Problems with America (Please read!)

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

On the options menu you have a choice for ameica.

1) Neutral, like that would happen. 2)Random, ok that works as long as there in before december 1941. 3). Historical, america will enter dec. 7 1941, no sooner, no later.

To me this is a problem. Thier should only be 2 options. 1)Neutral, 2)realistic. In this one the first few years would be played as random, meaning AM. may enter based on germany's conquests. But as soon as dec 7 rolls around, they must enter! OK america declared war on germany on december 11 (10??) I understand that this can be simulated using the 'allow rules,politics changes while in play' but i think an option should exist for this formula.

Any thoughts? CVM

[husky65]

Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:

On the options menu you have a choice for ameica.

1) Neutral, like that would happen.

The US people wanted to stay out of the war which made certain that the US Pres could do little.

Historically the US only came into the war because they were bombed and torpedoed into it.

Had Germany not declared war on the USA and started sinking US coastal shipping, it is hard to see how the US Pres could have convinced the US people to attack Germany when the already had a war with Japan to fight.

[Guest Mike]

IIRC the USN & CG had already been in a shooting war with Germany for a few months prior to December 41, so it was probably just a matter of time before a CG cutter or Navy destroyer was torpedoed by a u-boat......

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

the intention wasnt to debate americas neutrality, but to simulate america more accuratly in the game.

[Jollyguy]

Actually, the US Navy had been involved in the Atlantic shooting war more than a just few months earlier. I know at least one American destroyer was torpedoed with large of life, but I think others were also.

[Andrew H.]

Husky's pretty much right about the US - there was a lot of sympathy for neutrality before Pearl Harbor, and it's not clear what would have happened if Germany *hadn't* declared war on the US first. Or had even expressed sympathy for the US...

And of course in a non-historical game, there's no reason to assume that December 7, 1941 is set in stone - Japan could have waited much longer to attack the US - or even refrained from attacking the US at all and just attacked Britain and Holland. This might have eventually led to war with the US, of course, but it would have happened more slowly.

[BiggN]

lol @ CVM,

This is one of the first threads saying "hey take a option away" when it actually adds to make it feel more like its your war rather than just a re-inactment of WW2 *i.e. Countrys declare war because they are sick of you rather than because thats what happened in real life*

To take it away or any of the Random options would be stupid, although random does seem like the wrong name for it to me.

-BiggN

[Norse]

Andrew Hedges,

How could Germany support sympathy for a nation that it's allies are at war with? That wouldn't make sence. This is a VERY big "what-if" that I don't see how could happen

Secondly, Japan didn't attack USA for fun. They hadto get the oil on the Phillipines, otherwise the war would be basically over for them. If you wonder why they attacked in 1941 and not in 1938 or so, then it is because USA traded oil to Japan until 1941. War was inevitable after this trade was put off.

Once USA was at war with the axis, it is hard to see how Germany and USA would still be at peace. One way or the other, things would lead to war. I for one cannot see any realistic way Germany could avoid war with USA. If you say "it's simple, just don't declare war", well then Germany would show it's allies that it cannot be trusted at all. That could have some really bad side-effects.

Besides, the uboat war got the snowball rolling. The more Americans die in the atlantic, the more eager the US Navy wants to hunt the German subs down. Even if Germany express "sympathy" for USA, their subs would still be firing at American ships.

~Norse~

[husky65]

Originally posted by Norse:

I for one cannot see any realistic way Germany could avoid war with USA. If you say "it's simple, just don't declare war", well then Germany would show it's allies that it cannot be trusted at all. That could have some really bad side-effects.

A few problems with the above, the axis alliance did not require other members to assist one another in attacking other countries (note Japan did not attack the USSR), and so what if Japan has a falling out with Germany?

Japan had already crossed the Rubicon on Dec 7, there was no going back.

Besides, the uboat war got the snowball rolling. The more Americans die in the atlantic, the more eager the US Navy wants to hunt the German subs down. Even if Germany express "sympathy" for USA, their subs would still be firing at American ships.

~Norse~

Firing at American ships that were in Brit convoys, sailing to Britain - the USN eagerness is of no concern - the US people are, and if the question were raised 'why are our ships involving themselves in a purely European war when we have the evil Japs to deal with?' then the President would not come out looking good and would not get much support.

[Norse]

Originally posted by husky65:

and if the question were raised 'why are our ships involving themselves in a purely European war when we have the evil Japs to deal with?' then the President would not come out looking good and would not get much support.

You are dreaming my friend Japan and Russia also went to war against each other, check your facts WW2 was far from any "purely European war".

