Refighting the Pacific War

[msieving1]

Refighting the Pacific War: An Alternative History of World War II is scheduled to be released 15 September 2011. Looks like it could be interesting.

http://ww2db.com/refightingthepacificwar/

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: msieving1

Refighting the Pacific War: An Alternative History of World War II is scheduled to be released 15 September 2011. Looks like it could be interesting.

http://ww2db.com/refightingthepacificwar/

Sounds interesting.

[Pascal_slith]

Yes, I noticed a lot of significant historians of the Pacific War contributed to this one.

This is the Product Review from Amazon:

Contributors to this alternative WWII history include the noted military historians William Bartsch, John Lundstrom, Douglas Smith, Barrett Tillman, and H. P. Willmott, among others. In a roundtable discussion format, more than thirty veterans and historians address "what if" questions about the war in the Pacific. Their differing views on possible outcomes of various campaigns and the implications of those changes on the course of history are certain to provoke debate. All major naval campaigns and key battles are discussed along with such questions as whether Japan could have inflicted even greater damage at Pearl Harbor, how Admiral Yamamoto might have won at Midway, and the impact of that victory on the direction of the war. The book also explores whether the war was inevitable and whether the conflict could have ended without the use of the atomic bomb. Vice Admiral Yoji Koda, Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (Ret.), provides the book's introduction.

Though when they talk about 'veterans', no one in a significant command position is still alive....

[dr.hal]

The trouble I see with such works is "chaos theory" where a minor change, indeed and insignificant change in one aspect results is a massive reordering later on.... thus a book of this nature, although somewhat interesting, the variables are massive and could result in a infinite number of alternative scenarios later on... Admittedly the game is a variation on that theme, but it is set up as such from the outset and the events to follow are all played out and in some cases the AAR are available for "lessons learned". But books of this nature don't provide that 'assist'. Thus I'm not sure of its value, so please let me know what I'm missing (most books do examine the fact that historical figures are place in "crossroad" positions and detail the alternative paths and reasons why the author thinks "the" path was taken, but usually don't go beyond that).

[ilovestrategy]

I never really liked the "what if" questions. Too many people that have no clue what they are talking about making statements. Like the West Coast being invaded if we lost at Midway....[8|]

[rogbrezz]

Hope you like the book, I tried to keep the issues addressed as realistic and as narrow as possible, so as not to go off the deep end.

A good deal of the focus is on Pearl Harbor, Midway and Guadalcanal and the book mainly focuses on naval actions.

The experts deal with the immediate " what if " possibilities, not using the domino approach (A happens, then B, C, D, E, etc, and they explain what could have occurred and what had no chance of taking place.

I tried to get as many naval experts as possible and there are several WW 2 veterans in the book, like Dusty Kleiss talking about just a few of the endless " what if " scenarios from Midway, such as the Devastators pressing home torpedo attacks, VT-6 finding Arashi, Nagumo's decisions during the battle, and decisions made by Nimitz, Spruance, and Fletcher.

I think the most interesting question remains: What was Japan's best option in the Spring of 1942, move east, move back into the Indian Ocean, move south, or switch to a defensive war.

[DivePac88]

ORIGINAL: rogbrezz

I think the most interesting question remains: What was Japan's best option in the Spring of 1942, move east, move back into the Indian Ocean, move south, or switch to a defensive war.

I don't think that it was so much where to move, although some options were more attractive in strategic terms than others. While in strategic terms Midway was a bad choice, as I move on the Hawaiian Islands was clearly beyond Japanese means. But do not forget that the Midway operation actually succeeded in it's basic concept, and that was to bring the USN carriers out.

But the simple fact is that at Midway the Japanese concept of force concentration, or the lack of it let them down. That the Japanese had the American carriers come out to meet them, and with their carriers also dispersed. But to then have the Japanese main carrier force basically doing something else, and that was softening up Midway. That is what let the Japanese down, that and trying to run two large operations at once.