When they fix the naval game and amphibious warfare they need to separate convoys from landing craft. Germany flat out should not be able to amphibiously invade UK in 39-41--unless they have spent massive effort to created the landing craft needed.
Does USA always join Allies after Sealion, also Sea Lion was too easy
- Thread starter Gefallener_Held
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yeah. It was always something I was quick to do - license-build them from the Japanese as soon as I could.
There is no evidence to suggest this was the case. If anything the US was contemptuous of Japan's capabilities and the military leadership were caught totally flat footed. Japan did an excellent job of hiding many of their military advances like their extensive naval aviation from the US.
An interesting historical what-if is what would have happened if Hitler had not DOWed the US on Dec 11? Would the US have gone with a Pacific first strategy? Roosevelt would have had a hard time with Congress and the public getting a Germany DOW through after the US was directly attacked in '41. Maybe sometime in '42 it could have gotten done but maybe not even then. How could this alternative be built into HOI?
I don't see why having sufficient defending units or naval control of important areas, like the English Channel or West Coast would be so hard for the AI to handle.
I think war support can fit that bill. Obviously, getting DOWed by Japan shoudl boost US war support. If they then manage to raise it even higher by taking ground, doing national focuses or however you raise war support the USA should be able to DOW Germany.
The "what if Hitler didn't declare war on the US" is somewhat overrated as a what-if, really. IIRC, opinion polls taken shortly after Pearl Harbor (but before the German DOW) showed public support for declaring war on Germany as well (under the justification that they were allied with Japan). FDR was just worried about future political backlash (Wilson's DOW in WWI was widely popular at the time but did not age well politically).
Moreover, the UK/Commonwealth/Free Dutch/Free French/etc. were also at war with Japan after Pearl Harbor, so the US could and would be able to ship plenty of equipment to the allies under that excuse; if Hitler had continued to sink American ships carrying those supplies, it would be fairly easy to parlay that into an act of war, while if he didn't, then he has zero chance of ever bringing the UK to the bargaining table (since his one possible trump card, starving them to death via U-boat, would be gone).
Moreover, the UK/Commonwealth/Free Dutch/Free French/etc. were also at war with Japan after Pearl Harbor, so the US could and would be able to ship plenty of equipment to the allies under that excuse; if Hitler had continued to sink American ships carrying those supplies, it would be fairly easy to parlay that into an act of war, while if he didn't, then he has zero chance of ever bringing the UK to the bargaining table (since his one possible trump card, starving them to death via U-boat, would be gone).
Gallop polls taken in November '41 showed 70% of Americans opposed to joining the war, event though most people thought the US would eventually be involved. There's no polls I've seen between Dec 7 and Dec 10 that shows public support for DOWing Germany. Roosevelt did not even mention Germany is his speech before Congress on Dec 8. People were angry with Japan for obvious reasons and wanted vengeance for the sneak attack. Given the sorry state of US preparedness, and public concerns about Japan invading Hawaii or the West Coast, it's very unlikely Congress - who actually decide these things - would DOW Germany in Dec '41. Roosevelt's Dec 9 fireside chat was preparing the ground for this but it was clear he did not consider the US at war with Germany and Italy at that time ( "We expect to eliminate the danger from Japan, but it would serve us ill if we accomplished that and found that the rest of the world was dominated by Hitler and Mussolini"). The news from the Pacific was all bad so that's where the focus of military efforts would have gone. Dec 10 reported the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse and invasion of the Philippines - hardy the right time to expand the war into Europe. Probably in '42 sometime after some other incident but exactly when is not clear. Maybe after a successful Midway battle in June?
A few points:
* Hilter did not have to DOW the US as the Tripartite agreement was defensive only
* Hilter could have required Japan to DOW the Soviets in exchange for Germany's DOW on US - the Germans badly needed a Siberian front at that time changing Germany's fortunes in the East. Those Siberian divisions were a big help at the gates of Moscow in '41
* Operation Torch, Husky and Avalanche would either have been seriously delayed or not happened at all - an invasion of Northern Europe probably may not have been feasible in '44
Given this, I think HOI4 should allow for more varied outcomes and allow Germany to decide whether to DOW the US or not as a separate decision and also how to rope Japan into the Soviet conflict.
Some ideas:
* Add a Khalkhin Gol event in 1939 - this seems to be ignored and was a key event for the Japanese army
* Add a Hokushin-ron (Northern Road) option - maybe a quid pro quo for Germany attacking US?
It's technically a week after the attack (so after the German DOW might have changed public opinion), but the Roper Center website has this to say about "Polling and Pearl Harbor":
" When asked by Fortune/Roper why the Japanese had attacked, the majority of Americans believed that Germany was behind the decision. Sixty-nine percent said the Japanese government was doing her part as Hitler’s ally, and her move was part of German strategy, while only 24% said it was a long term plan of the Japanese to attack the U.S. or that Japan was saving face."
