Lower national will to fight with a declared attack

[Damien Thorn]

Prior to Japan’s undeclared attack on the US, anti-war sentiment was extremely high. Everyone remembered the loss of life of Americans in the last European war and noone wanted to get involved in another one. Sure there were some communist sympathizers who wanted to save the Soviet Union (see “Treason” by Anne Coulter, now on the bestseller’s list) but most Americans were happy to let the fight remain overseas. Americans were equally unconcerned about the Chinese. Americans were ok with putting pressure on Japan to withdraw from China but war, no way.

This all changed with Japan’s undeclared attack on the US, much like Americans’ resolve to fight terrorism strengthened after the September 11th attacks. It was not Japan’s SURPRISE attack, it was the undeclared nature of the attack that did it.

I would like to see an option in WitP where the Japanese declared war prior to the attack (like they intended to do but screwed it up with decoding the message in time). The game effect of this should be a MUCH lower threshold required for victory. The US’s will to fight would not be nearly as high as it was historically. I don’t know what the details would be like, but I think it is something to consider. It would be an alternative scenario, something like scenario 19 in Uncommon Valor.

[Capt. Harlock]

This is an excellent idea; I have argued for some time that Pearl Harbor did as much as any other action to lose the war for the Japanese. But I humbly beg to differ that a simple hour's change in the time of the declaration of war would have made a difference.

First of all, it is not entirely true that there was no sentiment for war in the U.S. prior to Dec. 7. Indeed, it is clear that FDR had already decided to join the war in both the European and Pacific theatres, and was gearing up military production for it. Also, such incidents as the Rape of Nanking and the attack on the "Panay" had inflamed public opinion against the Japanese.

Also, I'm not convinced that it was the undeclared nature of the attack that angered the American public. Even if a declaration of war had come first, it would have been obvious that the plans for Pearl Harbor had been made before the announcement. And after any lop-sided defeat, there is always a "revenge" instinct.

My feeling is that if you want the political benefits--war weariness, less economic sacrifice--the Japanese will have to forgo the tactical advantage of the Pearl Harbor strike entirely. The Japanese should be prevented from attacking any American posistions for several days after a declaration. An invasion of Burma and Dutch Indonesia, however, would be allowed, and when the Americans react, they become fair game.

[norsemanjs]

This is an excellent idea; I have argued for some time that Pearl Harbor did as much as any other action to lose the war for the Japanese. But I humbly beg to differ that a simple hour's change in the time of the declaration of war would have made a difference.

First of all, it is not entirely true that there was no sentiment for war in the U.S. prior to Dec. 7. Indeed, it is clear that FDR had already decided to join the war in both the European and Pacific theatres, and was gearing up military production for it. Also, such incidents as the Rape of Nanking and the attack on the "Panay" had inflamed public opinion against the Japanese.

Also, I'm not convinced that it was the undeclared nature of the attack that angered the American public. Even if a declaration of war had come first, it would have been obvious that the plans for Pearl Harbor had been made before the announcement. And after any lop-sided defeat, there is always a "revenge" instinct.

My feeling is that if you want the political benefits--war weariness, less economic sacrifice--the Japanese will have to forgo the tactical advantage of the Pearl Harbor strike entirely. The Japanese should be prevented from attacking any American posistions for several days after a declaration. An invasion of Burma and Dutch Indonesia, however, would be allowed, and when the Americans react, they become fair game.

[Tristanjohn]

This is an excellent idea; I have argued for some time that Pearl Harbor did as much as any other action to lose the war for the Japanese. But I humbly beg to differ that a simple hour's change in the time of the declaration of war would have made a difference.

First of all, it is not entirely true that there was no sentiment for war in the U.S. prior to Dec. 7. Indeed, it is clear that FDR had already decided to join the war in both the European and Pacific theatres, and was gearing up military production for it. Also, such incidents as the Rape of Nanking and the attack on the "Panay" had inflamed public opinion against the Japanese.

