Originally posted by Hannibal Barca
"To end a war with japan on favourable conditions for the US,"
It was always going to end on favorable terms for the US.
" that allowed the US to concentrate on Germany, who was the prime threat."
The US had the resources to do both, throw in the resources of the UK and USSR and Germany was done for - they hit their high water mark in Russia a few days before Pearl Harbour anyway.
"Up till 1942 with the thought of the Nazis being ahead in Atomic research, the apparant fall of the SU, along with siezing the resources they had, requiring a 200 odd US division eastablishment, that ment a industrial workforce vastly reduced and so on, are all reasonable arguments."
Yet none account for the fact that the USA had the resources to easily run 2 major wars and a nuclear weapons research program, the US started the war with heaps of unemployed/underemployed, they had scads of 'slack' to take up.
The Manhattan project was not that expensive - the B-29 project alone cost more.
"Wars are fough in the national intrest, and concluded when those intrests are secure, the total defeat of your oponent, at the conclusion of a long and costly effort is no more effective than an early end that still insures the same intrests."
Show me where the national interest could possibly leave the USA with a well armed, imperialist nation that had already started a war against them and was in the process of gaining further resources (China) and had gained the one thing it needed to really start expanding, oil.
Why would the US give them the chance to expand their industry and shipping when the US had the ability to crush them?
"It most certainly does not, because you misunderstand my argument. Something you would not have done had you studied my posts. The other alternative is that you misunderstand blitzkieg, something your reply strongly suggests. Either way please try and pay more attention."
Fact free paragraph, please include content.
"You continue to argue from hindsight, at the time, the limits of blitzkrieg where not set in stone"
Yes they were and that stone was the supply system supporting it - tanks and planes are remarkably ineffective without fuel, troops without food water and ammo (see Russia, Nth Africa as classic examples).
"all that was known by the allies was that to wanted this wonder of the age that deliverd much, but was as yet understood. "
Nonsense, the US and UK had officers who had read the various books written by the Germans on the subject, in fact you'll find that Liddel Hart basically invented Blitzkrieg.
"History showed prior to that that a smaller industrial base/manpower defiecency did not preclude a swift defeat of an enemy who enjoyed those advantages, post ww2 history continues to illustrate the point that GDP, logistical, manpower advantafes are not in themselves sufficent to insure defeat."
More nonsense, give examples.
"Since the Invasion of the US, or AUS was never a war aim, to ascribe logistical and operational limits prevented that course of action is to miss the point that resources were allocated to the war aims, not to what ifs."
The Japanese had critical operational aims (to support the gaol = China), they were get the US Pac Fleet, get Singapore, get the Phillipines to to secure the path to the oil once they had the oil it was to sieze a few more outposts to close the circle of fortresses protecting Japan and dig in and inflict casualties until the corrupt democratic nations gave up.
They did not have the resources to achieve those aims, how is it you ascribe the potential to achieve additional (huge) aims when they could not achieve their original aims?
The fact is they would have to give something up - China, suggest it and the odds are you will be assassinated (the IJA were not playing games) - Malaya and Singapore, your oil is not secure, you lose - Phillipines, your oil is not secure, you lose - Leave the US Pac fleet alone your, oil is not secure, you lose - not try for the fortresses, your oil is not secure, you lose.
Tell me which ops you will give up?
In fact giving up Malaya Singapore will not give you the shipping you need (mostly by land/short haul from Thailand (Siam)) - so do you give up Phillipines or Leave the Pac Fleet?
We have seen the quote from Tojo re giving the shipping up to the Military and being unable to prosecute the war and the IJA stated clearly that they had no troops to spare, you have none of either to spare, which ops will you lose to conduct these hypothetical operations?
"You know as well as i that reality is determined by perception, "
Seek help, you are actually unwell if you believe that.
"what they thought feasable, then, acording to the data they had, is what is real, not looking back with 20/20 and access to all relevant data that they had no knowledge of."
What tripe, if I go to the top of the Sydney harbour bridge utterly convinced that I can fly, 'thinking that it is feasible, according to the data I have, not looking back with 20/20 vision and access to all the relevant data that I have no knowledge of', then I am in for a rude shock when I attempt to execute my plan to fly.
Reality is in no way changed by perception as demonstrated above, if you lack the ability, you lack the ability.
"For instance the axis emphasis on fighting skills that inflicted defeats on the allies forced the allies to incease the quality of their own troops, instead of relying on mere quantity alone."