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by husky65:

Firing at American ships that were in Brit convoys, sailing to Britain - the USN eagerness is of no concern - the US people are, and if the question were raised 'why are our ships involving themselves in a purely European war when we have the evil Japs to deal with?' then the President would not come out looking good and would not get much support.

Is this assuming that Germany didn't declare war?

Well for starters there would have been enormous political pressure - Japan also attacked Hong Kong, the Philipines and Malaya on 7 Dec (although it was the 8th there at the time), and there's a rather strong "my enemy's enemy is my friend" element that was visible in WW2 - Britain would be at war with Japan too.

Now how would the US like it if the Brits fell to the Germans, the Japanese Allies, and if India had been left relativeluy open to Japanese? Australian and other Empire neutrality might occur, making life a little more difficult for the US in the Pacific.

And of course the ol' "Freedom of the Seas" and freedom of trade argument might come up agains too.

Many of those convoys were largely US shipping, protected ENTIRELY by US warships on hte high seas.

Can you say "Lusitania"?

[BRO, JD]

Originally posted by Jollyguy:

Actually, the US Navy had been involved in the Atlantic shooting war more than a just few months earlier. I know at least one American destroyer was torpedoed with large of life, but I think others were also.

The USS Reuben James, a DD, was sunk in October 1941.

As others have stated in this thread, war between Germany and the US was inevitable by late 1941. However, war in December 1941 was not destined by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Hitler was not bound by treaty to join Japan in the war against the US, but he--without consulting his ministers or military--declared war on the US just a couple of days after Pearl Harbor. Had Hitler not done this, it could have been months--or longer--before war between the US and Germany erupted.

Imagine Hitler not declaring war--the US's military might would have been focused on Japan for a while. No Torch, no Sicily--WWII could have been considerably different.

Had he consulted the military or considered it more fully, Hitler's first strike against the US (Operation Pakenschlag--the U-Boat offensive against the East Coast) could have been much costlier. Imagine if the U-Boats had been pre-positioned off of the US coast before Hitler declared war....

[ August 05, 2002, 03:46 AM: Message edited by: BRO, JD ]

[husky65]

Originally posted by Norse:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by husky65:

and if the question were raised 'why are our ships involving themselves in a purely European war when we have the evil Japs to deal with?' then the President would not come out looking good and would not get much support.

You are dreaming my friend Japan and Russia also went to war against each other, check your facts WW2 was far from any "purely European war".</font>

[husky65]

Originally posted by Mike:

Now how would the US like it if the Brits fell to the Germans, the Japanese Allies, and if India had been left relativeluy open to Japanese?

Given the track record of the American people, about the same way as they liked Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France, Greece, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Abyssinia, British Somaliland,large chunks of Egypt, and large chunks of Russia (in no particular order) - ie they would not give a damn, to them it was a european problem that they wanted no part of.

What exactly do you think would have been different, in the eyes of the American people, about the Brits going under when they had sat still and watched millions of other people go under?

Australian and other Empire neutrality might occur, making life a little more difficult for the US in the Pacific.

Can't speak for the others, but Australia had been preparing for an emerging Japanese threat since 1900, so I doubt that Aust would have declared neutral.

And of course the ol' "Freedom of the Seas" and freedom of trade argument might come up agains too.

Why? it was a war zone, sailing into it is asking for trouble and the US people knew it, note the lack of frenzied agitation for a declaration of war on Germany when they sank a US destroyer.

Many of those convoys were largely US shipping, protected ENTIRELY by US warships on hte high seas.

Can you say "Lusitania"?

Yes, I can and its darned catchy - but given that the US people largely ignored the sinking of a USN destroyer by a U-boat in favor of keeping their heads in the sand, why do you think the continued sinking of US ships sailing into a declared war zone would make any difference?

[Norse]

Husky, after the russo-japaneese war of 1905, tensions remained high as both regarded Manchuria as their sphere of interest. They built railways directly to this area, so they could transport military forces quickly. With the Japaneese expansion, the armed forces of the Sovjet Union and the Empire of Japan therefore clashed in the battle of Chankufen '38, and in the battle of Nomonhan Bridge '39. The Japanees army did poorly against the Sovjets, so the Jap leaders were terrified that a continous war with the Sovjets would drain their resources away and make a general victory impossible. They therefore signed a non-aggression pact, which as we know, the Sovjet Union broke in 1945 as they invaded Manchuria.

I also see that you regard ww2 as a European War, that's alright, I have heard people consider ww1 and ww2 as "the European civil wars". The term might not be directly incorrect, but you must understand that what happened in Europe in many ways concerned the rest of the world (USA included). One of the reasons for this is that many of the European nations were Empires / nations with colonies, or other nations wanted go to war to gain colonies (Italy for example).

