An incredible fact!

[Lützow]

ORIGINAL: sulla05
But my question is why wouldn't we have negoitiated with a nonhitler German government? There would have had to have been some sanctions and other points to work out. Prosecution for crimes against humanity etc.. But until that time there had never been war trials against generals for doing their jobs. If the Soviet Union won during a nuclear exchange would we expect to have LeMay on trial for his bombers? There were no laws against war and never had been, besides the foolish league of nations which we weren't even a part of.

The dispartment of Germany was already debated between Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt during Teheran Conference in late '43. There was no option but unconditional surrender for us and even my grandpa got KIA by an allied air strike in february '45, I think it's better the july assassination didn't succeed. It would have led to anther stab-in-the-back legend while Germany was on the pinnacle of her war production and controlled vast parts of western europe. Furthermore it's still more honourable to go down in a fight than simply surrender.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sulla05
But my question is why wouldn't we have negoitiated with a nonhitler German government? There would have had to have been some sanctions and other points to work out. Prosecution for crimes against humanity etc.. But until that time there had never been war trials against generals for doing their jobs. If the Soviet Union won during a nuclear exchange would we expect to have LeMay on trial for his bombers? There were no laws against war and never had been, besides the foolish league of nations which we weren't even a part of.

Whoa!! Not LeMay! [X(]

Seriously, though, I think part of the problem was distrust by the Western Allies of the Soviets and vice-versa. Each feared that the other would cut a doublecross deal with the Axis. So any sort of negotiations, even in secret, could not be tolerated.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Something has to give, and I think the obvious choice would be the Pacific War. The ETO has taken a huge hit to its force structure. It will have to get much increased priority. Much of that will have to be land forces.

It's obvious that the Allies cannot fight a land war in Europe without control of the Atlantic.

Even if naval forces are the initial priority, it takes time to build BBs, etc. The Japs have them from the start.

...but the Americans had naval superiority in the Pacific as a whole from mid-1942. I can't see a defeat of Russia at the end of 1941 changing the course of the Pacific war six months later.

The Japs didn't cooperate much historically because they didn't have a choice.

They did. The Japanese army was clamouring for another round at Russia in 1941, and Germany was obviously eager for this to happen. But the Japanese opted to turn south and abandon their supposed German allies.

But if they have the margin to follow an obviously war-winning strategy why wouldn't they? The carriers would probably remain in the Pacific - they aren't much help for Seelowe. But the BBs, on the other hand, weren't risked very often in the Pacific. They weren't worth risking over desert islands. But they're just what's needed for Seelowe. Imagine the Yamatos with air cover for once.

The RAF had air superiority over British shores by late 1940. Come 1943, the Germans are not going to have air superiority and are therefore not going to be able to invade Britain. They might starve her- but that's been discussed elsewhere.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: sulla05
There were no laws against war and never had been

Actually the United Nations was founded on the principle that aggressive war would not be tolerated. This was the philosophy underlying the Allied war effort. We were going to fight Germany because she waged aggressive wars for national aggrandisement. Any negotiated settlement would mean recognising some of the gains that Germany had won from this war, and as such would have undermined the whole purpose of the struggle.

That's what generals and staffs do make plans for war. I am astonished by the amount of people who are shocked when I tell them that at west point the cadets are taught to wage war.

And quite right too. So long as there are states in the world which would use aggressive war in the way that the Axis powers did during the Second World War, it is vital that the rest of us maintain the ability to resist them by force.

[sullafelix]

Well you proved my point Germany's actions were before the united nations was founded ( 1945 ) so there were no laws at the time. I also said that there would be negotiations, the allies could have stipulated that Germany go back to it's 1939 borders etc.. I also never really mentioned the 1944 bomb plot as my timeline. What if hitler had died in the winter of 41 or in 42 and the nazi's were thrown out of power? The allies did not issue a statement like the US did before the presnt Iraq war. They did not say that we will not negotiate with hitler or nazi's they said we will not negotiate with Germany.
 
