Jump to content
Science Forums

WWII: How Close Were We?


Racoon

Recommended Posts

The Yanks weren't so dumb as not to realize the risk of Nazi-Fascism taking hold on the other continents.

 

Before Pearl Harbour they were supporting the Brits without direct involvement. They did however get a lot of concessions in the deal, gaining many strategic advantages from the British Empire, this was most of the reason why the global situation changed so much from before to after WWII.

 

There was an undeclared war in the Atlantic between Germany and the US long before Pearl Harbor. U-Boats were sinking US Merchant shipping and US destroyers were sinking German U-Boats. This probably would have brought the US into the war in time, but the Japanese had their own plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:hihi:

 

Down through history, has anyone ever got away with attacking Russia?

 

All of these 12 invasions of Russia have made them very suspicious of foreigners over the centuries. Whether a particular invasion suceeded in conquest is not relevant. Russians remember the invasions of Holy Mother Russia, "The Third Rome" which has driven its foreign policy for centuries. Also, Russia's identity has been a difficult question for Russians to answer. Is Russia a Western(European) or Eastern(Asian) nation? With Russia's attempt to join the EU and its experiment with democracy it would seem it now considers itself Western. Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a huge World War II History Buff
Me too :shrug: 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. :eek2:
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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.

 

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!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Midway was a stalemate? How so? Japan lost four carriers and their offensive naval capability and strategy in one battle and from then on was forced on a defensive naval strategy. The US losing only one carrier gained an offensive naval capability and strategy against the Japanese. Exactly, what Yamamoto had feared had taken place. The sleeping giant had awoke and was going to take retribution all the way to Japan's home islands. It took three long years of island hopping and terrible battles at Guadalcanal, Tarawa, and Iwo Jima along with Leyte Gulf, the largest naval battle in history enabling the US to defeat Japan. If the US had lost its three carriers at Midway it may have lost the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Midway was a stalemate? How so? r.

 

Look I am no expert;

but I have read that the blow was mainly that

Japan could not replace carriers like the US industrial system.

 

all four Japanese carriers - "AKAGI", "HIRYU", "KAGA" and "SORYU" went down. "YORKTOWN" was badly damaged and finished off by a Japanese submarine on the 7th.

The Japanese forces retreated, Midway was spared, and the Allies had their first major strategic victory of World War 2.

However, the Japanese Navy remained strong, with more carriers in the Pacific than the Americans. The occupation at this time of Attu and Kiska in the Aleutians was of little consequence.

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2RN14-194206.htm

 

Psychologically it was a very important victory, especially to Australians.

 

Again Midway would not have happened at all if code breakers had not done their job of breaking Japanese codes (due to the little known work of an Australian cryptologist).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were many turnpoints in the war, and if it hadn't been for those turn points, Nazi-Germany would have had a much larger chance of winning the war; the largest contributing factor was probably the strategic mistakes Hitler made.

In 1940 Hitler planned an attack against Great Britain after having defeated France; Operation Sea Lion. But first they had to neutralize the RAF; which the German Luftwaffe didn't succeed with. With another strategy, this could have been succeeded. German Airbases could have been built at the coast of the Lowlands in order to support an amphibious attack across the English channel (much like Operation Overlord, but in the other direction); German submarines could have helped a lot in order to "clean" the channel from British naval war vessels. Britain wasn't totally prepared for such an attack; there were not many ground defenses in Great Britain, due to that no one had expected such an attack from a foe. As the Soviet Union wasn't a threat to Germany at that time; Hitler should have relocated most of his troops to the western front; it was quite obvious that if Britain still remained as a foe, total conquest of the mainland Europe would be nearly impossible.

In addition, Italy could have done more against Greece. In the end Germany was forced to help them. This delayed Germany's attack against te Soviet Union (which tured out to be catastrophical). But this is a controversy (whether to attack the Soviet or not): If Germany hadn't attacked Soviet, Hitler could have focused on conquering Britain and might then have succeeded. But after conquering Britain there will only be one major potential enemy left, the Soviet Union. Then the Soviet union would have been aware that the Germans were to attack them (of course Africa could have been conquered, but that wasn't a major objective). Stalin knew that Hitler always wanted more and more, and thus Hitler would have probably attack the Soviets. And against a well-prepared Soviet, there isn't much to do. (But as Germany's weapons were far superior, the Germans could have easily defended itself against the Soviets and cause lots of casualties for the Soviets... and then attack them).

Instead Hitler chose Operation Barbarossa; a suprise attack against Soviet. This was a Win-or-Lose strategy. And due to the procrastination of the operation Hitler was bound to lose (the weather was way too harsh).

And due to these major mistakes by Hitler; some of his best field marshall (e.g. Erwin Rommel) turned against him [which led to the failed plot against Hitler] and conseqently these conspirators were forced to suicide...

 

Of course Code Breakers was involved in many major battles. (E.g. Battle of Britain and in the previously mentioned war between America and Japan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were many turnpoints in the war, and if it hadn't been for those turn points, Nazi-Germany would have had a much larger chance of winning the war; the largest contributing factor was probably the strategic mistakes Hitler made.

In 1940 Hitler planned an attack against Great Britain after having defeated France; Operation Sea Lion. But first they had to neutralize the RAF; which the German Luftwaffe didn't succeed with.

I read an interesting comment that seems to reflect on both the English and German Psyche about the "Battle of Britain"

Churchill said EVERYTHING had to be in the air no matter how "seaworthy". Planes were thrown into the German onslaught with glue, sealing wax and fencing wire.

 

The Germans however had a 1/3rd+ or more of their planes on the ground waiting for the "proper" parts to come from Germany.

When the Germans saw what GB threw into the air they assumed that the English force was 1/3-1/2 more than what they could see in the air.

This apparently discouraged further GB attacks by the Luffwaft.

 

Having restored both an old Austin A40 and a Mercedes 190 car You can see the difference in attitude. You could "jigger" things to work with the A40 but not the Mercedes. The REAL parts were needed for the Mercedes to work properly.(beautiful engineering but a pain)

PS

myspip90

Could you please break up your post a bit into paragraphs or even sentences It is very hard to read "in block"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...