Actually, this shows that in some respects, Hitler was much cleverer than his generals, if they REALLY never worried about flanks. 6th army’s example springs to mind. :rolleyes: It’s just that in mobile warfare, flanks tend to move quickly. But their importance remain.
Weather does not mean much if one can’t do anything anyway.
A big city is quite unlike a point on the map such as North Pole where you walk up to it and proclaim to have reached it. A city needs to be taken or blockaded, one can’t just “be in it” as soon as he reaches it.
It’s doubtful an “Earlier start” would have made any difference. Starting earlier simply means the German offensive begins at the height of the marshy season, when much of western Russia is, basically, mush; movement of armies is insanely difficult.
There is simply no realistic change in tactics or strategy that would have enabled Germany to win the war against the Soviet Union. Germany’s war effort was hampered by the manner in which the German state was organized, most specifically by the lack of a civilian cabinet and no real military-industrial planning, at least until Speer started trying to undo the damage. We are talking about a military superpower that at one point had its army using thorty different kinds of motorcycle. No hex-game-devised strategy is going to solve that kind of logistical ineptitude.
Every change in strategy being suggested has an equally negative consequence, anyway, or was simply impossible (e.g. an invasion of England.)
What’s being forgotten in a lot of the what if discussions is that initially, everything that could possibly have gone right for Germany went right… and they still lost. In 1941, at least until the snow fell, everything went right for the Wehrmacht; it was four to five months of polyunsaturated ass-kicking. Germany was almost supernaturally lucky in terms of how the war went initially; the Soviets, with one of the biggest armies and biggest air forces in the world, were thrown into a state of such profound organizational shock that entire corps were simply swallowed up. Germany couldn’t have asked for a better start to the war. It’s like scoring five touchdowns in the first quarter and blowing the 35-0 lead in the second half and saying “if only we’d had a better start.” (I guess this makes the Nazis the Houston Oilers of warfare.)
There are two general truisms, I think, to these sorts of discussions:
As long as the combatants remain the same, Germany loses.
No matter what else happens, starting in August 1945, the United States beats anyone they’re at war with.
Yep. I’ve run several War game scenarios, and Tojo can get everything he needs without attacking America. However, not attacking America was never even seriously considered.
I’m curious as to what course of events avoids war between American and Japan. Attacking the Western allies, e.g. Britain, would very certainly have precipitated war sooner rather than later.
It’s fallacious to assume that the surprise attack on December 7 was the one thing that brought the United States into the war; American belligerence was, at that point, inevitable, which is why the USA was ramping up its armed forces. I mean, they were already drafting people - in fact, the U.S. had started drafting people more than a year before Pearl Harbor. In peacetime. And it was largely accepted, too.
American and German naval forces were already engaged in open warfare before Pearl Harbor, and the United States had publicly accused Germany of piracy on the high seas. America’s diplomatic attiude towards Germany had, by the fall of 1941, deteriorated into open belligerence, and their attitude towards Japan was headed in the same direction. The USA was going to go to war with the Axis, beyond any doubt or question.
The timing of the attack on Dec. 7 was in part because Japan understood war was coming and (correctly) felt they needed to take the initiative. Trying to avoid war with the United States would likely have been a worse move, as it simploy would have allowed the possibility of the United States choosing the time and place of the first engagements.
I’ve played them out in classroom vs classroom, boardgames and computer games. I see your point that the USA might become more & more belligerant until finally War occurs. However, many game rules precude the USA attacking first, and since the USA was burned so badly by WWI, it also seems just as likely that the USA would stay out of actual war until attacked. Although Roosevelt was very pro-war (but only as helping Britian went, Roosevelt was a huge Anglophile), the Nation as a whole was very Isolationist. Many argue that it woudl require an act as clear as Pearl Harbor to jolt the USA out of it’s isolationist ways.
Now, we think of Britian and France as “the Good guys”, and Germany & Japan as Evil. But this wasn’t the case in 1941 in America. Britain and France were looked upon as Imperialist Warmongers (which they were) who lured us into WWI with lies and propaganda (which they did). Germany was looked upon as the natural foe to Communism which was scary. http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/usa.htm
"The President of the United States had a strategic dilemma throughout the start *of World War II. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was secretly aiding the British in their war against Nazi Germany. He did not want war with Japan, because it would prevent the full weight of the United States military and industry from being brought to bear on Germany. He felt that the China Incident -as the Second Sino-Japanese War was known in the late 1930’s - was diverting the attention away from the more important threat in Europe.
