A hypothetical question.

[Admiral Halsey]

I was reading the book "The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" and it got me thinking about a couple of things. Like what if the Musashi hadn't been sunk or if Kurita pushed through Taffy 3 or Halsey had left his battlewagons an only took the cruisers with him when him went after Ozawa's northern force? Anyone else have any thought on this?

[TorpX]

I take it you are asking specifically about these questions, and not about what if's in general?

I think a fictional-random campaign would be very worthwhile for SH4, but I had not really thought about your questions. I've wondered what the war would have been like if the Japanese had won the battle of Midway. (A very plausible scenario, imo.)

[Admiral Halsey]

I take it you are asking specifically about these questions, and not about what if's in general?

I think a fictional-random campaign would be very worthwhile for SH4, but I had not really thought about your questions. I've wondered what the war would have been like if the Japanese had won the battle of Midway. (A very plausible scenario, imo.)


I hadn't thought of that.(Though it most likely would have ended the same as by 43 the nations industrial might finally showed up on the battlefields.)

[pstein]

I take it you are asking specifically about these questions, and not about what if's in general?

I think a fictional-random campaign would be very worthwhile for SH4, but I had not really thought about your questions. I've wondered what the war would have been like if the Japanese had won the battle of Midway. (A very plausible scenario, imo.)


I believe that the Japanese winning the Battle of Midway would do nothing more than prolong the war. We would be forced to divert troops and supplies from Europe to defend Hawaii and the West Coast, but I think the war's outcome would've been the same.

[magic452]

I hadn't thought of that.(Though it most likely would have ended the same as by 43 the nations industrial might finally showed up on the battlefields.)

I've ofter though of "What if's and for the most part came to the same conclusions as you about Midway.

The course and duration of the war would have been different but the outcome would have been the same for the reason you gave. That goes for the ATO as well.

Magic

[agrims]

:hmmm:

Actually, the war could have gone very badly for us very quickly in Europe. Being a history major helps a lot! Reasons the war could've very easily went the other way:

In the beginning, Germany was the technologically superior force. Had the battle of Britan lasted a week longer, Churchill wouldn't have had any planes left to fly, forcing his hand, and shortly thereafter would have had to surrender, as what the subs weren't sinking, the planes would have shifted to mopping up, starving the brits. Had Hitler held up his end of the bargin, Stalin would have been on his side a bit longer, and there would have been no eastern front to fight. Following the fall of Britan, he could have concentrated on producing weapons that were more reliable, and longer ranged, not to mention, by '48 at the latest he would have had atomic weapons, and had subs that were not able to be found by Allied ASDIC, and could launch V2 rockets off of these subs into places like New York, Norfolk, etc.

If Japan hadn't attacked the U.S. and instead had a better build up period, attacking China inward instead of spreading outward like they did, this would have put them in a good place for resources and a joint attack on Russia with Germany. This would have a two fold problem for Russia. Attack from 2 angles, and atomic weapons. Stalin was a ruthless man, but he would have been no match for atomic weapons.

The major problem with the Axis in WW2 was quiet simple. Too much too soon spreading themselves too thin. America probably wouldn't have entered the war at all had PH not have happened, and if they had, it would have been later, after the fall of Britan and China. We as a country were not in the mindset that we are in today, in that back then if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We also were not building up our forces until really '43, 2 years after the start of the war, and that would have happened whenever we actually went to war, as it took time to build up capacity.

We knew of a few of Germanies secret weapons programs, but the type 21 and 23 were something we didn't know anything about until the war ended, but we were honestly ignoring the war until PH, and had that not happened, we would probably be Sprechen sie Deutche!

I wish that I was better at modding games, it would be great to model an alternate war to the way things could have went.

[c13Garrison]

Admiral, your question is one that prevents a fellow from going to bed at 3am.

I will try to sum up my position, as what I started typing would have kept me up far longer. In the main I agree with Agrims, though I might quibble about the Battle of Britain with him- the Axis would have needed an air force half-again as large to bleed out England's with the plan they fought with, and 1200 more airplanes is no small thing to pull out of "what if" land. However, all they had to do to accomplish this was to fully mobilize for war before they started it, which they didn't in a proper economic sense do until After the US entered the war.

In the West, Germany had one great disadvantage- Adolph Hitler. I could easily come up with 12 decisions which had massive not tactical, but Strategic ramifications for the war effort. Russia may have never stopped fighting, but if you put Any competent military general staff in charge of Germany (and hey! Guess what, they HAD one) it instantly becomes a much harder war.

In the East, Japan suffered one great disadvantage- They attacked. What's more they attack the world's Largest economy with the economy of a nation a Tenth its size. If you could magically sink EVERY ship the US had afloat in January 1943, what they produced by January 1944 would Still eclipse the Japanese navy in both types and gross numbers. If they were defending a rope bridge that we could only cross one person at a time and it was the year 1500, ok, then maybe they had a chance. Even then, we'd lose enough men and then just decide to cut the bridge.