Also, I'm not convinced that it was the undeclared nature of the attack that angered the American public. Even if a declaration of war had come first, it would have been obvious that the plans for Pearl Harbor had been made before the announcement. And after any lop-sided defeat, there is always a "revenge" instinct.

My feeling is that if you want the political benefits--war weariness, less economic sacrifice--the Japanese will have to forgo the tactical advantage of the Pearl Harbor strike entirely. The Japanese should be prevented from attacking any American posistions for several days after a declaration. An invasion of Burma and Dutch Indonesia, however, would be allowed, and when the Americans react, they become fair game.

You make good sense. It might be difficult to model, though, probably require loads of new code to reflect the new political model necessary to simulate this change of strategic direction and planning on Japan's part.

Also, this would hardly reflect Japan's actual political profile of the period: the Army hotheads in power would never have gone for this, indeed, were busy (and had been for some time) assassinating liberals and intellectuals in positions of influence who argued for similar (if not more sane still) international overview.

It could prove to be an interesting what-if even so. It'd make more sense than another slough of scenarios like #17 and #19 in UV.

[norsemanjs]

I always thought it would be interesting to see what would happen if the Japanese would have tried to make a move on the DEI and Malaya without attacking the USA.

Numerous questions arise from that strategy.

Primarily, how long will the US stay on the sidelines. I would imagine the US would have immediately started a major reinforcement of PI and the Guam, Wake island outposts. The next question will that help or hurt the US tactical positions. Will it mean additional losses to allied forces once the US gets into the fight? Is the PI position salvageable even with additional forces? If the Japanese take DEI and Malaya before the US is involved there would potentially be more forces available to move against PI. As the US would I dare position valuable fleet assets forward enough to try and prevent a landing in the Phillipines.

It will be fun to set up a modified scenario and see what would happen. I hope the editor will be easy enough to use that we can try this type of scenario.

On a seperate note. Have any of the alpha testers tried anything interesting lately that they are allowed to share. I appreciate the tidbits of info you guys have been able to pass on.

[mogami]

Hi the current editor is fairly easy to use and allows the player to set up anything he wants. You can create ships, aircraft and land units.
As I have been running Japan in the long scenario I find that for myself there is no reason not to quickly invade PI. The bases are too important for use against the rest of SRA to by pass. (Now if you could be certain the USA would stay out of the war, the difficulty resulting from not securing Manila and other bases might be justified. If however you can not be certain it is better to go ahead and try to cripple the USN at PH and overrun PI right off the bat.)

[mdiehl]

Prior to Japan’s undeclared attack on the US, anti-war sentiment was extremely high.

Extremely high == about 5% of the population actively opposed a war with the Axis. This thread is the usual mistaken perception of WW2. Most Americans felt that avoiding a war was desirable but that the policies of Germany and Japan would lead inevitably to a war with the United States. Japan's public reputation in the United States was so deep in the toilet that the Japanese spent about $50M at the 1939 World Fair just to try to improve their image with the American public. Their reputation for occupation activities in China made them onerous in the general public's eye.

Likewise, the import of a declared war vs an undeclared war was immaterial. Germany declared war on the US, and there was much less of a racial component (not to mention that their occupation policies were not very well known in December 1941), and it did nothing to sap public will to bring the war with Germany to a successful conclusion.

The notion that somehow an official Japanese DoW would have substantially undercut the FDR admin or lessened American will to fight the Japanese is a remnant Axis Fanboy pipe-dream.... part of the "coulda-shoulda-woulda" mantra of the Japanese ultranationalists post-war analysis looking for some way to make an accord between (a) their racial assumptions about Americans' lack of stomach for war, and (b) the outcome of the war and obvious evidence to the contrary of their racial supremist theories.

The game effect of this should be a MUCH lower threshold required for victory. The US’s will to fight would not be nearly as high as it was historically.