When France fell for example, then French-Indo China became Japaneese territory. The European allies were already at war with the Empire of Japan when Japan launched their attack on USA. Even Sovjet had their issues with Japan, but because of the German onslaught, and Russian intelligence stating that Japan was terrified of Sovjet and would not go to war against them at this point, the Sovjets pulled their forces to the Moscow defence in '41 (you see this happening in the game too).

For USA, ensuring the survival of Britian was of their own national interest once they were at war with Japan, as Britain in many ways was the seat of the Commonwealth - which as I stated were at war with Japan.

Therefore, even if Germany had NOT declared war on USA, then it is more than likely that USA and Germany would still be at war with each other, as Germany were a direct threat to the American national interests.

Like I said, this war was not as you stated, a "purely European war", and it affected USA in many dangerous ways. War between Germany and USA was inevitable. If the cards had been played differently, then the only thing we can realistically discuss, is *when* they had declared total war against each other.

You can look at an ecenomical point of view, why USA and Germany would go to war against each other. One of the reasons USA is a superpower today, is because of the demand for American goods during and after ww2. Do not underestimate the American will to defend their own interests here, when the Germans are using their military power to sink American merchant ships and military vessels. You know as well as I do how patriotic the Americans can get once they get bullied with, and Germany had no choice but to bully with the Americans, if Germany were to accomplish their goal of isolating the British islands with their uboats. A nation that cannot trade with the other nations, will be starved ecenomically. The blockade on UK did not favor USA in any way.

~Norse~

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by Norse:

Andrew Hedges,

(snip...)

Secondly, Japan didn't attack USA for fun. They hadto get the oil on the Phillipines, otherwise the war would be basically over for them. If you wonder why they attacked in 1941 and not in 1938 or so, then it is because USA traded oil to Japan until 1941. War was inevitable after this trade was put off.

(snip...)

~Norse~

Just a small correction, Norse...there is no appreciable oil in the Phillipines.

The oil you refer to was in the Dutch East Indies. The Phillipines were an obstacle in the way of Japanese intentions to seize the DEI and was part of their strategy to set up their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere."

The Japanese basically intended the enslavement of the local indiginous peoples and the confiscation of all material wealth and infrastructure to Japanese gain.

The US denial of oil only speeded up their plans of conquest and enslavement. The Japanese did not for a minute intend to let Western powers continue the process of colonial rule in the areas that the Japanese felt they had a right to rule over. Think of it as Japanese Lebenstraum and racial cleansing. Remember "Asia for the Asians" was a popular Japanese propaganda message in those days.

[Gunslingr3]

Like I said, this war was not as you stated, a "purely European war", and it affected USA in many dangerous ways. War between Germany and USA was inevitable. If the cards had been played differently, then the only thing we can realistically discuss, is *when* they had declared total war against each other.

No more inevitable than war against the Soviet Union was. George Washington's farewell address spells it out best:

"Europe has a set of primary interests which to use have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combination and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel."

One of the reasons USA is a superpower today, is because of the demand for American goods during and after ww2.

The United States is an economical superpower because it has less state intervention in its economy than most of the world. Fascism is doomed to the same miscalculation and bankruptcy that Communism has found.

If you think that Lend Lease or the Marshall Plan made the U.S. richer try this. Give your neighbor 20 bucks. Then mow his yard and ask him to pay you 20 bucks. Feel richer?

WW2 bankrupted the British Empire because building bullets and bombs, however necessary they may be, doesn't add to a nations wealth - it drains it.

Gunslinger

[Norse]

Thanks for the correction gunnergoz And yeah, Japan had big ambitions, but they weren't the first nor the only ones. In my opinion, it was the western powers Imperialism that led first to ww1, then to ww2. Japan was just another nation with imperial ambitions.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Originally posted by gunnergoz

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Norse:

Andrew Hedges,

(snip...)

Secondly, Japan didn't attack USA for fun. They hadto get the oil on the Phillipines, otherwise the war would be basically over for them. If you wonder why they attacked in 1941 and not in 1938 or so, then it is because USA traded oil to Japan until 1941. War was inevitable after this trade was put off.

(snip...)

~Norse~

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a small correction, Norse...there is no appreciable oil in the Phillipines.

The oil you refer to was in the Dutch East Indies. The Phillipines were an obstacle in the way of Japanese intentions to seize the DEI and was part of their strategy to set up their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere."

The Japanese basically intended the enslavement of the local indiginous peoples and the confiscation of all material wealth and infrastructure to Japanese gain.