As far as the Battle of Midway, for anyone that enjoys reading about the true substance of military history I simply must recommend this book;

Shattered Sword, by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully

It absolutely recasts the die on what a good historical text is and how it should be done, plus it is written in a style and tone that will prevent you from wanting to put it down. It is rich, and captivating, and anything I would write here about the hypothetical arguments would only be parroting the positions they so brilliantly lay out there. Japan lost the battle before their ships even put to sea due to their own battle plan.

And now, good night!

[Rockin Robbins]

The real question of WWII: what if the Germans, rather than waste all the money and good men on useless submarines which could only bring disaster on their nation, were spent on standard munitions instead for a winnable ground war.

And what if the Germans, after letting the British escape from Dunkirk, played nicey-nice. "Our brothers in England. We have no quarrel with you. Our peoples have been united in blood and enterprise for two hundred fifty years. Your obligation with Poland has been honorably fulfilled. We propose a peace between our great nations whilst we take care of those slimey Communists to the east.

England was thoroughly tired of war before WWII even started. They had lost an entire generation of young men in the first world war. Some of their leaders and military men may have hesitated, but the British people might have seized on such an offer with enthusiasm.

Result: end of war with Britain, but most importantly, with no submarines to wreck disaster on the German people, the US never enters the war. I say that scenario is the ONLY one that results in German victory, short of Germany never going to war in the first place.

[agrims]

RR, there is one flaw with what you propose. Germany actually had quite the ground force compared to what WE even could muster. Also, the way they fought war was radically different than what the world had ever seen prior, and one that we adopted quite well. It was the Blitzkreig, and you HAVE to have the airpower aspect before the ground forces even come to the scene, as we all know playing our sub games, airplanes are bastard machines that fight in an unfair place. They have things that naval and ground don't, altitude, speed, and fear factor. Also, their target in the beginning and all along was England and the U.S., as we were the ones that caused them all the pain and suffering after WW1. Russia was the biggest threat to them, and that is why Adolf struck the peace treaty with Stalin at the breakout of the war. England was a tiny island, that depended on the sea for materials. Cut the material's and cut the people down. Russia on the other hand was vast, resource rich, and was ruled by a ruthless man who even Hitler didn't trust, (At least he didn't starve HIS OWN people.... I speak of Hitler..) Also, at the time, the U.S. wasn't much of a threat, we spoke highly against another war, and we had an entire ocean between us.

So, in the end, he would have had to have attacked Russia. He may have won had his troops been better clothed, fed, and supplied for the harsh winter. And after bringing England to their knees, he wouldn't have need for a large fleet, thus the subs were his best choice. Suprise and stealth.

[Sailor Steve]

Being a history major helps a lot!
And sometimes it hurts, leading you to assume what you're taught and not do your own research.

Had the battle of Britan lasted a week longer, Churchill wouldn't have had any planes left to fly,
On August 21, 1940, the RAF had 615 Hurricanes and 326 Spitfires. On October 18, 1940, the RAF had 512 Hurricanes and 285 Spitfires, or roughly 85% of the strength they started with.

While the Luftwaffe had 2800 aircraft available to the RAF's 675, only 800 of the German planes were fighters, and they were scattered all over Europe, while the British were contained in one relatively small geographic area. During the course of the Battle the British lost 1078 aircraft while the Germans lost 1562. The British built 2352 new planes while the Germans produced only 975.

The British were in trouble for a variety of reasons, and the outcome was never certain until it was over, but had the Battle of Britain lasted another week Churchill would have had almost one thousand planes left to fly.

[Admiral Halsey]

Admiral, your question is one that prevents a fellow from going to bed at 3am.

I will try to sum up my position, as what I started typing would have kept me up far longer. In the main I agree with Agrims, though I might quibble about the Battle of Britain with him- the Axis would have needed an air force half-again as large to bleed out England's with the plan they fought with, and 1200 more airplanes is no small thing to pull out of "what if" land. However, all they had to do to accomplish this was to fully mobilize for war before they started it, which they didn't in a proper economic sense do until After the US entered the war.

In the West, Germany had one great disadvantage- Adolph Hitler. I could easily come up with 12 decisions which had massive not tactical, but Strategic ramifications for the war effort. Russia may have never stopped fighting, but if you put Any competent military general staff in charge of Germany (and hey! Guess what, they HAD one) it instantly becomes a much harder war.

In the East, Japan suffered one great disadvantage- They attacked. What's more they attack the world's Largest economy with the economy of a nation a Tenth its size. If you could magically sink EVERY ship the US had afloat in January 1943, what they produced by January 1944 would Still eclipse the Japanese navy in both types and gross numbers. If they were defending a rope bridge that we could only cross one person at a time and it was the year 1500, ok, then maybe they had a chance. Even then, we'd lose enough men and then just decide to cut the bridge.