The American public did not share his sense of urgency. The European War seemed far away. The American public blamed the Europeans for their war. .*"
I agree- if Japan had not attacked us, Roosevelt would have continued his push for a war- sure- but a war with Germany.
Certainly America was starting to prepare for war, we’d have to be idiots not to. But still in 1941 we were largely caught with our pants down. However, the Selective Service act of 1940 was very limited: http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0844347.html
"The United States first adopted peacetime conscription with the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. The act provided that not more than 900,000 men were to be in training at any one time, and it limited service to 12 months—later (1941) extended to 18 months. "900,000!?! Hardly real preparations for a real war.
Ture- Roosevelt was trying desperately to get us into a war with Germany. But the American public- and Congress- wasn’t buying it. Even less were they buying a war with Japan- although certainly the American public had pro-China sentiments, and aid to Chiang would have been easy to pass.
I still think that in September, 1941, the Russians were in a panic mode-they had lost most of their army, and the Germans seemed unstoppable. Stalin was on the verge of evacuating the city, so a strong thrust by Guderian’s Panzer army might have been enough to send the Russians fleeing.
But you are all right about Germanie’s state of mobilization-Hitler thought the war was won in 1941-he saw no reason to enlarge the army.
“All I have to do is kick in the door-then the whole rotten house will come crashing down!” Adolf Hitler on the invasion of Russia.
I don’t mean to denigrate the value of war gaming and simulation, but an arbitrary rule in Axis & Allies or Third Reich doesn’t really add a lot to the discussion.
The direction of the United States in late 1941 was towards war. The shooting had already started.
I’m sorry, dude, but that is absolutely, one hundred percent baloney. Hitler was despised in the United States; Nazism was widely reviled. Even those who supported neutrality usually did it with the caveat that “of course I don’t support Hitler, but it’s not our fight,” etc. etc. Public support absolutely, unquestionably was behind the Allies.
It is telling that your cite says this:
"President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was secretly aiding the British in their war against Nazi Germany. "
Er, no, he wasn’t. He was quite OPENLY supporting Britain. And the communists in the USSR got the same support once Hitler attacked them, too. Lead-Lease was not a secret. I am somewhat skeptical of a cite that doesn’t know about Lend-Lease.
Now I’ll ask again; so what could JAPAN have done to avoid war? It’s November 30; the United States has engaged in an embargo, joined by the Allies, and has demanded Japan get out of China. Just what is your brilliant plan you say you used in that war game?
Er, I don’t think you quite grasp the enormity of what you just quoted. That number of draftees more than DOUBLES the size of the U.S. armed forces. It’s a heck of a start for a country that was not at war.
I have read this in historian John Keegan’s work. I’ve looked for an online cite without success, sorry; but I believe he agrees that the Yugoslavian diversion did not delay Barbarossa significantly, given the late rasputista that particular year. (The “rasputista” or “time without roads” is brought on by heavy and prolonged rains every spring and fall.)
I did not say or imply that the Americans loved the Nazis, it is more that the American public didn’t trust the Imperialist powers of GB & France. I’d like to see a cite that they did.
Here are some cites: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWlendlease.htm
Chareles a Lindberg (likely the most influential non-politician in America)
"*France has now been defeated; and despite the propaganda and confusion of recent months, it is now obvious that England is losing the war. I believe this is realized even by the British government. But they have one last desperate plan remaining. They hope that they may be able to persuade us to send another American Expeditionary Force to Europe and to share with England militarily as well as financially the fiasco of this war.
I do not blame England for this hope, or for asking for our assistance. But we now know that she declared a war under circumstances which led to the defeat of every nation that sided with her, from Poland to Greece. We know that in the desperation of war England promised to all those nations armed assistance that she could not send. We know that she misinformed them, as she has misinformed us, concerning her state of preparation, her military strength, and the progress of the war.
In time of war, truth is always replaced by propaganda. I do not believe we should be too quick to criticize the actions of a belligerent nation. There is always the question whether we, ourselves, would do better under similar circumstances. But we in this country have a right to think of the welfare of America first, just as the people in England thought first of their own country when they encouraged the smaller nations of Europe to fight against hopeless odds. When England asks us to enter this war, she is considering her own future and that of her Empire*"
Burton K Wheeler of Montana:
"*The lend-lease-give program is the New Deal’s triple-A foreign policy; it will plow under every fourth American boy. Never before have the American people been asked or compelled to give so bounteously and so completely of their tax dollars to any foreign nation. Never before has the Congress of the United States been asked by any President to violate international law. Never before has this nation resorted to duplicity in the conduct of its foreign affairs. Never before has the United States given to one man the power to strip this nation of its defenses. Never before has a Congress coldly and flatly been asked to abdicate.