That is all bs. The game effect should be that the Japanese find the Allies just as determined to fight, but that none of the Japanese attacks that initiate the war achieve any semblance of surprise.

[Capt. Harlock]

I can't fully agree with mdiehl. There would have been a war if Japan had invaded the DEI, and there unquestionalbly would have been a war upon the invasion of the PI, which was still an American protectorate at the time. But I doubt the mobilization could have been done with either the speed or the completeness that happened. As I mentioned, FDR had already decided to get involved in WWII, but before Pearl Harbor his efforts to mobilize were not successful. During 1940, when both the British and the Russians were clamoring for weaponry, the U.S. manufactured less than a thousand military aircraft of all types. Contrast this with the jaw-dropping production levels eventually achieved. And can you imagine a substantial number of Americans putting their cars on blocks for the next four years because there's no spare rubber for tires?

[mdiehl]

I doubt the mobilization could have been done with either the speed or the completeness that happened. As I mentioned, FDR had already decided to get involved in WWII, but before Pearl Harbor his efforts to mobilize were not successful. During 1940, when both the British and the Russians were clamoring for weaponry, the U.S. manufactured less than a thousand military aircraft of all types. Contrast this with the jaw-dropping production levels eventually achieved. And can you imagine a substantial number of Americans putting their cars on blocks for the next four years because there's no spare rubber for tires?

Yeah, the mobilization would have happened with equal speed. Before PH efforts to mobilize were well-underway. Not "successful" in your terms (a/c production output) because the mobilization began with an infusion of capital for infrastructure, and for certain other key armaments. The Two Ocean Navy Act was five years prior to 1941 and it was the substantial basis for many of the ships completed prior to 1943. The USAAC and USN had substantial aviation force pool expansion programs working up beginning Fall 1939, to provide a corps of instructors to keep trained pilots flowing to the expected combat theaters. Davis Monthan AFB in AZ was founded in 1940 in order to provide a fair-weather training facility for the expected war, as well as a way-station on the route from the a/c production facilities in the industrialized east to the west coast (precedent to deployment in the PTO).

This is not the same as an attack on someone OTHER than the US. I can't say how the general public would have responded to a Japanese attack on, say, Dutch colonial assets in Indonesia. I think speculation in this area is questing for an absolute answer the the question about the frequencies of angels on pin-heads.

The original post posited that a formal Japanese DoW on the US would somehow have lessened the US public will to defeat Japan, sustain casualties and so forth. THAT is the post to which I responded and the one that I think is pure, unbridled, b.s.

[Damien Thorn]

The original post posited that a formal Japanese DoW on the US would somehow have lessened the US public will to defeat Japan, sustain casualties and so forth. THAT is the post to which I responded and the one that I think is pure, unbridled, b.s.

Well, mdiehl, if anyone would know bs when he saw it, I'd think that would have to be you, since you shovel it so often on these forums. The fact is that the vast majority of Americans were against sending their sons of to fight either another one the endless wars in Europe, or to places unknown in the Pacific to help those very same European powers rape the resources of indigenous peoples.
FDR was trying to get us involved in the war because he was concerned that his good old buddy Uncle Joe might lose the war with Germany. He didn’t give a crap about England. Roosevelt’s vice president from 1940-1944, Henry Wallace, said, “America’s main enemy was Churchill and the British Empire”.
All the people I have spoken with who were alive during WW2 say that the overwhelming sentiment in this country prior to Japan’s attack was anti-war.

[mdiehl]

The fact is that the vast majority of Americans were against sending their sons of to fight either another one the endless wars in Europe, or to places unknown in the Pacific to help those very same European powers rape the resources of indigenous peoples.

Doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself, you're at best being quite misleading and at worst just misinformed. Gallup polls at the time indicated that most Americans did not want a war with any Axis power, felt that such a war was likely, felt that such a war should be fought to win when it happened, and felt that the Japanese were the ones most immediately likely to be fought. One has to put the latter in the historical context -- pervasive racism -- it was easier to despise the Japanese, and precedent -- 1936 and all that, and subsequent occupation policies in China.