As far as the Battle of Midway, for anyone that enjoys reading about the true substance of military history I simply must recommend this book;

Shattered Sword, by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully

It absolutely recasts the die on what a good historical text is and how it should be done, plus it is written in a style and tone that will prevent you from wanting to put it down. It is rich, and captivating, and anything I would write here about the hypothetical arguments would only be parroting the positions they so brilliantly lay out there. Japan lost the battle before their ships even put to sea due to their own battle plan.

And now, good night!

I have read that book but I find that Miracle at Midway, By Gordon. W. Prange. Happens to be the definitive book on the subject.(Much like his book At Dawn We Slept. is the definitive book on the Pearl Harbor attack)

[Rockin Robbins]

RR, there is one flaw with what you propose. Germany actually had quite the ground force compared to what WE even could muster. Also, the way they fought war was radically different than what the world had ever seen prior, and one that we adopted quite well. It was the Blitzkreig, and you HAVE to have the airpower aspect before the ground forces even come to the scene, as we all know playing our sub games, airplanes are bastard machines that fight in an unfair place. They have things that naval and ground don't, altitude, speed, and fear factor. Also, their target in the beginning and all along was England and the U.S., as we were the ones that caused them all the pain and suffering after WW1. Russia was the biggest threat to them, and that is why Adolf struck the peace treaty with Stalin at the breakout of the war. England was a tiny island, that depended on the sea for materials. Cut the material's and cut the people down. Russia on the other hand was vast, resource rich, and was ruled by a ruthless man who even Hitler didn't trust, (At least he didn't starve HIS OWN people.... I speak of Hitler..) Also, at the time, the U.S. wasn't much of a threat, we spoke highly against another war, and we had an entire ocean between us.

So, in the end, he would have had to have attacked Russia. He may have won had his troops been better clothed, fed, and supplied for the harsh winter. And after bringing England to their knees, he wouldn't have need for a large fleet, thus the subs were his best choice. Suprise and stealth.
I agree with Steve there. You didn't point out a flaw at all. Usually when people announce that they will expose a flaw, they preceed to do that. Unfortunately, what you said is so unfocused I can't really tell what you think you are saying and how it could be in conflict with what I said. And you never got around to identifying any flaw. So I'll clarify my position a bit.

Actually, as they and you should know, the US sought to limit the cost to the Germans at the Versailles Conference, lobbying strongly and unsuccessfully against overly punitive reparations. LLoyd George and Clemenceau were not dissuaded and made Wilson out to be a fool, which he was, but not on that issue.

If you have read Mein Kampf, you know that Hitler truthfully told of his disdain, yes for Jews, but also just as viciously toward the Slav slime to his east. THAT was his primary aim in Europe after securing the continent so he could operate freely. It was all those eastern Eurpoeans with too many consonants in their names that were keeping the master race from.........whatever the master race wanted to do they could do it best without Slavs mucking it all up.

Brits were Aryans just like the Germans. They were destined to rule, just as Germany was. They were brothers. The French, on the other hand, didn't take showers and thought they were tough thugs. The low countries had the misfortune of owning real estate needed to crush the French. It was no mistake that Poland was attacked first--it was the gateway to Hitler's highest goal of invading Russia. He attacked east first because that was his most important goal. What school teaches that? It's so easy and obvious but they blind their eyes and hum loudly to avoid the obvious conclusion. It isn't that these history czars can't see--they WON'T see.

So there you go. Plan before the war: Execute von Schlieffen plan and squash the low countries as collateral damage on the way to destruction of France. Ally with Spain. Western Europe secured.

Then leave minimum forces in western Europe for a full-scale invasion of Russia--public enemy #1. Not enough room in Dodge City for two totalitarian governments.

What part of that demands anything more than coastal defense submarines? NONE OF IT!

Now, inconveniently, Germany found itself at war with its natural ally, England, because of England's treaty with Poland. Then Germany, with full ability to utterly destroy the British army at Dunkirk, let them escape. It was the perfect time to declare peace, and the appeal of peace would have been irresistibly strong for the English people, many of whom admired the German state, people and even military.

Submarines, promoted by power-grabbing admirals seeking cash to build their personal glory, had sold Hitler on the submarine. These subs were scantly modified WWI U-Boats with not enough range, not enough firepower to matter, no way to fight in a way that would not bring many, many other nations who otherwise wouldn't be interested, into the war against Germany.

You see, there is a fundamental difference between the situations of island nation Great Britain and island nation Japan. Island nation Japan ships all of its supplies on Japanese bottoms. Sink Japanese supplies and nobody but Japan gives a rat's patootie!

But Britain is very different. So different that using submarines to fight her is completely inappropriate and guarantees the defeat of Germany. It's because, you see, British supplies weren't on British bottoms. No, British supplies came in on American, Canadian, Brazilian, Argentinian.......... bottoms. Can't you see that sinking those supplies is an act of war against those neutral nations? Can't you see that GUARANTEES the defeat of Germany? Can't you see that you cannot strangle England by sinking a few supplies? You make her stronger as you kill your own best commanders and men. And that is exactly what happened.

