric disadvantage in ground forces, it’s believed that, given Japan’s reputation for atrocities earned in China in 1937, the US will be reluctant to recapture Japanese occupied population centers, fearing mass extermination of American civilians, and will engage only in a strategy of containment.

Additionally, the seizing of US naval hardware provides Japan with much-needed improvements in fire-control systems, ideally including RADAR, allowing it to avoid rapid defeat by the remaining US fleet.

Japanese battleships actually had superiors guns to their US counterpart, but were dramatically inferior in action, due to the US’s vastly better fire control systems. The inclusion of this benefit is arguable ahistorical – there’s much evidence that Japanese military planners had almost no understanding of the importance of British and US RADAR. Even in the US, many planners failed to appreciate this technological advantage, until it was clearly proven in combat.

[TheBigDog]

Interesting premise Craig. But I don't think that the Japanese could have stretched supply lines all the way to San Francisco and San Diego well enough to maintain their gains. They may have been able to muster enough to capture Hawaii and hold it for a time. But once the US war machine started the Japanese were simply out resourced.

It would have been interesting if the Japanese had avoided US participation in the war long enough for the US to commit a large portion of the US Pacific Fleet to the European theater. Public pressure to protect supply ships going to England may have done this at any point over the next few months if Pearl Harbor had not happened.

With the Fleet downsized the Japanese could then have focused on an invasion of Panama to control the canals simultanious to an attack on Hawaii. The Germans could have helped by getting ships into a position to shell the United States, again bringing the political pressure for limiting the size of the pacific fleet. But it is all speculation.

It would be fun to play one of those strategic WWII games some time.

Bill

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Racoon

*

The part of WWII that I know the least about are the battles in Africa.
Only that Nazi General Rommel was a hard nut to crack!

Bletchley Park probably saved N. Africa
For most of the campaign GB was able to read Rommel's codes although sometimes they were reticent to pass them on

It is interesting that GB held out against the Nazis for two and a half years with not a lot of help from the rest of the world except the Commonwealth. After the war this effort bankrupted Britain.
and created the American (US) hegemony

[Spiked Blood]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

To get back to what was my initial point, and hence back on topic, I'll put it this way: Adolf was no Genghis Khan.

Certainly, Russia is a vast reality, call it Eurasian which is presumeably what Eric Arthur Blair meant by the term in '84, and I'm sure the US Gov't was seriously concerned with Nazi-Fascism but it was politically tricky. Before PH there was much debate about whether to get involved. If the Brits hadn't been in a so much more immediate danger, Roosevelt and co. would not have attained so much advantage from the whole deal. Quite justly, whether or not their judgement was correct, many US citizens were wary of getting into it.

I was under the impression that the US Gov't were much more concerned by the rising communism than Nazi-Fascism. The US invasion of Europe was more about making sure that when Russia defeated Germany, that they didn't carry on and take all of Europe.

I often wondered (perhaps foolishly) that if one nation, i.e Germany, were to have conquered the entire world, with its fascist idealistic policies, would their ideals fade out. Would they be replaced with fair, equal rights for all, as one world, all of one nation... As cultures blend surely civilized life would overrule, uh.. uncivilized life...(whatever that would be)

Backward thinking, ignorant views (probably like this one) would become of the past.... Ok, my train of thought is running out of steam, it was my stop a few stations back..

Ooh, a cow.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

I was under the impression that the US Gov't were much more concerned by the rising communism than Nazi-Fascism. The US invasion of Europe was more about making sure that when Russia defeated Germany, that they didn't carry on and take all of Europe.

I was under the impression that the concerne of communism came just after WWII. Without the nutcracker effect, I somewhat doubt the Soviets would have overrun the Nazi and hence that they could have taken the whole of Europe. This became a possibility after the defeat of the Nazi and was the reason NATO was formed.

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

Would they be replaced with fair, equal rights for all, as one world, all of one nation... As cultures blend surely civilized life would overrule, uh.. uncivilized life...(whatever that would be)

Ooooh, I doubt that, and I don't get how cultures would blend due Fascist idealistic policies, the idea of which is to stamp out other cultures, subdue and dominate people.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

I was under the impression that the US Gov't were much more concerned by the rising communism than Nazi-Fascism. The US invasion of Europe was more about making sure that when Russia defeated Germany, that they didn't carry on and take all of Europe.

.