This is kind of the same argument that it was perfectly ok for the western powers to grab colonies but totally unacceptable for Japan to do so. M own view is that all nations have done horrible things in their history but just because it was not in this century does not  absolve them from it. take Cambodia no one cared at all that pol pot was murdering 50% of the population, yet all of the world was upset about the Balkan atrocities that happened in the 1990's.
 
Back to Clausewitz, his one statement that war is just a continuance of a states policy ( I think I worded it wrong ) is the one great idea that I took away from him.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
It's obvious that the Allies cannot fight a land war in Europe without control of the Atlantic.

All the more reason to curtail the Pacific War. And they can't fight a land war in Europe without massive land forces either.

...but the Americans had naval superiority in the Pacific as a whole from mid-1942. I can't see a defeat of Russia at the end of 1941 changing the course of the Pacific war six months later.

Naval parity at best. Guadalcanal was a stalemate for many months. And, again, why do the Japs need the BBs, if they just want to hold on to what they have while the Americans try to take it back? It still took years to get to Japan even after the Jap naval situation was hopeless. And that's assuming those efforts to take it back aren't canceled and refocused on the Atlantic.

They did. The Japanese army was clamouring for another round at Russia in 1941, and Germany was obviously eager for this to happen. But the Japanese opted to turn south and abandon their supposed German allies.

Ok, they couldn't cooperate much after Pearl Harbor. Why would we assume the Japs would not make the strategic move that was the most dangerous to the Allies? Let's just focus on what they had the capability of doing.

The RAF had air superiority over British shores by late 1940. Come 1943, the Germans are not going to have air superiority and are therefore not going to be able to invade Britain. They might starve her- but that's been discussed elsewhere.

I would say they averted German air superiority over British shores by late 1940 - barely. They were still forced to revert to night bombing elsewhere. If the air war was fought over the channel, instead of over British airfields, their edge would be gone. And that's where it would be fought if Seelowe was actually launched. And, of course, the Italian airforce now has little to do. I don't think air superiority is essential for Seelowe - parity could be good enough. The fact that they would have a real amphibious capability coupled with real surface fleet capability makes it a very serious threat. More serious than 1940.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: sulla05

Well you proved my point Germany's actions were before the united nations was founded ( 1945 )

Actually the United Nations was formed by 26 governments on 1st January 1942.

Anyway, what Germany did was obviously wrong- hence the United Nations ruling that it should never have been allowed to happen and the pursuit of unconditional surrender.

I also said that there would be negotiations, the allies could have stipulated that Germany go back to it's 1939 borders etc.. I also never really mentioned the 1944 bomb plot as my timeline. What if hitler had died in the winter of 41 or in 42 and the nazi's were thrown out of power?

Well the Nazis were hugely popular in Germany at that time. Such an event is improbable.

The allies did not issue a statement like the US did before the presnt Iraq war. They did not say that we will not negotiate with hitler or nazi's they said we will not negotiate with Germany.

That's because it was Germany that was doing all this stuff- not one German (Austrian) or a few Germans. Germany.

This is kind of the same argument that it was perfectly ok for the western powers to grab colonies but totally unacceptable for Japan to do so.

Besides the question of timing, the conditions under which the Japanese built their short-lived Co-Prosperity Sphere were so wildly different to those surrounding western colonialism that they defy comparison. With the exception of the Belgian Congo, none of the European or British colonies were handled in anything like as brutal and arbitrary a manner as the Japanese.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

All the more reason to curtail the Pacific War. And they can't fight a land war in Europe without massive land forces either.

I don't think they'll raise those forces. The Allies will look at the cost of such a war and turn to "alternatives": blockade, an expanded strategic bombing campaign- and annihilation of Germany's allies abroad, i.e. Japan.

Ok, they couldn't cooperate much after Pearl Harbor. Why would we assume the Japs would not make the strategic move that was the most dangerous to the Allies?

The Japanese didn't tend to act in a rational manner in terms of grand strategy. Because of the way that policy decisions were made at the top level, all decisions tended to be a compromise intended to satisfy the honour of everyone involved. Hence insane policies like declaring war on the United States because Japan could not defeat China.

I would say they averted German air superiority over British shores by late 1940 - barely.