So a wolfpack of 14 toothless old submarines encounters a convoy of 1000 ships, accompanied by incredibly skilled escorts. Can this result in any significant losses? YES! But only for the submarines. The convoy cannot be significantly hurt by weapons lacking in firepower to get the job done.

Every penny and every man in the submarine navy of Germany was a tragic waste from Germany's standpoint and a great investment by Allied standards. They COULD NOT deliver victory in any event. They GUARANTEED Nazi Germany's utter defeat by bringing in insurmountable adversaries who need not have been concerned with the war.

The flaw was the man, Adolph Hitler. He was crazy. Insanity does not make decisions in its own best interest. When he agreed with Raeder and Donitz to build a submarine fleet he doomed his thousand year reich. In 1939 he was a dead man.

What kind of history program doesn't teach these fundamental facts about World War II? Did they not have you read Mein Kampf? Did you not have to read "A Man Called Intrepid?" Do they not have any historical perspective at all? It's time to question authority and start learning. The only thing you'll learn in college is what other people think and how to learn. One is invaluable and the other is of limited value.

[agrims]

Very true and valid points. And sorry for the grainy response. I've been sweating my ass off out here in Bahrain for too long today.. Adolf was a crazy man, there is no doubt about that. And the submarine war was effective for a while as the allies didn't have good asdic in the beginning.

There are many topics about the B4B and There is a consensus that had it gone on much longer, Britain would have surrendered as there was no real way out of it at the time. There was a lot of collateral damage and supplies were dwindling.

In the beginning at Dunkirk, he should have either crushed the British army or offered a peace treaty, but neither happened and he is where he is now. A dead man. A dead crazy man. The war could have ended very differently. That is fact. Also the man wasn't the only flaw. His admirals and generals were all vying for power, that and all the misinformation and deceit his own military leaders had lead him to an early and fortunately untimely grave.

Honestly, Japan had the worst odds. They should have stuck to invading China.. They were focused on the decisive battle and that never happened for them.. Anyways, I am not disagreeing with you, you merely stated in the above that he should have invested more on the ground than the sea when he had the most advance ground weaponry of the time and was complemented by air power. He was also terrified of the British fleet, and that was a big reason that they invested so heavily in subs. Also the limit on the size and makeup of his fleet didn't help!

Still would be nice to work up the OP's main topic about an alternate universe war.. As it was plausible.

[Admiral Halsey]

WW2 wasn't like WW1 in regards to the submarine force. If Dönitz had the 300 subs he wanted from the outset Germany would have most likely won the Battle of Atlantic. Plus the American public was super isolationist.(If the Panay incident didn't make them go to war what makes you think that a couple of accidental sinkings of American merchants would?)

[vanjast]

Adolph was not as crazy as you think..

He was a very perceptive military strategist with regard to blitzkrieg and identified goals and targets precisely.

His downfall as a military strategist, and in general, was that he had no Plan-B (or C) if Plan-A failed. Allied spying intelligence saw to it that most of his Plan-A's failed.
That and his alter-ego which would eventually bring him into conflict with his generals, further damaging his military abilities
:know:

[Rockin Robbins]

WW2 wasn't like WW1 in regards to the submarine force. If Dönitz had the 300 subs he wanted from the outset Germany would have most likely won the Battle of Atlantic. Plus the American public was super isolationist.(If the Panay incident didn't make them go to war what makes you think that a couple of accidental sinkings of American merchants would?)
To actually hurt Britain they would have had to sink HUNDREDS of American ships, not just a couple. Do the math: 300 subs, all at sea (impossible--at most 100 could have been out at a time) against a 1000 ship convoy swarming with escorts. Huge battle with spectacular success for the Germans and half the ships are sunk (highly unlikely).

Now there are no subs left to engage the next 1000 ship convoy leaving in 7 days. Even during the most spectacular success the Germans had we produced more shipping than they sank. They were destroying incredible tonnage and were losing ground horribly. Read Admiral Daniel Gallery's book on capturing the U-505. The math never worked for the Germans.

The only possible loser was Germany. Not only that but the wolfpack method itself was a fatal flaw, broadcasting the positions of every submarine on a daily basis. It was child's play to stay away from most of the submarines, so it would have been impossible to attack a 1000 ship convoy with 300 subs. They would have been scattered all over the Atlantic to be sunk, one by one, or if all together would have been easily avoided.

[Admiral Halsey]

To actually hurt Britain they would have had to sink HUNDREDS of American ships, not just a couple. Do the math: 300 subs, all at sea (impossible--at most 100 could have been out at a time) against a 1000 ship convoy swarming with escorts. Huge battle with spectacular success for the Germans and half the ships are sunk (highly unlikely).

Now there are no subs left to engage the next 1000 ship convoy leaving in 7 days. Even during the most spectacular success the Germans had we produced more shipping than they sank. They were producing incredible tonnage and were losing ground horribly. Read Admiral Daniel Gallery's book on capturing the U-505. The math never worked for the Germans.

