Surrender?
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
- niceguy2005
- Posts: 12522
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:53 pm
- Location: Super secret hidden base
Surrender?
I've never seen a thread on allied surrender. Im wondering at what point, if ever, do you think the allies might realistically surrender or negotiate peace? Not that this is an issue in my games the allies will soon be in Tokyo. [;)]

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie
- Mike Solli
- Posts: 16012
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
- Mike Solli
- Posts: 16012
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
- Black Mamba 1942
- Posts: 510
- Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:44 pm
RE: Surrender?
Never surrender![;)]
Just quit playing![:D]
Just quit playing![:D]
RE: Surrender?
Hi, I think I surrender nicely. something like
"well I think you'll get your autovictory but I'll let you continue to pound on me if you want for another 100 turns"
or
"Help me I've fallen and I can't get up"
or
"OK OK Uncle Uncle No mas No Mas Whah Whah you &^%^&* enough already"
(I won't mention any names but their intials are Oleg, Bosun and Oznoyog and Brady and Tom H and well the list goes on.)
"well I think you'll get your autovictory but I'll let you continue to pound on me if you want for another 100 turns"
or
"Help me I've fallen and I can't get up"
or
"OK OK Uncle Uncle No mas No Mas Whah Whah you &^%^&* enough already"
(I won't mention any names but their intials are Oleg, Bosun and Oznoyog and Brady and Tom H and well the list goes on.)

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
- niceguy2005
- Posts: 12522
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:53 pm
- Location: Super secret hidden base
RE: Surrender?
Funny guys, but I was thinking more along the lines of what gains would a Japanese player really need to force a favorably negotiated peace for Japan. I think obviously the US would have to be hurt bad. maybe if Japan sunk the US fleet and controlled PH. The US would have seen invasion as immenent.

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie
RE: Surrender?
I shudder to think what sort of defeat the US would have had to suffer at the hands of Japan before she'd surrender.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
- Black Mamba 1942
- Posts: 510
- Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:44 pm
RE: Surrender?
The US armed forces would surrender if the Japanese were in Washington DC dictating policy.
The civilians would never surrender.[;)]
The civilians would never surrender.[;)]
- rogueusmc
- Posts: 4583
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 6:21 pm
- Location: Texas...what country are YOU from?
- Contact:
RE: Surrender?
ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942
The US armed forces would surrender if the Japanese were in Washington DC dictating policy.
The civilians would never surrender.[;)]

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.
Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

- niceguy2005
- Posts: 12522
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:53 pm
- Location: Super secret hidden base
RE: Surrender?
Would that change if Japan had attacked SIngapore on the first day instead of PH? You would almost have to think it would.ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942
The US armed forces would surrender if the Japanese were in Washington DC dictating policy.
The civilians would never surrender.[;)]

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie
RE: Surrender?
I think it is a misnomer to think that the Japanese every really planned on the US to surrender.
The goal of course for the Japanese was to make the situation so untenable for the Allies that they would have no choice but to accept peace terms that were favorable for the Empire of Japan.
The US had an idea of total surrender of the Japanese people, where nothing less wouldn't be considered. I don't think the Japanese ever seriously thought that this was possible with a country the size of the US.
The goal of course for the Japanese was to make the situation so untenable for the Allies that they would have no choice but to accept peace terms that were favorable for the Empire of Japan.
The US had an idea of total surrender of the Japanese people, where nothing less wouldn't be considered. I don't think the Japanese ever seriously thought that this was possible with a country the size of the US.
Thomas S. Cofield
Feature Editor, SimHQ.com
t.co0field@comcast.net (stopped the SimHq mail since I get nothing but spam)

Feature Editor, SimHQ.com
t.co0field@comcast.net (stopped the SimHq mail since I get nothing but spam)

-
- Posts: 2422
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:02 am
- Location: Citrus Heights, CA
RE: Surrender?
Never would have happened. What were they going to do? Occupy Washington? If they did {which was an impossibility}, the government would move to New York....and so on.
The Japanese plan was to take everything they wanted and then offer peace. That they thought the U.S. would accept that is a staggering example of colossal stupidity. They only thing dumber was Hitler declaring war on the U.S. {followed closely by his invading Russia}.
The Japanese plan was to take everything they wanted and then offer peace. That they thought the U.S. would accept that is a staggering example of colossal stupidity. They only thing dumber was Hitler declaring war on the U.S. {followed closely by his invading Russia}.
RE: Surrender?
ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
Never would have happened. What were they going to do? Occupy Washington? If they did {which was an impossibility}, the government would move to New York....and so on.
The Japanese plan was to take everything they wanted and then offer peace. That they thought the U.S. would accept that is a staggering example of colossal stupidity. They only thing dumber was Hitler declaring war on the U.S. {followed closely by his invading Russia}.
The Japanese plan was based on the assumption that the US was "brittle" about casualties. That as a country and as a people we were unable and unwilling to pay the blood price necessary to retake the lost territory and carry the fight on to originally Japanese territory.
Amazing how history repeats itself.
This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.
"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy
Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy
Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

-
- Posts: 2422
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:02 am
- Location: Citrus Heights, CA
RE: Surrender?
Colossal Stupidity.
Many people have stated that we never understood the Japanese. Their war aims show that they never understood us.
And yes, history repeats itself.
Many people have stated that we never understood the Japanese. Their war aims show that they never understood us.
And yes, history repeats itself.
RE: Surrender?
ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
Colossal Stupidity.
Many people have stated that we never understood the Japanese. Their war aims show that they never understood us.
And yes, history repeats itself.
Well, a few Japanese understood the US, Yamamoto being the prime example.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
RE: Surrender?
Well, in case of better media coverage...and propaganda, Japanase should achieve their goal to cease fire and propose peace treaty...
Vietnamese was able to do it, they was beaten hard but finally achieved their goals [8D]
Vietnamese was able to do it, they was beaten hard but finally achieved their goals [8D]