FDR was trying to get us involved in the war because he was concerned that his good old buddy Uncle Joe might lose the war with Germany.

Ah. FDR's "good old buddy" was "Uncle Joe?" I guess you subscribe to that Democrats == Communists stuff. 'nuff said on that. From what I've read, FDR's first concern was that the UK would lose the war. Historical events would seem to support MY pov over yours, since the mobilization began long before the Euraxis declared war on the USSR, and since the US was pushing Hitler's buttons well before the assault on the USSR began. BTW -- if Anne Coulter is your best authoritative source for historical events, perspectives, your only honorable course of action is noble silence or suicide. Coulter is an idiot troll for whom facts are irrelevant except when they are wholly fabricated or distorted. If you paid money for her little slice of hate mail, more's the pity.

He didn’t give a crap about England. Roosevelt’s vice president from 1940-1944, Henry Wallace, said, “America’s main enemy was Churchill and the British Empire”.

Whatever. Statements like "He didn't give a crap about England" are pretty much a conversation stopper.

All the people I have spoken with who were alive during WW2 say that the overwhelming sentiment in this country prior to Japan’s attack was anti-war.

Well, good for you. You and both of your informants.

From your original post:

It was not Japan’s SURPRISE attack, it was the undeclared nature of the attack that did it.

And this is where you are quite incorrect. ANY Japanese attack, with or without a DoW, would have resulted in the US prosecuting the war against Japan with equal fervor. Maybe you should rephrase your question to your informants. Ask them, had the Japanese declared war first, prior to their attack, whether they'd have supported prosecution of the war with equal vigor. Ask them at what point the maltreatment of American prisoners, the executions, the invasions of US territories, would have been acceptable.

[TIMJOT]

This is not the same as an attack on someone OTHER than the US. I can't say how the general public would have responded to a Japanese attack on, say, Dutch colonial assets in Indonesia. I think speculation in this area is questing for an absolute answer the the question about the frequencies of angels on pin-heads.

The original post posited that a formal Japanese DoW on the US would somehow have lessened the US public will to defeat Japan, sustain casualties and so forth. THAT is the post to which I responded and the one that I think is pure, unbridled, b.s.

Gulp.... Have to agree with Mdiehl . Its not the same thing. Whereas there is room for speculation on what the US governments and general public response would be to an attack on a non-US possession. There is little doubt that any attack on the US declared or not would have resulted other than the historical response. Attacking a belligerent second party's colonial possessions is one thing. Attacking the US and or its possesions is entirely different matter.

[Tristanjohn]

This is typical enough for these boards (or boards almost anywhere). Someone (mdiehl) comes on with good English and a grasp for the subject and right away gets blasted when he sticks to his guns. <g>

Some of you people are really out there, you know?

Anyway, please keep "shoveling it" mdiehl.

[mogami]

Hi, Seems we had this one before as well. From that other great debate:

31 July 03
"I have no doubt that EVENTUALLY the USA would have gotten into the war on its own. But the American people were still staunchly isolationist and Roosevelt knew it. It could have been many, many more months before America entered the war on its own, and who knows what might have happened in the meantime."

My reply

"Check your polls again. (I expect a full report)
1936 USA strongly isolationist
1940 USA knows war is coming
1941 USA public has turned 180 from 1936 and believes USA should get into European war (Pacific war comes as a surprise and shock to non military)..................

Blood and Guts: This nickname was given to General George S. Patton at Ft. Benning, Ga. .in 1940. This was the result of officers training school when General Patton was the Commanding General of the 2nd Armored. He had been telling the officers that they would soon be up to their necks in blood and guts
2nd AD Activated 15 Jul 1940........"