The only possible loser was Germany. Not only that but the wolfpack method itself was a fatal flaw, broadcasting the positions of every submarine on a daily basis. It was child's play to stay away from most of the submarines, so it would have been impossible to attack a 1000 ship convoy with 300 subs. They would have been scattered all over the Atlantic to be sunk, one by one, or if all together would have been easily avoided.

You still have one problem. Hitler had forbid any attacks on neutral shipping.(Especially American shipping.) Plus the U-Boats very nearly brought Britain to it's knees during the first "Happy time." So don't say that the U-Boat force wouldn't have defeated Britain when most every historian say that if Hitler had put more into his U-Boats the war could have turned out very different.

[Rockin Robbins]

You still have one problem. Hitler had forbid any attacks on neutral shipping.(Especially American shipping.) Plus the U-Boats very nearly brought Britain to it's knees during the first "Happy time." So don't say that the U-Boat force wouldn't have defeated Britain when most every historian say that if Hitler had put more into his U-Boats the war could have turned out very different.
Hitler knew that in order to have any chance to strangle Britain, he would have to sink neutral shipping. Historians base their positions on a quote from Churchill saying that the only thing he feared was the U-Boats. But what Churchill said, was said for public consumption. We cannot rely on the truth of his position, as it was a strategic ploy.

Churchill's long-range war plan was to secure victory by bringing the US into the war. The best way to do that would be to encourage Germany's use of U-Boats, and that, in fact is what he did by crying wolf(pack). I don't know why nobody has questioned the accuracy and purpose of his statement there, but somebody needs to. I say this was a classic case of misdirection used by a master of the craft. And it's still working on us today!

That is also why Churchill talked Roosevelt into the lend-lease program with all those obsolete four-stacker destroyers. It put us into undeclared war with Germany with American ships and sailors in peril. How long before a German sub, under attack from a ship it was forbidden to retaliate against said "better alive than dead" and sank one? These too were pawns in Churchill's victory plans. He didn't just have plan A. He also had plan B, C, D & E.

This included an alternate British government installed in New York City in 1938. It included cultivating a very close relationship with Roosevelt, causing him to do things forbidden by the constitution, against the laws, discovery of which would have suddenly and surely brought about Roosevelt's impeachment and conviction. Yes, Roosevelt had to break the law to save western civilization. And he threw in with the correct side! It's a miracle!:D

No, without sinking neutral shipping there was no way to starve Britain. A small minority of their supplies were on British bottoms. Actually threatening to succeed meant actually ensuring defeat. So Hitler pulled the trigger anyway. Just like he did in the bunker. Think about it!

[Sailor Steve]

There is a consensus that had it gone on much longer, Britain would have surrendered as there was no real way out of it at the time.
Where is this consensus? Again, saying it doesn't make it so. References, please?

[Rockin Robbins]

Where is this consensus? Again, saying it doesn't make it so. References, please?
And what is a consensus worth, of insular scholars in the framework of historians affiliated with different universities. Their organization is one of authority, not search for the truth. Whoever presently is cock of the walk in that field controls consensus by destroying the careers of those who disagree. Same thing happens in the science community. Tow the line or get your funds strangled.

We had a consensus of opinion on how great Thomas Jefferson was, enforced by scholastic thuggery until the lid was blown off on his relationship with his slaves, relatives of his wife's family even before Thomas himself got involved. The one man with the political position and clout to destroy slavery at the birth of our nation was the one who most evilly exploited the slave system for his own profit. His own neighbor released his slaves and willed Jefferson an extraordinary sum of money (enough to buy all Jefferson's slaves and leave a good living) on the condition that Jefferson free his slaves. Jefferson refused the inheritance. Once the logjam of illegitimate authority over historical consensus was broken, so Jefferson was broken over the blatant hypocrisy of his own undeniable actions. "Master of the Mountain" is your book. Fairly written and completely devastating.

Question authority. Learn the truth for yourself. The university establishment has perverted our scientific and historical functions, turning them into medieval fiefdoms.

[BrucePartington]

Mainly Hitler wanted to quiet down the western European countries as not to repeat Germany's mistake in WWI - two war fronts. A means to an end.
Sir Winston Churchill denied him just that.

Rudolph Hess did not fly to Scotland because he was mad, as both sides claimed at the time. He flew there in an attempt at negotiating peace with the UK. Before the war both countries had a reciprocal admiration to some degree.
An interesting book on this subject is "The Hitler/Hess deception", from Martin Allen. I cannot vouch for the author's claims, but they do seem plausible.

When Hitler said "we need breathing room", he was thinking of Ukraine and its rich resources. After all he knew the concept of Geopolitics. And hence the Afrika Korps attempt at crossing the Suez, since things were starting to bog down as they draw closer to Stalingrad, the final gateway to his main goal.
And the reason why both contenders fought to last bullet, the last brick standing, for every yard that lead to the Volga.
Had Von Paulus crossed the Volga, the whole war in Europe would have had a very different outcome. USSR war machine would collapse due to loss of important industrial centres, and more importantly, due to loosing vital resources to the Germans. Oil, food, mineral resources. All things that would enable Germany to become fully autonomous -Geopolitics.