The US denial of oil only speeded up their plans of conquest and enslavement. The Japanese did not for a minute intend to let Western powers continue the process of colonial rule in the areas that the Japanese felt they had a right to rule over. Think of it as Japanese Lebenstraum and racial cleansing. Remember "Asia for the Asians" was a popular Japanese propaganda message in those days.

Sorry bud, there WAS oil in the phillipines. At least the stock piles of it. They were in manila and owned and operated by british business men. As the japanese advanced an american, charged with the destuction of the oil went to tell the brits it needed to be disposed of. Unfortunatly, they were playing tennis, so he blew it up on his own initiative.

But not in Shame: The first 6 months after pearl harbor by John Toland. Random House Press 1961.

[Norse]

<snipped for now>

[ August 05, 2002, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Norse ]

[Old Patch]

Concerning Phillipine Oil:

CvM, the question here concerns oil PRODUCTION, not some finite amount laying around in storage tanks. Japanese seizure of the Philipines had nothing to do with either any oil produced there (none, IIRC) or what stockpiles were laying about. The big prize was the Dutch East Indies. Where the Phillipines became very important is their location across the primary sailing route beween the DEI and Japan, and from airbases (recently stocked with long range B-17 bombers) the Americans could inflict heavy losses on tankers moving oil.

[Gunslingr3]

Yes indeed. USA has a right / wrong mentality that I also feel would lead them on a collision-course towards the axis powers. Of course, one can argue that "who decides what is right?", and in this sence argue that the Axis was right.

At odds perhaps, but 'collision' is not inevitable. Someone could argue for Germany's 'right' to engage in aggressive pillage of its neighbors, but does anyone buy that? C'mon...

Say, USA never joins the war and the Axis wins, then we'd most likely see a cold war with USA vs Axis.

Very possible. Which is more threatening to the U.S., a Third Reich intent on ruling Europe for 1000 years, or authoritarian regime #2 trying to impose a chattel existence on mankind across the globe?

Hmm, I wouldn't say Communism *doesn't* work.

OK, but that makes me wonder how well you understand it.

Anyway, I am not so sure if the Marshall help were a bad thing for USA.

Why would you think it is better to forcefully take money from one person and give it to another at a bureaucrat's discretion instead of letting the people decide how much of their money, and to whom it will be invested? Remember, when an entrepeneur fails to make a return on an investment the investors go elsewhere. When a bureaucrat fails he just comes back for more money.

Europeans invest in American buisnesses etc, because they can afford it.

Exactly! Now the important part, how can they afford it? They make something we want to trade for. They're not still spending that Marshall Plan money. The reason the USSR collapsed is because communism/socialism is driven by bureaucratic whim, not consumer demand. You can hike economic artifacts like GDP by adding a shift at the plant and telling workers they'll make X amount of Y product by the end of the 5 Year Plan, or else - but does that increase wealth? No.

Regardless, I would say that USA as a nation benefitted from ww2. Their main competitors were crushed or near-crushed.

Other producers are not an enemy to be 'crushed'. You simply want them producing something different than you so you can trade. If they are making nothing, what do they have to offer me for what I make? Nothing. That doesn't benefits either of us.

The U.S. was fortunate to emerge WW2 without its cities bombed flat, an undeniable competitive advantage, but the billions spent making bombs instead of wealth didn't enrich the nation. What enriched the nation was unshackling the economy from many of King FDR's economic edicts.

Gunslinger

[husky65]

Originally posted by Norse:

Husky, after the russo-japaneese war of 1905, tensions remained high as both regarded Manchuria as their sphere of interest. They built railways directly to this area, so they could transport military forces quickly. With the Japaneese expansion, the armed forces of the Sovjet Union and the Empire of Japan therefore clashed in the battle of Chankufen '38, and in the battle of Nomonhan Bridge '39. The Japanees army did poorly against the Sovjets, so the Jap leaders were terrified that a continous war with the Sovjets would drain their resources away and make a general victory impossible. They therefore signed a non-aggression pact, which as we know, the Sovjet Union broke in 1945 as they invaded Manchuria.

Which is a verbose way of stating my point, they were not at war and the Japanese did NOT attack the USSR in support of Germany - did you have a point?

I also see that you regard ww2 as a European War, that's alright,

I would advise you to read my post again - I did NOT advance that view - I stated that it would be the American view about the European war and why should they get involved when they had their own war to fight.

So I will not address the stuff you have written arguing against a point I didn't make.

but you must understand that what happened in Europe in many ways concerned the rest of the world (USA included)

Rubbish, the USA stayed out of the war in Europe until Germany declared war on the USA - the US people would not tolerate the US declaring war.