The Russians forced the superior Germans back using quantity alone, later they increased quality but few would suggest that the Soviet army of 1941/42 was a well trained army.
"What the axis thought was doable, based on a premise that quantity does not determine outcome, forced the allies to become more effective themselves."
See above, the allies logistic and productive superiority allowed them to have both, however you are mistaking the fact that the Germans knew the war was coming and trained and equipped for it and the allies started getting ready late in the game for cause and effect, it was just 'lag' in the system.
"yes ignoring one sides objectives, aims, goals and the method they adopt to achieve it is certainly the way to go here. "
So you have no answer for the fact that Japan has NO way to end the war, once its started they are at the mercy of the US in regards ending it, your goals only matter if you can force an end when you achieve them, Japan had no way to do so.
"This thread is about the game system, and how it portrays history. You take a determinlistic aproach, you wont like the game, buy a vid of the war instead."
Trying to cahnge the thread from 'Is Japan doomed from the start?' to something else?
If you have a look at the first post you will see a fairly realistic appraisal of Japans chances based on history, as such the historical situation that pertains is of paramount importance.
The only reference to the game system is a question relating to how would such a crippled nation be playable in the game from either side (AI or human).
You are losing the argument so now you want to change the terms of discussion while the original post is still readable - not very clever...
"The game will not follow the course of the war, for that buy a history book, historicly japan took advantage of the european situation, with the german successes, to sieze the resources it required, even that sequence hapening out of phase presents huge imbalcing problems in game terms, particulry if the game engine ascribes greater emphasis to numbers, than to the quality the numbers represent, the doctrine to use those numbers effectivly, the political will to use them in the first place."
Irrelavent to this argument as above.
"H Hopkons Roosvelts personal emissary to churchill, conveyed the presidents conviction " That if England lost, america too would be incircled and defeated""
He was wrong, Japan could barely reach the USA - Germany was only able to do so until King was forced to run convoys.
"Churchill " No option for the US and UK but an unwilling peace", in reference to the SU going under."
Churchill was renowned for painting the bleak picture to get more aid as fast as possible.
"Really you dont acept that the war was losable? I find that most worrying, its almost as if the facts have no merit unless they fit a determilistic model, certainly they dont need intpretaion if that is the case."
What you have posted are not facts, they are opinions - you do know the difference don't you?
"opinion only does not make it so."
You have yet to disprove it - show how Japan could force a short war or win a long one.
Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller...
"well i tried to stay out of this, primarily because its a what if, but also because of your posts contain such intelictual dishonesty as to make objective reasoning unlikly."
Ah, the ad hom, not winning the argument so you play the man, not the ball.
"The Nazi-Societ-Japanese pact would kick the allied arses all over the shop on your determinlistic view, fourtunatly the real world works not as you believe."
I assume you mean Soviet? and since we are discussing History can you explain how it is that the Nazis and Soviets became allies and how the Japanese got in on this (given that they had been fighting the Soviets in 1939 and were holding an armed stand off with them for most of the war).
"Midway itself was won against the numbers, further evidence that the numbers dont tell the whole story, and was won by a dozen bombs at the right time hitting the right circamstances to do the most damage, the whole battle could have gone the other way, Prof T Cooks(William patterson Univ of n Jersey) detailed examination shows just how easy it could have been the US losing its carriers along with flight crews, the consequences of which lead to a US with a single CV in the Pacific. Shortly therafter the already planned follow up would take Hawaii, the work of Prof J Stephens (Hawaii under the rising sun:Japans plans for conquest after PH) clearly demonstarte the effects of a japanese success at Midway would have in the PTO, to say nothing of the effects on US commitments to the ETO, and Atlantic fleet, in his work showing the next planned stage was the reduction of Hawaii, and its impact on the US. as youve studied the facts i shall omit the conclusions and proofs of these works that run contary to your posistion."
Utter crap, Prof T Cooks is a crackpot as has been shown earlier total defeat of the USN at midway would have left the IJN with few pilots (project their successful strike casualties onto further hypothetical strikes and you run low on pilots fast), the US had 100,000 troops in Hawaii and Japan cannot ship enough to deal with that, they also face 250 USAAF a/c on Hawaii plus the extra 80 or so a/c flown in from Saratoga (plus any more hurried in) and up against a defence supported by Radar, theres heaps more but I couldn't be bothered.