Which leads me to believe that if Hitler and Hess had succeeded in negotiating peace with the UK, Hitler would have easily bagged Ukraine. No waste of military resources in Western Europe and North Africa.

When the German forces invaded Poland in 1939, they cut "The Polish Corridor". It was called a corridor for a reason. Operation Barbarossa was the centrepiece of the whole thing.
And while we're at it, the German highways were built with the fast transfer of troops in mind.

It's all about resources, it always is.

[vanjast]

That's the way how a lot of us feel here in ZA... about Nelson Mandela ???

No action, no talk as his ANC proceeded to rape the country, kill opposition, etc.. etc.. Not a peep from him ??

No my friends,.. that realistic history, has also been distorted and hidden from your eyes. A lot of fools still believe the lie.
:03:

[Rockin Robbins]

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/hijacked.gif I guess I'll be very quiet now......Take her down!
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/thinking-016.gif

[Sailor Steve]

The one man with the political position and clout to destroy slavery at the birth of our nation was the one who most evilly exploited the slave system for his own profit.
At least he felt guilty about it...or said he did.

His own neighbor released his slaves and willed Jefferson an extraordinary sum of money (enough to buy all Jefferson's slaves and leave a good living) on the condition that Jefferson free his slaves. Jefferson refused the inheritance.
In that regard Madison was no better. Little Jemmy had a friend who chastised him for not freeing his slaves. This friend (could he be the same fellow?) sold his plantation, bought a big piece of land in Kentucky and moved the entire group there, freeing his slaves and dividing up his wealth equally among all, then working the land the same as the rest of his newly-freed fellow citizens.
James Madison, by Ralph Ketcham

[Dread Knot]

:hmmm:


If Japan hadn't attacked the U.S. and instead had a better build up period, attacking China inward instead of spreading outward like they did, this would have put them in a good place for resources and a joint attack on Russia with Germany. This would have a two fold problem for Russia. Attack from 2 angles, and atomic weapons. Stalin was a ruthless man, but he would have been no match for atomic weapons.



Japan's problem in China was that their army was bogged down with logistical and terrain difficulties and the war there was unwinnable without the resources, metals and oil Japan purchased from abroad. With every advance and atrocity in China those supplies were being further boycotted by the Western Allies.

When the Pacific War broke out, the Japanese allocated just 11 divisions to the conquest of the Dutch, British and American possessions in the Pacific out of an army of over 50 divisions. It was all they could spare. Most of the rest remained bogged down in a vast land war in Asia that Japan simply couldn't win without those conquered resources they could never really fully exploit. This supports the view that China was a quagmire that kept the Japanese from deploying their full strength to the Pacific.

[Rockin Robbins]

Jefferson's neighbor knew that just freeing his slaves in Virginie would cause problems, probably involving the newly freed slaves being rounded up and reenslaved or worse. So took all his slaves on a boat north across the Ohio River. On the other shore he simply announced that every man, woman and child was now a free human being and that they could accompany him if they wished and he would treat them as equals.

The result was the founding of the state of Indiana, and he was first governor. Jefferson declined to follow his example. Two opportunities (of many) for Jefferson to show the meaning of the words "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." But now he was older and knew better... No wonder Marquis de Lafayette disowned him. Jefferson was a despicable human being who freely and knowingly chose the dark side.
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/banana_sad-1.gif

[Admiral Halsey]

When did this thread go from hypothetical WW2 scenarios to talking about Jefferson's slaves?

[Rockin Robbins]

When did this thread go from hypothetical WW2 scenarios to talking about Jefferson's slaves?

Would you believe.......cosmic rays?:D

I really need to get back to my infiltration of Rabaul to salvage my pitiful career. Going deep....
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/thinking-016.gif

[Admiral Halsey]

Would you believe.......cosmic rays?:D

I really need to get back to my infiltration of Rabaul to salvage my pitiful career. Going deep....
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/thinking-016.gif

That is easier then you think if it's early war.(I normally only find a minelayer with no depth charge racks guarding the entrance.)

[Dread Knot]

I was reading the book "The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" and it got me thinking about a couple of things. Like what if the Musashi hadn't been sunk or if Kurita pushed through Taffy 3


Kurita was not on a suicide mission, so retreating seems to me to have been a very good move given what he knew about the circumstances.

Imagine how it plays out if he stays and pushes through. An hour to regain command and control of his force, four hours to do a thorough job busting up command, control and cohesion of the Leyte invasion fleet. In that time, he winds up trapped between Halsey's CVs and BBs, Turner's BBs and CVEs, and can't sink enough of the invasion TF to substantially change the outcome. So he loses everything. Sinks maybe a dozen light vessels of the invasion task force, or else sinks maybe a dozen vessels in Taffy 2 and 3.

Doesn't change the outcome of the war much. If anything Nimitz and company have less heavy Japanese surface units to hunt or worry about in 1945.