It's clear that the British had air superiority at this point. Moreover, if you look at the figures you'll see why. Already at this time British aircraft production was surging ahead of Germany's. Add the United States and Germany has no hope of mounting a successful invasion.

They were still forced to revert to night bombing elsewhere. If the air war was fought over the channel, instead of over British airfields, their edge would be gone.

I doubt it. By 1941 the British were aggressively patrolling over the French coast with fighters in order to force the Germans to engage them. Admittedly if the Luftwaffe is able to return to western Europe, the Germans can move the fight into the Channel- but I don't see them winning it there

And, of course, the Italian airforce now has little to do.

It also has strictly limited combat value.

I don't think air superiority is essential for Seelowe - parity could be good enough.

Mm. From my experience in Colin's Seelowe I'd tend to disagree. If the British are able to get even a few bombers into the Channel it causes all sorts of problems. Of course, the RAF and USAAF bomber forces were much more developed by 1943. Figure without air superiority, the Germans are pretty much confined to the ports.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I don't think they'll raise those forces. The Allies will look at the cost of such a war and turn to "alternatives": blockade, an expanded strategic bombing campaign- and annihilation of Germany's allies abroad, i.e. Japan.

Might as well just sue for peace then. No blockade will work if the Germans control all the Soviet resources. And, as I said, even if they focus on Japan, the Japs still don't need the BBs - it took years to fight through their defense shield anyway.

The Japanese didn't tend to act in a rational manner in terms of grand strategy. Because of the way that policy decisions were made at the top level, all decisions tended to be a compromise intended to satisfy the honour of everyone involved. Hence insane policies like declaring war on the United States because Japan could not defeat China.

Assuming the enemy won't make the available best move is a sure path to defeat. The Japs needed oil, and to get it they needed to neutralize the US Pacific Fleet. It wasn't that irrational. It only appears irrational from the 20:20 hindsight of America's reaction to Pearl Harbor and that the Soviets survived.

I doubt it. By 1941 the British were aggressively patrolling over the French coast with fighters in order to force the Germans to engage them. Admittedly if the Luftwaffe is able to return to western Europe, the Germans can move the fight into the Channel- but I don't see them winning it there

By 1941 most of the Luftwaffe is in Russia. Yet the British still had to revert to night bombing.

Mm. From my experience in Colin's Seelowe I'd tend to disagree.

Oh my! Using results from a wargame as historical reference! Blasphemy!

If the British are able to get even a few bombers into the Channel it causes all sorts of problems. Of course, the RAF and USAAF bomber forces were much more developed by 1943. Figure without air superiority, the Germans are pretty much confined to the ports.

The US didn't have air superiority over Guadalcanal yet it succeeded. And consider the huge naval losses they suffered at Okinawa - didn't stop the ground action. The Axis would have something near to air parity. They would suffer some naval losses - as would the Allies. It could still allow the invasion to get through.

And remember that the Germans can now devote full production (enhanced by Soviet looting) to air and naval equipment. They already have far more ground forces than they will ever need in Britain. And they have the Italians. Don't judge the air situation by the historical 1943 situation.

And I'm not sure just how built up the US air force was in England at that time. I know some of the fighter squadrons were just British ones transfered to the Americans (the Eagle Squadrons). That, obviously, didn't add anything.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Might as well just sue for peace then.

Well they will- just not right away. At some point both sides will be in a position where they realise that they can't beat the other. However as of 1943 I'm sure your namesake can convince FDR that bombing can bring Germany to her knees.

Assuming the enemy won't make the available best move is a sure path to defeat. The Japs needed oil, and to get it they needed to neutralize the US Pacific Fleet.

...or to start making concessions in China. But they wouldn't- they wanted all of it.

Every voice in Japan that had some concept of the vast gulf between her and the industrialised world was horrified of the thought of trying to fight the United States. Had these been the people in power, it never would have happened.

By 1941 most of the Luftwaffe is in Russia. Yet the British still had to revert to night bombing.

That's because we had no fighter aircraft which could reach Germany- not because our fighter force was weak.

Oh my! Using results from a wargame as historical reference! Blasphemy!

I know, I know. But it's a damned good scenario I'll tell you. Colin ought to rope you into the testing.