Try reading this-
http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm
"Facts are of no use without their correct intpretation, me ill follow the experts who have academic qualifications, or military experience over the posits you post, the content of some leave me in no doubt that:
Then you have not read enough - you conclusions are not credible."
The problem is you haven't been able to refute any of it, you give opinions supported by no numbers and no facts.
"And Midway was won against a japanese overwheming naval strength,"
No it wasn't - the USN had 255 CV a/c (the big guns of the Pac war) plus land based support from Midway, Japan had 325 CV a/c - hardly overwhelming numbers, you really need to check the facts yourself rather than just rely on such sloppy academics.
" its almost as if the numbers dont tell the whole story."
But then, the basis of the above assumption is flawed in that it assumes that the US was outgunned.
" But i digress, to post numbers of US production, without putting it into perspective is of limited value, i thought to do this for you. The other point is when do they have the shipping, and what other calls on that shipping are more relevant than the mere numbers show. "
Yet the US serviced those calls nicely.
"And the germanys had the resource base in 42 to match the allied one, yet did not match the output of the allies. Its almost as if what you do with it is more important than the fact youve got it in the first place. "
Nope, Germany did not have anywhere near the resource base that the US alone had, let alone the C'wealth - you have to give numbers, not just make this nonsense up - what the Germans had was also insanely badly managed, subject to sabotage by workers and run by less productive workers.
Please read some references before you post.
"you again misunderstand the point, let alone the content of a post. Which was to show that doctrinal differences produced markedly different ratios of supply to combat effective strength, all that logistical support comes at a price, it dont gaurantee a thing. Except in the US case, taking x from industry yields y fewer at the front as most are eaten up in the logistical chain."
The above is absurd, the US was just hitting is productive stride in 1945 and unlike the Germans, they utilised the other 50% of the population extensively, that is why the US expenditure of ammunition was so huge, they could easily afford it - they lost whole trains to the black market in Europe and it had little effect, the only time the allies had supply problems in europe was when the Germans were collapsing way faster than anticipated.
"Yes that explians the opening years to a tee. Glad your here to point that out. Its almost as if you studied the facts."
So the fact that the opening 6 months of the Pac war were succesful (not years) for Japan, when conducted against largely poorly trained, poorly equipped, second and third rate troops with little (and obsolete) air support by forces trained specifically for those objectives and landed unopposed, suggests that Japan was able to continue this against trained, supported troops like they did against 7th Div on Kokoda and at Milne Bay and the US Army and USMC on Guadalcanal. Its almost as if you have a clue. But not quite.
"Since the US came late to war, it had to gear up,( against states that had 50% NP in wartime production, which had talen 4/5 years to achieve, the Us did it in a year) the speed that other nations had done so when taken in comparison are striking, no one could predict such a pace of transistion, certainly not the germans who based their plans acording to the US taking years to put large well armed fources against them. That speed gave the possobility of victory, it did not give it automaticly."
The USA was already gearing up well before they entered the war, are you really that ignorant of the facts?
From 1939 to 1941 the US produced almost 2 x the amount of Tanks and SP guns that Japan produced from 39 to 45 as one example.
1940 US produced 3,806 a/c, 1941 US produced 19,163 a/c, 1942 US produced 44,479 a/c as another. (in the entire war Japan built 61,914 a/c).
You didn't have to predict the pace of transition, just observe it - it was already happening.
"The Allied victory was earnt, by the commitment of the men and women who fought it, not just because they had more this or more that, the amounts of who had the most of changed throught the course of the war in any event, "
No, the Allies had the most from day one, the USA was supplying them.
"which further shows the absurd posistion of determilism in this regard."
The allied victory was won by the allied commitment of massive resources, the battles had to be fought but they were never going to lose the war, the axis didn't have the capability to win.
"And yet drawn incorrect conclusions. Only speaking as a casual observer, its not as though im particulry well versed in the PTO."
Clearly.
"In 42 it was a worst case scn, US was not armed, and would not be till 43,"
So the 16000 or so planes that the USAAF had in Dec 42 don't count? the US Pac and atlantic fleets? The US Army?
" the SU had lost its industrial base"
Lost?, it was being moved.
" and the axis stood at the"
End of its logistic teather and was embarking on that famed German victory, Stalingrad.
"ddorstep of the caucasus and M East oil fields, its in that context that Churchill and Hopkins discussed the possible outcome, and THEY WERE NOT CASUAL OBSERVERS."
Just totally wrong.
"A casual observer of this thread. "
Don't sell yourself short, you are far less than that.