[Sailor Steve]

When did this thread go from hypothetical WW2 scenarios to talking about Jefferson's slaves?
It took a left turn at the Battle of Britain. After that "history" stopped being history and the past is all fantasy anyway, so why couldn't Jefferson's slaves have stopped Hitler's u-boats?

After all, three American slaves are worth five nazi scumbags. :O:

[BrucePartington]

It took a left turn at the Battle of Britain. After that "history" stopped being history and the past is all fantasy anyway, so why couldn't Jefferson's slaves have stopped Hitler's u-boats?

After all, three American slaves are worth five nazi scumbags. :O:
A. Halsey has a point. His thread was indeed hijacked.
For my contribution to that, I apologize.

I guess it's just human nature. In my corner of the world we have a saying that translates to "conversations are like cherry", meaning you can't have just one, you just keep on going, on to other branches.

[Admiral Halsey]

A. Halsey has a point. His thread was indeed hijacked.
For my contribution to that, I apologize.

I guess it's just human nature. In my corner of the world we have a saying that translates to "conversations are like cherry", meaning you can't have just one, you just keep on going, on to other branches.

Don't worry about it. In fact this is the first thread anywhere I have ever posted to get hijacked so i'm actually honored by it.

[Sailor Steve]

I guess it's just human nature.
Of course it is. If one person says something off-topic that someone else disagrees with, you can either answer it, which takes it off topic, or let it go, in which case a false claim will be believed to be true. If you feel that the person is in error you pretty much have to answerit.

Don't worry about it. In fact this is the first thread anywhere I have ever posted to get hijacked so i'm actually honored by it.
That's a relief. They do usually get back on track after awhile. :sunny:

[Aktungbby]

Where is Admiral Halsey"s thread?-the world wonders? with apologies to Adm. Kincaid!:arrgh!:

[Admiral Halsey]

Where is Admiral Halsey"s thread?-the world wonders? with apologies to Adm. Kincaid!:arrgh!:

I knew someone would do that sooner or later.

[Aktungbby]

Well, it HAD to be me, My mother IS a Kincaid (previous thread) # 714 on the list.:arrgh!:

[Rockin Robbins]

And the real Admiral Halsey did dodge a pretty good bullet there. Ironic, since he fired that bullet himself.

[Admiral Halsey]

And the real Admiral Halsey did dodge a pretty good bullet there. Ironic, since he fired that bullet himself.

That bring up another question. What would have happened if Halsey deduced that the Northern Force was a decoy and had waited for Kurita instead?(For arguments sake lets assume that Kurita still turned back towards Luzon and Samar after the Sibuyan Sea )

[Aktungbby]

And the real Admiral Halsey did dodge a pretty good bullet there. Ironic, since he fired that bullet himself.
Alas, Adm. Halsey did not have all his "I"s dotted as he chased the Japanese carriers. Fortuntely, Rear Adm. Oldendorf, with Adm Kincaid's foresight, had his "T"s crossed at the Suragao Strait, the last major use of the classic maneuver. :arrgh!:

[Admiral Halsey]

Alas, Adm. Halsey did not have all his "I"s dotted as he chased the Japanese carriers. Fortuntely, Rear Adm. Oldendorf, with Adm Kincaid's foresight, had his "T"s crossed at the Suragao Strait, the last major use of the classic maneuver. :arrgh!:

If only Kurita had stayed and attack the landing for a few hours. I bet if he tried to leave after that he would have found Oldendorf blocking his way with the Pearl Harbor force.

[Dread Knot]

If only Kurita had stayed and attack the landing for a few hours. I bet if he tried to leave after that he would have found Oldendorf blocking his way with the Pearl Harbor force.


There will certainly be more American deaths and injuries than there were historically. His forces will be shooting down American planes that historically survived and damaging American ships that historically were not scratched at Leyte Gulf. If his forces survive long enough to tangle with Oldendorf’s task force, (and that is a big if), then he is likely to inflict some damage before his forces are ultimately destroyed. Think of the causalities that would result if Yamato manages to put one shell into Pennsylvania's magazines before Yamato and Kurita is overwhelmed.

And overwhelmed Kurita must be. The forces he is rushing into are just too vast and no matter how many he manages to destroy, there are always more over just over the horizon. Kurita’'s forces began being suffering attrition a couple of days earlier when Dace and Darter attacked in Palawan Passage. He got hammered more as he crossed the Sibuyan Sea and suffered more damage in his encounter with Taffy 3. By the time he turned around he had few undamaged assets. And things are not going to get any better. If Taffy 2 and Taffy 1 get between him and the gulf, then he has to go through them. If they stand off, then they can conduct unencumbered air operations. Either way, he continues to have ships sunk or left behind and every time he loses a ship, the opposition gets to focus its attention on the ones that are left. Then, he has to fight his way through Oldendorf and the escort vessels in the gulf itself. Anything that survives long enough to shoot at the transports or forces ashore is not going to be very combat effective and will quickly succumb to Third Fleet units.