This was Churchill's fear.
That's why he wanted to invade thought the underbelly of Europe up though the Baltic States- to thwart Russia. The US would not agree to this strategy

After the war the US appropriated much of the Nazi Anti-Russian intelligence service which formed the bases of the post war CIA and hence the irrational and ultimately unfounded fear of Russia's military might.

I still think breaking the Enigma codes, early in the war, was the major reason the Allies won the war.

The pacific
I agree about a third strike to Pearl Harbour. They goofed there.

Midway was more of a stalemate but it was the first major blow to stopping the southern advance of the Japanese. The Allies were still about Churchill's "Europe First" strategy.

it is interesting that the Japanese are now talking about re-arming. If i lived next to N. Korea I guess I would want to too. What frightens me is that they have still not confronted their history of aggression in 1930-1945. school kids are still taught Fairy Tales about the War
I saw a show on the four "boats' they have in the Navy. Wow! Each is worth a Billion $ and bristles with the latest in technology.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

I was under the impression that the concerne of communism came just after WWII.

While I think it’s accurate to say that the concern about the spread of communism, especially in the UK and US, was heightened after WW II, this concern appears to have existed for at least a couple of decades prior.

I find the following timeline helpful:

• 1848 Communist manifesto published
• 8/1914 - …WW I begins
• 10/1917 Soviet Union forms in Russia
• … - 10/1918 WW I ends
• 12/1922 USSR (Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan) forms
• 1/1933 Hitler appointed chancellor of Germany
• 9/1939 - 8/1945 WW II
• 1991 USSR dissolved

It’s generally believed that, had anti-communist elements of UK government been able to gain the necessary support, they would have prosecuted a political and military campaign to remove the Soviet Russian government, and reinstall something resembling the pre-1917 government.

The influence of Soviet Communism on the formation and rise to power of the Nazi party in Germany was considerable. It’s not unreasonable to say that the Nazis owed their success to German and English government fear of the spread of communism into post WW I Germany.

Without the nutcracker effect, I somewhat doubt the Soviets would have overrun the Nazi and hence that they could have taken the whole of Europe. This became a possibility after the defeat of the Nazi and was the reason NATO was formed.

While it’s certain, I believe, that the governments of the NATO states were deeply concerned by the possibility of a military expansion of the USSR into Europe and beyond, it’s important to note that Soviet expansionary policy was essentially one of revolutionary politics, not military force. Soviet planners hoped that, in the wake of economic downturns throughout Europe and N America, and socially oppressive conditions in S America, Africa, Asia and the mid East, the people of the many countries would embrace world communism, and essentially repeat what Russia had done in 1917. To this end, they provided planning and logistical support, including the export of weapons. Although this policy was successful in several less developed countries, particularly Cuba and China, it failed in the UK, the USA, and other developed countries.

[Spiked Blood]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Ooooh, I doubt that, and I don't get how cultures would blend due Fascist idealistic policies, the idea of which is to stamp out other cultures, subdue and dominate people.

Yes, as a collective whole, but people retain their ideals. If you're conquered, would you not then become a part of the conquerer?

If ten people conquer twenty, in time will not the voices of twenty have more affect than the voices of ten?

[Qfwfq]

Not if the twenty have been subdued by the Fascist, or even just highly nationalist, ten. What are the favourite sports in India?

Originally Posted by CraigD

While I think it’s accurate to say that the concern about the spread of communism, especially in the UK and US, was heightened after WW II, this concern appears to have existed for at least a couple of decades prior.

True Craig, I really didn't mean to say the concern was previously absent, my wording was poor, even worse than my spelling.

Originally Posted by CraigD

While it’s certain, I believe, that the governments of the NATO states were deeply concerned by the possibility of a military expansion of the USSR into Europe and beyond, it’s important to note that Soviet expansionary policy was essentially one of revolutionary politics, not military force. Soviet planners hoped that, in the wake of economic downturns throughout Europe and N America, and socially oppressive conditions in S America, Africa, Asia and the mid East, the people of the many countries would embrace world communism, and essentially repeat what Russia had done in 1917. To this end, they provided planning and logistical support, including the export of weapons. Although this policy was successful in several less developed countries, particularly Cuba and China, it failed in the UK, the USA, and other developed countries.

Absolutely, the cold war was propaganda vs. propaganda and you should have been over here in the days of don Camillo e Peppone!