The US didn't have air superiority over Guadalcanal yet it succeeded.

The US wasn't making an opposed landing at Guadalcanal, IIRC.

didn't stop the ground action. The Axis would have something near to air parity. They would suffer some naval losses - as would the Allies.

For the Germans "some naval losses" is everything. Besides this, the Channel ports are going to receive the loving attentions of Bomber Command every night. It's going to be impossible to load anything onto the barges that remain.

And remember that the Germans can now devote full production (enhanced by Soviet looting) to air and naval equipment.

It would take years to train the additional pilots, and years more to build a real Navy. The Z Plan- cancelled before all this happens- was due to come to fruition in 1947 or something. This would have given Germany a modest 2 carriers and 4 battleships.

[sullafelix]

The United nations date you give was just a phrase that was used to denote the allies in WW2

" [font=arial]The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was first used in the "Declaration by United Nations" of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers. "[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[font=arial]The actual UN that we know today was started in 1945.[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[font=arial]"
In 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco at the United Nations Conference on International Organization to draw up the United Nations Charter. Those delegates deliberated on the basis of proposals worked out by the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States at Dumbarton Oaks, United States in August-October 1944. The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries. Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became one of the original 51 Member States.
The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and by a majority of other signatories. United Nations Day is celebrated on 24 October each year. "

Your statement " Every voice in Japan that had some concept of the vast gulf between her and the industrialised world was horrified of the thought of trying to fight the United States. Had these been the people in power, it never would have happened. " is very sweeping and incorrect. What you fail to consider is that no nation until WW2 really thought in terms of complete subjection of a country or looking for an unconditional surrender. The only wars fought in the west for 500-1000 years were wars that were based on small territorial demands and other treaty changes. The only war of total annihilation was the US civil war. While the Japanese may have been thinking in terms of conquering China, no one in their government thought that their whole nation would be occupied or their political structure be destroyed. You are correct that many in the know Japanese thought they would lose the war, but I've never even seen a statement by Yamamoto that states he was afraid that Japan would cease to exist. They did not comprehend that the west had changed it's idea of war since even 1918. WW1 although world wide and horrific no nation had a plan for the conquering of and adding a nation to it's empire. The WW1 aims were still very limited. Germany could have kept most of European Russia but once it got what it wanted in the peace treaty pulled back.

The only western " wars " for full subjucation were the colonial wars. Not even Napoleon thought of conquering and holding one of the major powers. [/font]

Sorry about the type. I forgot it changes when you copy and paste.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I know, I know. But it's a damned good scenario I'll tell you. Colin ought to rope you into the testing.

Two issues, regardless of how good it is: 1. It's hypothetical, making it almost impossible to know if it's working right. 2. The air and naval models in TOAW are weak points - they're critical to the subject.

And I just finished a year and a half of testing my own updates. I'm finally clear to get back to design. Why doesn't he release that thing and let the general public test it? You know, they're still trying to perfect that car thing and that flush toilet thing - lucky for us they didn't wait till they did.

The US wasn't making an opposed landing at Guadalcanal, IIRC.

They were opposed eventually, yet both sides landed reinforcements without either achieving air or naval supremacy. Parity is enough. And Okinawa truely shows that. The Americans had over 400 ships knocked out of action. Yet they still took the island.

For the Germans "some naval losses" is everything.

That depends upon how much assistance they get from the Italians and Japs.

Besides this, the Channel ports are going to receive the loving attentions of Bomber Command every night. It's going to be impossible to load anything onto the barges that remain.

They won't be barges this time. They'll be Jap amphibious transport. And they'll be loaded by day and sail by night. Night, plus things like fog, rain, etc. is what will blunt the impact of only having air parity. Britain is particularly subject to fog - good day to launch the invasion.

It would take years to train the additional pilots, and years more to build a real Navy. The Z Plan- cancelled before all this happens- was due to come to fruition in 1947 or something. This would have given Germany a modest 2 carriers and 4 battleships.

It doesn't take any longer to train a German pilot than it does to train a British or American one. Subs & destroyers can be built quite a bit faster than CVs & BBs.