In short, Kurita might make it into Leyte Gulf, but he is not going to make it out. He will certainly take a lot of Americans with him, but the destruction of his force will not have any significant impact on the invasion, much less the war. Kurita is up against what Lincoln called the "“terrible arithmetic"” and nothing he does can alter that basic equation.

[Rockin Robbins]

There was nothing in Taffy 2 or Taffy 1 that needed to slow Kurita's force at all. They didn't have to be allowed to get close enough to put a single shell on any of Kurita's ships, while Kurita's cruisers and battleships only needed a half dozen shells to sink any of the DDs and DEs Taffy 1 and 2 could offer.

What rattled Kurita was the headlong attack by DE's that couldn't hurt him. Kurita over-thought the process and then reasoned "if they are attacking like that they are stalling for the backup that is going to kill me." After all, DEs don't have any business attacking capital ships and wouldn't do so without a good strategic reason, would they?

Well, the answer was yes, they would. Which drove Kurita to the wrong conclusion and he called it quits for the day. After the war he regretted backing out. For good reason. There was no saving Japanese lives by living to fight another day. Their only goal was to trade for as many American lives as possible. By backing out Kurita lost the best deal he could have made.

But he lived to see the end of the war, which he probably wouldn't have.

[Sailor Steve]

Where is Admiral Halsey"s thread?-the world wonders? with apologies to Adm. Kincaid!:arrgh!:
Have you asked Uncle Albert? :O:

[Aktungbby]

That's Great uncle. Hurry with Albatross paint so I can write installment two of Udo von D, Jasta 666. Fortuately I've borrowed Udet's new parachute! You literally inspire me!:arrgh!:

[Admiral Halsey]

Been a while since I posted in this one. I've got a new question for you all. What if Yamamoto decided to invade Hawaii once he saw how badly Pearl was hit once the attack was over?

[TorpX]

I've thought about this a little.

Let's say the Imperial forces sailed with an invasion force, or had one ready to sail soon after the strike forces. The USN had little left to stop the IJN from landing them, BUT......

Conquest of Oahu or Pearl would not have been a cake walk. The Army had a full division in Hawaii, plus whatever troops the Marines and Navy had there. They would have had to complete their conquest pretty quick, or they would have had their invasion forces bogged down far away, and out on a limb. Until they got the job done and consolidated the island(s), the IJN would have had to prevent US reinforcements from reaching the area, protect the invasion force, and secure the supply lines from Japan to Hawaii. While not impossible, it would be a significant burden to the IJN and IJA.

Most likely, this would have meant delaying or forgoing invasions elsewhere like the Dutch East Indies, and the Phillipines. As Hawaii had no oil, this would have been a dubious trade-off. Japan needed the oil, and couldn't wait too long to get it. On the other side, the capture of Hawaii, would be an enormous embarrassment to the US government, and probably channel US war strategy toward recapturing them above all other priorities.

Of course, all this is just an off the top of my head sketch.

If you like the idea of war gaming these scenarios out, you might be interested in War in the Pacific. Matrix Games has it on sale right now.

[Dread Knot]

Just to add a few things to TorpX's excellent points.

The Japanese, even at the height of their success, never had anywhere near the logistical capability or the amphibious doctrine to transport 60,000 troops to a remote landing site, land them under enemy fire, provide them with sustained gunfire and air support, and keep them supported throughout what could easily be a month-long campaign.

The invasion of Malaya, which was the single largest Japanese amphibious operation of the war, had involved a mere three divisions, and they hadn't all been landed all at once, nor had they been landed into the teeth of concerted enemy fire. Furthermore, the Japanese invasion convoys in that campaign had been operating from bases in French Indochina, which were only a few hundred miles from the Malayan beaches. British airpower was dispersed, and unable to concentrate against the Japanese landings. By contrast, Hawaii is some 3,900 miles from Japan, and almost 2,300 miles from Truk, which were the only staging areas developed enough for such an undertaking.

The Japanese succeeded in only ONE opposed beach landing in the entire war - at Wake. Everywhere else they landed on a nominally hostile but tactically undefended shore and then moved overland on their objective. And the first assault on Wake was thrown back. The second Wake assault only barely succeeded.

The communication and supply failings that led to the US surrender at Wake won't be present at Oahu (Wake was an outpost short on everything - Pearl was a major base and well provisioned on rations and water along with things like small arms ammo). The US had four infantry regiments in fighting shape on Oahu, plus most of the combat support for two triangular divisions and a vast array of coastal defense artillery. Oahu is going to be Wake x10.

Plus, all this ignores how the Japanese hide three divisions moving across the Pacific at transport ship speed, or find the ships to move them in, or the escorts for them, or the oilers to top off the escorts, or keep up air support.

The hysteria at the time surrounding a Japanese landing on Oahu was largely that: hysteria, grounded in the fears of a shaken public who were unfamiliar with the logistical realities of the Pacific War. Even in the darkest days of the war, with the Allies suffering defeat after shattering defeat, and the myth of Japanese invincibility at its height, the actual odds of the Japanese Fleet being able to assault Oahu and then go on to prowl the west coast of the United States were practically nil.