[Mike Scholl]

Well, mdiehl, if anyone would know bs when he saw it, I'd think that would have to be you, since you shovel it so often on these forums. The fact is that the vast majority of Americans were against sending their sons of to fight either another one the endless wars in Europe, or to places unknown in the Pacific to help those very same European powers rape the resources of indigenous peoples.
FDR was trying to get us involved in the war because he was concerned that his good old buddy Uncle Joe might lose the war with Germany. He didn’t give a crap about England. Roosevelt’s vice president from 1940-1944, Henry Wallace, said, “America’s main enemy was Churchill and the British Empire”.
All the people I have spoken with who were alive during WW2 say that the overwhelming sentiment in this country prior to Japan’s attack was anti-war.

This is one of those uncommonly ignorant posts that keep this forum
lively. That Henry Wallace's staff was riddled with Soviet Agents is well
known fact..., and that he was dropped from the ticket in 1944 is also
fact. That nobody paid any attention to this idiot's opinions between
1940 and 1944 (from Roosevelt on down) is also fact. That's why we
had President Harry Truman in 1945, and not President Wallace.

I was born before Truman was elected President, and grew up with
an interest in WWII and plenty of people who lived through it to
question about it. And there is a tremendous difference between
"anti-war" (as you suggest) and "pro-peace" (which was reality at the
time). Nobody in their right mind WANTS to get into a War..., but the
acceptance of out eventual NEED to become involved was fully esta-
blished in the American Public by 1941. Even in the "isolationist" Mid-
West, where I grew up, the majority (while dreading the prospect) had
come to believe that our involvement was inevitable due to the nature
of Axis aggression.

FDR, and many other Americans, developed sympathy for the
Russian People when the Nazi's struck. Just as they had sympathy for
the Chinese when the Japanese attacked them. But it was the image
of "plucky little England" standing alone against the Axis Hordes that
held Americans enthralled at the time. Edward R. Murrow gave us the
"blow by blow" of the Battle of Britian as we sat glued to our radios...,
and one of the greatest masters of English prose who ever lived,
Winston Churchill, played on American ears and hearts with every bit
as much success (sometimes more) as he played to English ones. By
the end of 1941, most of the American Public were "England Fans" in
the same way they were "Yankee Fans", or "Cub Fans", or whatever
they were. England was "America's Team", and we were much more
interested in the swaying fate of the Desert Army vs. Rommel than in
the really important battles before Moscow. Too many Americans
remembered the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939 for "Uncle Joe" to be a
popular cause in 1941, and while Roosevelt eventually came to believe
he could (and would have to) "work with the Soviets"; this tripe you
are spewing about him wanting to drag America into War to help the Reds has about as much fact attached to it as the idea he knew the
Japs were going to hit Pearl Harbor and let it happen. Even when
dressed up as a Conspiracy Theory, B-LLSH-T still stinks!

[gus]

Gulp.... Have to agree with Mdiehl . Its not the same thing. Whereas there is room for speculation on what the US governments and general public response would be to an attack on a non-US possession. There is little doubt that any attack on the US declared or not would have resulted other than the historical response. Attacking a belligerent second party's colonial possessions is one thing. Attacking the US and or its possesions is entirely different matter.

mdiehl certainly does not need anyone to stand up for him as he is apparently quite capable of standing up for himself and presenting his ideas and opinions elegantly and in sufficent detail to win virtually every debate that he has been part of on these forums. I find his posts to be extremely informative and quite lucid which is a nice change of pace

But one thing does bother me and that is the apparent reluctance of forum members to listen to what he has to say without prejudice. I understand that he may not always be supporting a popularly held view and that his rebuttals often cut to the bone but his positions are backed by solid fact finding and citing of sources (in general) and his scathing replies are usually quite justified as he is simply responding in kind.