If the American people want a dictatorship - if they want a totalitarian form of government and if they want war - this
bill should be steam-rollered through Congress, as is the wont of President Roosevelt.
Approval of this legislation means war, open and complete warfare. I, therefore, ask the American people before they supinely accept it - Was the last World War worthwhile?
If it were, then we should lend and lease war materials. If it were, then we should lend and lease American boys. President Roosevelt has said we would be repaid by England. We will be. We will be repaid, just as England repaid her war debts of the First World War - repaid those dollars wrung from the sweat of labor and the toil of farmers with cries of “Uncle Shylock.” Our boys will be returned - returned in caskets, maybe; returned with bodies maimed; returned with minds warped and twisted by sights of horrors and the scream and shriek of high-powered shells."*
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html
"*During the 1920s and 1930s, the preponderance of Americans remained opposed to enmeshment in Europe’s alliances and wars. Isolationism was solid in hinterland and small-town America in the Midwest and Great Plains states, and among Republicans. It claimed numerous sympathizers among Irish- and German-Americans. William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska, Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin, and George W. Norris of Nebraska were among western agrarian progressives who argued fervently against involvement. Assuming an us-versus-them stance, they castigated various eastern, urban elites for their engagement in European affairs. * *Many others still backed the noninterventionist America First Committee in 1940 and 1941, but isolationists failed to derail the Roosevelt administration’s plans to aid targets of Axis aggression with means short of war. Most Americans opposed any actual declaration of war on the Axis countries, but everything abruptly changed when Japan naval forces sneak-attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. * "
It seems clear that the USA was NOT going to allow itself to get involved militarily in another war until Pearly Harbor came along. True, Roosevelt was trying his best, with some actions that were possibly illegal.
And, I’d also like to see cites that Roosevelt was so openly aiding GB, at least until late 1941. fter all, we supposedly were getting the better of the deal with bases- we were supposedly getting great bases in exchange for obsolete worth-only-their-scrap-value 4 stack destroyers, etc etc (the "the 1940 Destroyers for Bases Agreement "). In order for Roosevelt to sell Congress on aid to the Allies, he had to start with the idea that we weren’t giving much up and getting plenty in return. And although you “are skeptical” of my cite, I notice you have none. :dubious: Aslo, note that Lend-lease didn’t even *start * until late 1941, with aid to Russia not even being approved until November 1941- one month before the USA was attacked. In fact, *material * aid to Russia didn’t start until after Dec 7th, 1941.
http://www.historians.org/projects/giroundtable/Lend_Lease/LendLease2.htm “The U.S.S.R. attacked by Germany on June 22, 1941—was declared eligible for lend-lease aid on November 7, 1941…Our aid to the U.S.S.R. was relatively insignificant in 1941, but it bore the promise of much more to come.”
What does Japan do? It ignores the USA entirely, and attacks GB, France (not neessesary as France rolled over) and the Dutch. Imperial Japan gets everything it needs without attacking the USA. The USA does nothing but bluster and talk. Roosevelt didn’t want to do anything versus Japan anyway, he thought it’d be a “distraction” against waht he considered the “real” menace.
[hijack]We came up with a really great use for one of those old tubs.
The guy with the insanely powerful torpedo-boat that had the modified torpedoes survived until about the turn of the century. (The only reason why his boat got sunk was that it stopped to pick up survivors - before, it was belting back down the channel at about 33 knots with no enemy weapon able to track it.)[/hijack]
Re: Japan’s war plans: In 1941, Admiral yamamoto advised the japanese government that japan had enough fuel oil for 6 month’s operations (of the japanese navy). hence, japan had a dilemma-either strike out for sources of oil 9the Dutch east indies0, or resign themselves to no war… had roosevelt relaxed the embargo 9on shipments of American oil to japan), it is entirely possible that japan would have sat out the war. On the other hand, what promises did hitler make to the japanese? i’m sure he told them that they could have the remnants of the British empire in asia 9India, Burma, New Guinea), and the Dutch east indies.
Either way, Japan went to war with a full knowledge of the consequences if they lost.
DUMB decision!
Not likely- Japan was already at war- with China. But I do agree with you, they could have got their oil from the Dutch East Indies, without bothering the USA.