Now, in reality this popular opinion was wrong (both in terms of German motivations and in terms of Japanese motivations), but it certainly gave plenty of wiggle room for FDR (who certainly wanted a war with Germany/Italy) to move things in that direction.
I agree that Hitler wasn't obligated to declare war (and it's not like he hadn't been willing to denounce binding treaties even if he had been), but it would merely have delayed US entry into the European war, and not by long. He probably should have lobbied for a Japanese declaration on the USSR in exchange, but it's not clear if he would have gotten it (Japanese decision-makers were very scared of the Red Army after the Nomonhan Incident), and even if he had, the Siberian front would have been mostly a side show (the Soviets never trusted the Japanese and always kept a large army on the Manchurian border throughout the war; the famed "Siberian Divisions" at the Battle of Moscow were drawn from western Siberia). The biggest impact would have been on Lend-Lease through Vladivostok, but by the time that Lend-Lease was massively affecting the Soviet war effort, the Germans were already losing and alternate routes (e.g. through Persia) were already in effect.
" When asked by Fortune/Roper why the Japanese had attacked, the majority of Americans believed that Germany was behind the decision. Sixty-nine percent said the Japanese government was doing her part as Hitler’s ally, and her move was part of German strategy, while only 24% said it was a long term plan of the Japanese to attack the U.S. or that Japan was saving face."
Now, in reality this popular opinion was wrong (both in terms of German motivations and in terms of Japanese motivations), but it certainly gave plenty of wiggle room for FDR (who certainly wanted a war with Germany/Italy) to move things in that direction.
I agree that Hitler wasn't obligated to declare war (and it's not like he hadn't been willing to denounce binding treaties even if he had been), but it would merely have delayed US entry into the European war, and not by long. He probably should have lobbied for a Japanese declaration on the USSR in exchange, but it's not clear if he would have gotten it (Japanese decision-makers were very scared of the Red Army after the Nomonhan Incident), and even if he had, the Siberian front would have been mostly a side show (the Soviets never trusted the Japanese and always kept a large army on the Manchurian border throughout the war; the famed "Siberian Divisions" at the Battle of Moscow were drawn from western Siberia). The biggest impact would have been on Lend-Lease through Vladivostok, but by the time that Lend-Lease was massively affecting the Soviet war effort, the Germans were already losing and alternate routes (e.g. through Persia) were already in effect.
Yes? They didn't cancel it because they thought it would be easy.
There can, should and must be a medium. Perhaps Sea Lion ought to be impossile, absent other preparations. I am still not convinced it was impossible to succeed. I have read about the wargame conducted in 1974. This afaik did not follow Student's plan as just one variable. By that same token, I have real concerns about Sea Lion could be realistically executed with a minimally competent ai bc of the naval supremacy requirement. Obviosuly the Germans could not have done this. It had to be a sudden, surprise landing sacrificing a fair amount of the Kriegsmarine long enough to get an invasion force landed and overrun.
And it is not just Sealion. There is also the problem with the Suez Canal not being defended. Now concluding the French Campaign in March 1940 and following up immediately with a DAK expedition might make that realistic...
To others about Peal Harbor and what not, I want to stress again, any maybe I have not done a good job articulating myself, I do not opine one way or another whether FDR or intelligence or elements of the American or British had advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor. I merely assert that there is enough out there for increasing numbers of people to believe this.
To me it is an unnecessary query because I already know FDR and his cirlce wanted war and that Hitler was stupid enough to oblige him, although not without some justification with lend lease arming Britain to the teeth, attacking uboats etc.
I don't know how long war with the United States could have been avoided, but it should hae been avoided as long as possible so long as the war in the east rages on. Then again there should have been preparation for less than the best case scenario, including provisions for winter clothing etc.
By this point the German's had already DOWed the US so it's hard more likely people would think this than if German had stayed out. I agree it was a matter of time but there was nothing stirring in Congress at that point to expand the war and it's unlikely anything would have happened until well into '42. Hilter brought this on himself and a Pacific first strategy which some of the joint chiefs like King were pushing for would have been more likely. At the Arcadia conference in late '41 King pushed for more resources for the Pacific and if Germany had not been the aggressor that's more likely to have been the approach at least initially.
I still shake my head over this one. Talk about letting success go to your head. Winter clothing? Who needs winter clothing? It'll all be over in a matter of weeks. Obviously, what with the whole kick in the door and watch it come crashing down prophecy.
Military History Visualized did an excellent video on this. I highly recommend it.I still shake my head over this one. Talk about letting success go to your head. Winter clothing? Who needs winter clothing? It'll all be over in a matter of weeks. Obviously, what with the whole kick in the door and watch it come crashing down prophecy.
If they made it so that land based MPA and CAS had more of in influence when it comes to naval superiority like they did IRL (why the brits never really attacked the Reich’s ports early on) I’m sure that the proper level of balance could be achieved while also keeping it realistic. Perhaps giving Germany more to do with its airforce in the focus tree with regards to Sea Lion, the trade off being an negative organization modifier to troops that would be used to pull off Barbarossa.