I have seen several forum contributors whose opinion I respect on this and other forums simply drowned out by countering opinion which is usually emotionally rather than intellectually driven and while I think mdiehl is very tough skinned and not affected by this I would hate to think that others like him would be reluctant to contribute to this forum as a consequence.

Just something to think about.

-g

[Tristanjohn]

Yet another human being steps forward, and he's called gus! Say, do you look like William Bendix?

Many years ago, gus (too many years ago, I sorely admit) people such as mdiehl were not that hard to find on the kind of boards we have here with Matrix. They did not represent any sort of majority, don't get me wrong--the unwashed have always been present in round numbers--but it seems that when all was dark and hope had faded an mdiehl or two or three could be counted on to step dutifully forward to bear the torch and light the way and soon enough things would get better, if not exactly right. Unfortunately, the intervening years have taken their toll and these people are beginning to die off, and from what I can tell those still hanging around play fewer games, with the unahppy result that places like the Matrix boards get completely overrun by . . . The Others.

Anyway, keep on keeping on as they say, good show! and all that.

[pasternakski]

places like the Matrix boards get completely overrun by . . . The Others.

[gus]

Yet another human being steps forward, and he's called gus! Say, do you look like William Bendix? :)

I hate to say it but it would be an improvement BTW WB probably has my vote for all time favorite character actor!

Many years ago, gus (too many years ago, I sorely admit) people such as mdiehl were not that hard to find on the kind of boards we have here with Matrix. They did not represent any sort of majority, don't get me wrong--the unwashed, have always been present in round numbers--but it seems that when all was dark and hope had faded an mdiehl or two or three could be counted on to step dutifully forward to bear the torch and light the way and soon enough things would get better, if not exactly right. Unfortunately, the intervening years have taken their toll and these people are beginning to die off, and from what I can tell those still hanging around play fewer games, with the unahppy result that places like the Matrix boards get completely overrun by . . . The Others.

Anyway, keep on keeping on as they say, good show! and all that.

Nicely stated. I like to think that the Matrix boards are better than most but I have seen too many people drowned out as the signal to noise ratio drops even on this board. I tend to lurk rather than post but I do seek out posters such as mdiehl's, among others, as they are such a refreshing departure from the usual pulp that passes for opinion/argument here. Every one is entitled to their POV but whenever a debate devolves to name calling and personal attacks it is pretty obvious that person has lost. Unfortunately that is considered fair play here and is a common tactic to squash an unpopular view.

-g

[mdiehl]

In defense of Damien, I probably ****** him off by calling his supposition "B.S." My apologies, Damien. It's just that this idea you have raised is manifestly wrong, and yet like some hydra, it's incredibly difficult to kill the argument. You're not the first to raise it, as Mogami reminds us.

More to the point, here is a web link (web sites are not always the best resource it's true) that recaps some of the Gallup polls regarding WW2. Since it's from the Gallup Poll company web site, I think we can treat it authoritative in re such niceties as whether or not a poll was taken and what the results were.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/focus/polls_ ... events.asp

And here are some important text excerpts that I quote verbatim from the web site:

1940 Peacetime Draft Enactment of the first peacetime military draft in U.S. history enjoys overwhelming support, with 89% saying it is "a good thing."

1940 U.S. to Enter WWII Prior to entering World War II, 62% percent of the American public believes that defeating Germany is more important than staying out of the war.

1942 Government Control Government controls go into effect; 52% say gas rationing is necessary nationwide, 32% say it is not, 17% don't know.

1943 During WWII Americans willing to help the war effort, as 44% believe the government has gone "not far enough" in asking people to making to sacrifices for the war.

1945 Surrender Only 12% of the public say they dissapprove of requiring unconditional surrender from our enemy.

1945 Aid to Japan The public supports helping Japan; 66% say they would be willing to put up with food shortages "in order to give food to people who need it in Japan."

I like the last one. After ALL THAT, even before the bodies have all been returned home, DESPITE all the atrocities, "Generosity in victory" is the prevailing sentiment.