For USA, ensuring the survival of Britian was of their own national interest once they were at war with Japan, as Britain in many ways was the seat of the Commonwealth - which as I stated were at war with Japan.

ROTFLMAO!!

UK was preserved because it was a convenient base to hit back at Germany and Germany was considered the greatest threat once they went to war with the USA, had the Nazis contented themselves with stuffing Jews, Gypsys, Trade Unionists and Homosexuals in ovens the USA would have done nothing - which was exactly what they did until Germany declared war on them.

Re Britain being the seat of the C'wealth - Australia and India both took steps to see to their own defence against Japan, in many cases wildly at variance with the wishes of the Brit leaders (see Aust withdrawal of troops from Tobruk as one example), losing the UK would not have had a major impact on the ability of Aust and India to contribute to a war against Japan (in fact you could argue that it would free up resources).

Therefore, even if Germany had NOT declared war on USA, then it is more than likely that USA and Germany would still be at war with each other, as Germany were a direct threat to the American national interests.

The problem with your argument is that, historically, the the US people never supported joining the war until they were attacked - look at the headlines post Dec 7 - there was no outrage against the Germans, no 'we'll get the dirty axis' - it was all at the Japs, yet you seem to think that the American people would behave differently - why?

Like I said, this war was not as you stated, a "purely European war", and it affected USA in many dangerous ways. War between Germany and USA was inevitable. If the cards had been played differently, then the only thing we can realistically discuss, is *when* they had declared total war against each other.

As pointed out before, you need to read my post again - I never stated the above.

You can look at an ecenomical point of view, why USA and Germany would go to war against each other. One of the reasons USA is a superpower today, is because of the demand for American goods during and after ww2.

This has no impact on the US peoples unwillingness to go to war, the Pres knew this, and knew he could NOT carry the public with him, historically he stated this to Churchill several times.

Do not underestimate the American will to defend their own interests here, when the Germans are using their military power to sink American merchant ships and military vessels.

You overestimate it vastly - US vessels were being sunk (including Military vessels) and the US people did NOT clamour for war over it, I suspect they saw it as the folly of a President sticking his nose into someone elses war.

You know as well as I do how patriotic the Americans can get once they get bullied with, and Germany had no choice but to bully with the Americans,

Stirring words, and wildly at variance with reality - the US people historically did little to push for war as their ships were sinking mid atlantic - hell, they were not even prepared to turn off the lights along the coast whilst the U-boats were using them to silouette US coastal shipping, because it might interfere with the tourist trade after Germany had declared war on them!

Do you see the level of concern the US people had for their merchant seamen? - their bodies were washing up on the shores in droves and they still did not want to turn off the lights.

if Germany were to accomplish their goal of isolating the British islands with their uboats. A nation that cannot trade with the other nations, will be starved ecenomically. The blockade on UK did not favor USA in any way.

~Norse~

What, exactly, is different about the UK? - The US people ignored the laundry list of countries being overrun up until that point, the US ambassador was telling the US Pres that the UK was doomed, yet he didn't (couldn't) act, yet you think that the US people would change their minds and want war when the UK was threatened?

Newsflash - the UK was widely believed to be doomed in mid 1941 (US reporters actually hurried to England to cover the invasion - they were that sure) and the US people did not care.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Old Patch:

Concerning Phillipine Oil:

The big prize was the Dutch East Indies. Where the Phillipines became very important is their location across the primary sailing route beween the DEI and Japan, and from airbases (recently stocked with long range B-17 bombers) the Americans could inflict heavy losses on tankers moving oil.

Agreed, once the Japs decided to try to grab the DEI oil, they had to grab the Phillipines to secure the oil route back, they also had to try for a knockout blow on the US Pac fleet and grab Singapore to secure their flanks.

The problem for them was the fact that it all hinged on an insane assumption - that democratic nations did not have the guts to fight - how you can hold that view 20 years after the Democractic nations fought the bloodbath of WW1 to victory and at the same time as the Brits had refused peace with the Nazis, I have no idea.

Once the US chose to fight, Japan was doomed, a simple comparison of economic out put shows that.

[Norse]

Originally posted by Gunslingr3:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yes indeed. USA has a right / wrong mentality that I also feel would lead them on a collision-course towards the axis powers. Of course, one can argue that "who decides what is right?", and in this sence argue that the Axis was right.

At odds perhaps, but 'collision' is not inevitable. Someone could argue for Germany's 'right' to engage in aggressive pillage of its neighbors, but does anyone buy that? C'mon...

</font>