Well, I will say this about the early shooting war between Germany and the U.S. The U-boats were at least * trying* to not sink ships flying the U.S. flag prior to the declaration of war. But, we were gonna fight Germany either way, since we were supplying the ships escorting the convoys, and therefore, already attacking them. So yeah, we are gonna go to war sooner or later, I think. But, it seems later works into the advantage of the Axis, as long as they can keep from directly attacking the U.S. How much later, I do not know, but I think the Dec 7th would probably still have been a surprise attack a year later, but just a year would does not seem like it is long enough for the Axis to get where it needs to be to hold on to what it has taken.
And as far as wargaming’s accuracy, in P.T.O. (made by KOEI, a Japanese company) I have actually WON as the Japanese. You locate the carriers on your way back from Pearl (they are in generally the historically accurate place, an unfair advantage, I know). Sink or damage all of them, and you follow up the attack on Pearl immedeately with an attack on Seattle, then walk across to Washington . (did I mention it was written in Japan?)
No, they can’t. You can’t simply leave your lines of supply exposed to a hostile foreign power; you’d be astoundingly, almost invitingly vulnerable. Why would Japan trust the United States?
What you’re suggesting is strategically impossible for both sides. The United States could not allow Japan to simply circumvent the oil embargo by attacking the Dutch AND surrounding the Philippines. It’s preposterous; they could never have allowed such a thing, and would have unquestionably responded with force. Japan, conversely, could not leave their oil supply at the mercy of what they rightly considered their enemy.
Invading the Dutch East Indies precipitates a war.
Note that since Japan has control French Indochina (which for all intents & purposes it did before Pearl Harbor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War
"In 1940, Japan invaded Indochina, coinciding with their ally Germany’s invasion of France. Keeping the French colonial administration, the Japanese ruled from behind the scenes in a parallel of Vichy France"
), the “lines of supply” don’t go anywhere near the Phillipines.
Next, if the USA is neutral, there’s no worrys mate about “lines of supply”
Read my cites- the American people would NOT have gone to war without a pre-emptive attack on US soil. Roosevelt wanted to go to war- but only with Germany. He would have ignored Japan- even after Pearl harbor he insisted Germany was our #1 target! As history shows, Japan invaded French Indochina and took it over- and the USA did nothing. Japan had already effectively surrounded the Phillipines (Check a good map of the Japanese Empire as of 12/01/1941 and you’ll see) and invaded Allied colonies, without any US intervention. The Dutch east Indeies woudl also have gone without any US action.
Now sure- Roosevelt was such an Anglophile that Japanese attacks on the British Empire might have brought some action- but still no real war.
I’m no expert on Australia, but my understanding is that:
[ul]
[li]Most things of significant value are very near the coast[/li][li]Most of the country is empty space[/li][/ul]
Therefore the appropriate strategy would be:
[ul]
[li]Advance to capture objective[/li][li]Consolidate[/li][li]Repeat for next objective[/li][/ul]
Unless the distances are short, road movements are not necessary, and probably a bad idea given that the Japanese were more animal-dependent than the germans. If you look at the damage the US navy did to Japan at the end of the war (basically cruising up and down the coast shelling and strafing everything that looked to be of any value) then it would seem that Australia would be very vulnerable if trying to stand alone against Japan without the US in the picture.
They would probably have landed near Darwin and destroyed the naval facilites you mention. Then they would have landed more troops near Brisbane and captured that (unless there is something north of Brisbane that would have needed to be reduced first). Then they would have continued down the coastline one bite at a time. If at any point in time they had encountered serious resistance, it could have been supressed by naval aviation and gunnery support. This is exactly how they captured all that territory north of Australia - they didn’t march all the way from Manchuria to Singapore you know. The ‘pull back and wait for them to starve’ strategy doesn’t do you much good if they have an unobstructed supply route over the sea, and AA gun range is pretty irrelevant with Zeros operating off carriers and captured airfields. Eventually it would end up with the Australians sitting in the big empty wondering what to do and the Japanese holding everything significant along the coast.
I think you are wrong. Mechanisation is a huge force multiplier. Try to visualise the US breakout from northern france with horse-drawn transport to get an idea of just how important it is. The US supplied the USSR with something like a third of a million trucks - without those the Red Army’s logistics would have fallen apart. Winning a modern war without modern transport is just impossible.
Incidentally, I came across this which I don’t think has been posted to this thread yet - another suggestion for how the swastika and sausages gang might have pulled it off by leaving the soviets alone and going for the middle east. Sounds sensible, apart from the bit about menacing Stalins oil fields, which would have been tricky logistically.
Okay, who stole my first bullet point? That should of course have been
[ul]
[li]Land forces a manageable distance from objective[/li][li]Advance to capture objective[/li][li]etc[/li][/ul]
Consolidate
. (did I mention it was written in Japan?)