RE: Surrender?
Given the magnatude of the surprise attack at PH (or one of similar size at Manilla), I don't think the US would have ever surrendered or have even entered into a negotiated peace. There was never any reason to. The West Coast was never threatened, and was never going to be, and we knew it. Even if we lost Pearl (bah), it doesn't threaten the actual continental US, would could still have utterly clobbered them.
Canada. Again, no point in caving, ever. They're not under any threat, and if they were, they know USA would have something to say about it if somehow Japan managed to convince space aliens to help transport the needed troops for an invasion.
Best scenario for Japan, would have been able to capitalize on a "more fotunate" Germany in Europe. That requires a much more isolationist USA, with less help to Britian.
Britian. I don't want to sell short our friends across the pond, so I'll put as a cavate that I'm not qualified to anwer, but since few others (if any) are actually qualified to answer here also, I'll join the fun. Most of us will cede that things could have gone badly for Britian in Europe. I don't think Germany could have ever invaded Britian, but I think under very specific circumstances (more isloationist USA), Britian could have been strangled into a negotiated peace. That being the most important domino, if Britian is incapacitated in Europe, then Japan would likely have been able to negotiate a similar situation after capturing Malaya and other British possessions. I'd say if
a. USA is isolationist, and not aiding Britian to the extent they did historically,
b. Japan doesn't mess with USA, they don't need to. An isolationist USA means not only less aid to Britian, but less controversy over China (no aid to China, and NO EMBARGO).
could have lead to...
c. Continental Europe has fallen, Germany is strangling Britian with u-boats
d. Bad news in North Africa, Suez under threat or fallen, more bad news
e. Japan rolls Malaya, Burma, mounts credible threat against India.
Then I can see a "negotiated peace" for Britian.
But, given the historical events of Europe, there is never any reason for any of the major Allied powers to surrender or "negotiated peace" with Japan.
Canada. Again, no point in caving, ever. They're not under any threat, and if they were, they know USA would have something to say about it if somehow Japan managed to convince space aliens to help transport the needed troops for an invasion.
Best scenario for Japan, would have been able to capitalize on a "more fotunate" Germany in Europe. That requires a much more isolationist USA, with less help to Britian.
Britian. I don't want to sell short our friends across the pond, so I'll put as a cavate that I'm not qualified to anwer, but since few others (if any) are actually qualified to answer here also, I'll join the fun. Most of us will cede that things could have gone badly for Britian in Europe. I don't think Germany could have ever invaded Britian, but I think under very specific circumstances (more isloationist USA), Britian could have been strangled into a negotiated peace. That being the most important domino, if Britian is incapacitated in Europe, then Japan would likely have been able to negotiate a similar situation after capturing Malaya and other British possessions. I'd say if
a. USA is isolationist, and not aiding Britian to the extent they did historically,
b. Japan doesn't mess with USA, they don't need to. An isolationist USA means not only less aid to Britian, but less controversy over China (no aid to China, and NO EMBARGO).
could have lead to...
c. Continental Europe has fallen, Germany is strangling Britian with u-boats
d. Bad news in North Africa, Suez under threat or fallen, more bad news
e. Japan rolls Malaya, Burma, mounts credible threat against India.
Then I can see a "negotiated peace" for Britian.
But, given the historical events of Europe, there is never any reason for any of the major Allied powers to surrender or "negotiated peace" with Japan.
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

- niceguy2005
- Posts: 12522
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:53 pm
- Location: Super secret hidden base
RE: Surrender?
OK OK Clearly I'm not stating my question correctly. By surrender, I don't mean unconditional capitulation. I mean anywhere from total surrender (which never would have happened) to a negotiated cease fire. In other words, is there any situation in which the US, Japans primary opponent in the Pacific, would have agreed to cease hosilities.ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
Never would have happened. What were they going to do? Occupy Washington? If they did {which was an impossibility}, the government would move to New York....and so on.
The Japanese plan was to take everything they wanted and then offer peace. That they thought the U.S. would accept that is a staggering example of colossal stupidity. They only thing dumber was Hitler declaring war on the U.S. {followed closely by his invading Russia}.

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie
- niceguy2005
- Posts: 12522
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:53 pm
- Location: Super secret hidden base
RE: Surrender?
Very well stated argument Feinder. But as you suggested, what if Japan had avoided the US altogether? Had Japan attacked any of our allies in the pacific I could see the US getting involved on a limited basis, as in WWI, but how dedicated would the country have been at that point. The US was still suffering from a very bad economic depression. Wars cost a lot of money. If Japan hadn't bloodied the nose of the US so bad at PH would there have been the determination? I think so, because I think FDR would have found a way to get the US involved on a full scale basis, but I suggest the the devastation at PH sealed Japans fate, just as Germany attacking Russia sealed Germanys fate.ORIGINAL: Feinder
Given the magnatude of the surprise attack at PH (or one of similar size at Manilla), I don't think the US would have ever surrendered or have even entered into a negotiated peace. There was never any reason to. The West Coast was never threatened, and was never going to be, and we knew it. Even if we lost Pearl (bah), it doesn't threaten the actual continental US, would could still have utterly clobbered them.
This is why in WitP I think the way the game is designed ONLY makes sense with a first turn attack on PH. A first turn attack on Singapore would lead to immediate US mobilization.

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie