Should US have made "Asia First" policy Dec 8 1941?

[dumbstruck]

I'm tired of the automatic acceptance of the "Europe First" strategy
as gospel, which wasn't even reconsidered after the Japanese attack.
Let's brainstorm pro arguments for Asia first strategy, without being
nitpicky about whether it was 1% worse in hindsight... after all they
didn't know USA would have a lucky win in Midway or a nuke endgame.

Why rush to Africa, Italy, and early air raids over Germany when
the concrete attacks came from Japan? You might save 100k US dead
in those early days which didn't accomplish much for the US, as
long as the Brits alone were keeping Rommel from mideast oil. This
could be a saving (not just delay) of US casualties... the Russians
should ultimately take up slack and be slowed down enslaving east
Europe.

The alternate "Asia First" policy was popular with US public and army:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first#Opposition <long lines>
We would hate to let US Atlantic shipping be attacked, but U.S. could
sell or donate goods bound for UK to Canada for shipment via Canadian
and Brit convoys.

It's irrelevant that the US did in fact put no less resources toward
Asia in the first years according to wiki (maybe excluding lend-lease?).
What if the Japanese weren't so slow to attack the Panama canal, which
had been reported to be just as vulnerable to attack as Pearl Harbor?
What if a shelling of San Francisco hadn't been called off with
moments to spare, as one sub commander reported - what would public
then say about having to ration, melt down family heirlooms, and die
in order to fight Germany rather than Japan as a priority?

The attack on Oahu should have put U.S. focus on decisively stopping
concrete Japanese threats. Maybe more could be done for Brit areas
in the Pacific so UK wasn't spread so thin. But why get so ambitious
with a second front that is less an immediate threat and furthermore
give it priority? If so, why not join a 3rd conflict, like 1941 border
war between Peru and Ecuador? Otherwise let's save US lives and reduce
economic shock by playing Europe like WW1... join Euro allies at the
last still-viable moment and take credit for victory!

[Les]

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 7:17:38 PM UTC-4, dumbstruck wrote:

(stuff deleted)

Post by dumbstruck
Let's brainstorm pro arguments for Asia first strategy, without being
nitpicky about whether it was 1% worse in hindsight... after all they
didn't know USA would have a lucky win in Midway or a nuke endgame.

Nor did they know that that Germans would not be able to knock out
the USSR once Winter ended, or that the Soviets might not need US
Lend-Lease to be able to contain further German offensives, much less
launch counter-attacks.

If the US did not provide enough assistance to keep the UK and USSR
in the fight (and no one at the time could say for certain the USSR
could stay in the fight), then the US has the problem of fighting
a Germany that has not only the resources of Western Europe, but
of the USSR also, with no easy way of knocking them out.

Post by dumbstruck
Why rush to Africa, Italy, and early air raids over Germany when
the concrete attacks came from Japan?

(rest of post deleted)

Germany was by far the greater threat. Japan's reach was limited,
and while the Allies underestimated the speed of Japan's reach, they
more accurately predicted the limits of Japan's expansion. Japan's
technology, while initially underestimated, was still minor compared
to Germany's, and their industrial capacity even less so.

[SolomonW]

Post by dumbstruck
after all they
didn't know USA would have a lucky win in Midway

If the USA had not been lucky at Midway, the policy of "Europe First"
strategy might have had to be abandoned.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by dumbstruck
after all they
didn't know USA would have a lucky win in Midway

If the USA had not been lucky at Midway, the policy of "Europe First"
strategy might have had to be abandoned.

Don't know about that especially but definitely the US Congress would
have had a lot more pressure on it than was the case.

I note in context that Midway was more than just luck - there was a
cryptological triumph where US Navy codebreakers determined that the
target was actually Midway.

As for carriers being caught re-fueling there was some luck there but
the US had a definite lead on fuel handling safety on deck.

[SolomonW]

Post by The Horny Goat
As for carriers being caught re-fueling there was some luck there

What about dive bombers at the right spot at the right time?

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
As for carriers being caught re-fueling there was some luck there

What about dive bombers at the right spot at the right time?

My original point was that while there is certainly an element of luck
in military operations, there was a lot more careful planning that
goes into most operations - certainly a whole lot more than goes into
going into the casino, buying the chips and waiting to see which way
the cards fall, the roulette ball lands, the dice fall or however
victory or defeat is determined.

Not surprisingly given in the second case all that is at stake is
money while in the former case thousands of men's lives are at stake.

[WJHopwood]

Post by SolomonW

Post by dumbstruck
after all they
didn't know USA would have a lucky win in Midway

If the USA had not been lucky at Midway, the policy of "Europe First"
strategy might have had to be abandoned.

The U.S. was "lucky" at Midway? It wasn't "luck."
A series of brilliant intelligence moves based on U.S.
code breaking activities at Hypo which revealed not
only that Midway was going to be an imminent
target of the Japanese but the date and time they
planned to strike. Admiral Nimitz thus had time to
prepare a welcome the Japanese fleet did not
expect.
[For a comprehensive review of the sequence of
events leading up to the Battle of Midway see "And I
Was There--Pearl Harbor and Midway --Breaking the
Secrets," by Rear Admiral Edwin T. Layton. 1985]

WJH

[SolomonW]

Post by WJHopwood
The U.S. was "lucky" at Midway? It wasn't "luck."

All battles involve luck, in Midway the US were particularly lucky.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway#Attacks_on_the_Japanese_fleet

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by SolomonW

Post by WJHopwood
The U.S. was "lucky" at Midway? It wasn't "luck."

All battles involve luck, in Midway the US were particularly lucky.

"Luck Is What Happens When Preparation Meets Opportunity"

This quote, attributed to Roman philosopher Seneca, reminds us
that we make our own luck. The difference between lucky and unlucky
people, we've seen before, is all in our perspective.

Luck isn't just about being at the right place at the right time, but
also about being open to and ready for new opportunities.

Lucky people generate their own good fortune via four basic principles.
They are skilled at creating and noticing chance opportunities, make
lucky decisions by listening to their intuition, create self-fulfilling
prophecies via positive expectations, and adopt a resilient attitude
that transforms bad luck into good.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by WJHopwood
The U.S. was "lucky" at Midway? It wasn't "luck."

What, the U.S. _planned_ for one of the Japanese recon
planes to be late taking off, and made sure it was the
one sent where the U.S. carriers were lurking?

And the U.S. sent NAUTILUS to just the right spot to
draw ARASHI away from the Striking Force, so she would
be returning when Bombing Six and Scouting Six were
passing south of the carriers?

And the U.S. _planned_ to distract the Japanese CAP
with six costly and ineffectual attacks, just before
the dive bombers arrived? (5 of 6 TBFs, 2 of 4 B-26s,
10 of 27 SB2Us and SBDs; all 15 B-17s got through.)

Yes, ONI's intelligence work was brilliant; not just
the interception and decryption of Japanese messages,
but the analysis. It was very much like assembling a
jigsaw puzzle with pieces missing, pieces from other
puzzles thrown in, and _without_ knowing what the
picture is.

But even with that advantage, U.S. forces needed
considerable luck to get the overwhelming victory
they achieved.

[Les]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by WJHopwood
The U.S. was "lucky" at Midway? It wasn't "luck."

To play the Devil's Advocate here, it was good luck and
bad luck for the USN and IJN.

Post by Rich Rostrom
What, the U.S. _planned_ for one of the Japanese recon
planes to be late taking off, and made sure it was the
one sent where the U.S. carriers were lurking?

That, and the fact that the IJN sent out the scouts as
an afterthought. The US sent out more than 4 times the
aircraft, searching a far greater area, and they *knew*
the IJN was going to be there.

That the aircraft the IJN sent out was late and faulty
was a stroke of luck for the USN, but the fact the IJN
did not bother to properly identify and cover a potential
blind spot in their patrol screen has to be attributed as
a mistake on the IJN's part.

Post by Rich Rostrom
And the U.S. sent NAUTILUS to just the right spot to
draw ARASHI away from the Striking Force, so she would
be returning when Bombing Six and Scouting Six were
passing south of the carriers?

The USS Nautilus was placed in hopes of intercepting Kido
Butai, so that wasn't luck. If the Arashi left it alone,
would it be luck of the sub managed to track the IJN fleet
and alert the US aircraft of its position and course?

Post by Rich Rostrom
And the U.S. _planned_ to distract the Japanese CAP
with six costly and ineffectual attacks,

(rest of post deleted)

Wouldn't this be bad luck on the USN's side, or do we
blame US doctrine for the attacks launched without
proper fighter cover?

If it was not bad luck to fail six times, and was good
luck to succeed twice (1st time taking out 3 IJN
carriers, 2nd time taking out the 4th), I would have
to argue the USN earned its luck that day.

[Dave Smith]

Post by WJHopwood
The U.S. was "lucky" at Midway? It wasn't "luck."
A series of brilliant intelligence moves based on U.S.

I don't question the intelligence moves by the US. I would say it was
probably one of the most successful applications of intelligence of the
war, that and the assassination of Yamamoto. Never the less, there was
a lot of luck involved. An entire flight of dive bombers missed the
Japanese completely. American torpedo planes were devastated by the
Japanese defenses, but they lucked out in having sucked the Japanese
fighters down to their level.

Meanwhile, a squadron of dive bombers managed to find the fleet. On
top of that, the Japanese had been caught with their pants down and had
to decide whether to launch another attack on Midway or to attack the
American fleet. They ended up being stuck with their planes on deck in
the middle of re-arming and re-fueling. Had it not been for that
decision decision to change armament, the American planes would not have
found the Japanese planes on deck with all those bombs and all that fuel
on the deck.

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by WJHopwood

Post by SolomonW

Post by dumbstruck
after all they
didn't know USA would have a lucky win in Midway

If the USA had not been lucky at Midway, the policy of "Europe First"
strategy might have had to be abandoned.

The U.S. was "lucky" at Midway? It wasn't "luck."
A series of brilliant intelligence moves based on U.S.
code breaking activities at Hypo which revealed not
only that Midway was going to be an imminent
target of the Japanese but the date and time they
planned to strike. Admiral Nimitz thus had time to
prepare a welcome the Japanese fleet did not
expect.

Recent scholarship (see the following) makes a strong case
that the IJN, while making some great successes early in the
war, had deep underlying doctrinal flaws, at the strategic
level, and at the tactical level, and at the operational
level; and that it was just a matter of time before a
catastrophe occurred, the flaws were that serious.

The IJN carrier air defense system was one of the flawed
components, as few of the aircraft had a radio, so the
air defense was largely directed by individual efforts of
the pilots, there was no central carrier direction and
no radar (the USN had all of these and in good working
order). The IJN carrier air defense system was going to
fail miserably and catastrophically at some point, the
authors argued, and it was not really surprising that it
did so at Midway. They lost situational awareness after
the torpedo bomber attacks and were too slow to react to
the dive bombers at high altitude.

_Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of
Midway_, by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully, 2005

Speaking of luck or good fortune or what ever it is called,
it could have been a lot worse for the IJN at Midway, if the
Hornet air groups had shown the same level of leadership as
that of the other two carriers, the IJN may have suffered
the loss of all four carriers to the morning dive bomber
attack, and that would have prevented the attacks on
Yorktown later in the day. So "luck" cuts both ways.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
The IJN carrier air defense system was one of the flawed
components, as few of the aircraft had a radio, so the

This reminds me of a weakness of Soviet armor; only on tank in squad
had a radio. The Germans soon (like, immediately) learned to target that
tank, leaving the rest of the unit to work out relatively uncoordinated
attacks.

Mike

[Don Phillipson]

Post by dumbstruck
I'm tired of the automatic acceptance of the "Europe First" strategy
as gospel, which wasn't even reconsidered after the Japanese attack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_war_plans#Rainbow_plans
documents that US planners (in the War and State Depts.) attempted
in 1939-41 to evaluate all possible contingencies and agree on a
general strategy for each. Priority for Europe (in alliance with Britain)
was thus not "automatic" but agreed beforehand on the basis of (best
possible) calculation of US long-term interests. Some commanders
dissented (notably Adm. King) but actual events (e.g. development of
Mustang and Corsair long-range fighters and the atomic bomb) seem to
confirm the rightness of the decision Europe First.

[IndSyd]

Many factors indicated that by 1940 the US leadership
circles (Political & Business) envisioned attaining a
world no 1 status overtaking Britain.

In that time It was a politically Eurocentric world
among the leading eco/pol circles with the Red USSR
to be constrained as best as possible to avoid the
spread of the socialistic country/economic models
around the world.

This dictates a Europe first policy and toppling
Britain off the top perch.

Post World war II 1945 saw Britain as definitely
a 2nd level power but the rise of the USSR
was a unpredicted result.

[Dave Smith]

Post by dumbstruck
Otherwise let's save US lives and reduce
economic shock by playing Europe like WW1... join Euro allies at the
last still-viable moment and take credit for victory!

That pretty well sums up the impression a lot of non-Americans have of
the US contribution to the war effort in WW I and II. The Lend-Lease
program was one that provided some of the material required to fight
Nazi Germany while it's allies fought to protect their common interest.

I don't think there are many credible people who objected to the US
staying out of WWI, since it was messy situation involving a series of
alliances that had been establish to preserve the European status quo.
IMO, given that the US did not enter the war until 1917 and didn't
really have troops on the field until 1918, by which time the western
Allies were starting to make advances, the US had far too much influence
on the Treaty of Versailles. It had not suffered as much as its allies
had, and the US did not even ratify the treaty that it had been
instrumental in writing.

Having made its own peace with Germany, the US was not obliged to
enforce the Treaty of Versailles when Germany started to violate its
teems one by one. The British and the French had lost a good part of a
generation of men and had gone through a world wide depression. They
were not in a position to go to war again. Knowing that they could not
depend on US intervention, they appeased Hitler as he militarized the
Rhineland, annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia. They drew a line at
Poland.

[IndSyd]

I think the Wikipedia article quoted by Don P
has a factual error:
"but actual events (e.g. development of
Mustang and Corsair long-range fighters and
the atomic bomb) seem to
confirm the rightness of the decision
Europe First."

The development of the Mustang P-51 by
North American was undertaken for the RAF
when Britain needed airplanes beyond its
committed production resources.
Furthermore development began in 1940
with 1st flight in Oct 1940

[Don Phillipson]

Post by IndSyd
I think the Wikipedia article quoted by Don P
"but actual events (e.g. development of
Mustang and Corsair long-range fighters and
the atomic bomb) seem to
confirm the rightness of the decision
Europe First."
The development of the Mustang P-51 by
North American was undertaken for the RAF
when Britain needed airplanes beyond its
committed production resources.

The respondent misunderstands. This comment
was not quoted from anywhere. Its function here
was to support the Europe First policy because
it contributed to (1) US development of fast fighters
with operational ranges of 1000 miles (not attempted
in the prewar years, (2) development of the atomic
bomb. Both were begun for use in the European
theatre: both proved also helpful in terminating
the war with Japan. We could also cite (3) US aid
to the USSR throughout the war, thus (4) USSR
willingness to sign up for the United Nations
Organization. Thus the Europe First policy
served US interests well.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by dumbstruck
I'm tired of the automatic acceptance of the "Europe First" strategy
as gospel, which wasn't even reconsidered after the Japanese attack.

1) "Europe First" was not a _choice_ for Britain
and the USSR - it was what they had to do. Should
the U.S. ignore the urgent need of their most
important allies?

2) Neither Germany nor Japan ever attacked the
continental U.S. (I don't count the minuscule
raids by Japanese submarines.) Neither was a
plausible _existential_ threat to the U.S. in
the near future.

In theory, either might become such a threat. This
would entail either building up the sea and land
forces required for trans- oceanic warfare, or
inventing long-range air power. Japan had a start on
the naval forces, but lacked land power and advanced
air technology. Germany had the land forces and the
technological base for air, and could build naval power.


3) In the first 11 months after Pearl Harbor,
U.S. ground troops were voluntarily engaged only
in the Pacific, in New Guinea and Guadalcanal.
Major U.S. warships were transferred from Atlantic
to Pacific - e.g. WASP and WASHINGTON.

4) What would "Japan first" change? Operations in
1942? Or preparations in 1942 for operations in
1943 and 1944?

[Aldrichtom]

Post by dumbstruck
I'm tired of the automatic acceptance of the "Europe First" strategy
as gospel, which wasn't even reconsidered after the Japanese attack.
Let's brainstorm pro arguments for Asia first strategy, without being
nitpicky about whether it was 1% worse in hindsight... after all they
didn't know USA would have a lucky win in Midway or a nuke endgame.

The policy makers probably knew Japan was close to exhausted, whereas
Germany was still able to exhaust both UK and USSR.
There were raw materials that Germany had access to as compared to Japan

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

dumbstruck <***@gmail.com> wrote:

I see others have already waded in on this; here's my 2c worth..

Post by dumbstruck
I'm tired of the automatic acceptance of the "Europe First" strategy
as gospel, which wasn't even reconsidered after the Japanese attack.
Let's brainstorm pro arguments for Asia first strategy, without being
nitpicky about whether it was 1% worse in hindsight... after all they
didn't know USA would have a lucky win in Midway or a nuke endgame.

The thing was that the USSR and to a lesser extent the UK, were pretty
close to exhausted by that time of the war. Anything that tied up any
German troops or equipment would keep Russia in the war; without that, and
Germany in control of Europe all the way to the Urals, they have access
to Mideastern oil, their flanks are well-protected, and the UK might well
have been forced to accept some sort of armistice.

Post by dumbstruck
Why rush to Africa, Italy, and early air raids over Germany when
the concrete attacks came from Japan?

Japanese attacks were a long way from the US homeland, and the US, rightly,
felt they could run a holding action in the Pacific while building up
their fleet. The PI were recognized as a lost cause before the war
even started, and it was (rightly) considered unlikely that Japan could
again mount much of a threat even to Hawaii. OTOH, the German U-boats
were making increased US attempts to relieve pressue in Europe
increasingly expensive.

Post by dumbstruck
long as the Brits alone were keeping Rommel from mideast oil. This
could be a saving (not just delay) of US casualties... the Russians
should ultimately take up slack and be slowed down enslaving east
Europe.

Or be out of the war entirely.

Post by dumbstruck
What if the Japanese weren't so slow to attack the Panama canal, which
had been reported to be just as vulnerable to attack as Pearl Harbor?

Except that's a LOT longer trip, against an enemy much more vigilent,
and with a pretty good sub fleet of its own

Post by dumbstruck
What if a shelling of San Francisco hadn't been called off with
moments to spare, as one sub commander reported - what would public

Shells, a couple launches of seaplanes, and later balloons were all
used against the West Coast. OTOH, US ships were sunk withing sight
of the US mainland by the Germans.

Post by dumbstruck
The attack on Oahu should have put U.S. focus on decisively stopping
concrete Japanese threats.

They pretty much did.

By January, there wasn't much the US could do to prevent the Japanese from
attacking British possessions (Malaysia, etc.) which were well inside
the Japanese perimeter, once the PI fell.

Mike

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by dumbstruck
I'm tired of the automatic acceptance of the "Europe First" strategy
as gospel, which wasn't even reconsidered after the Japanese attack.
Let's brainstorm pro arguments for Asia first strategy, without being
nitpicky about whether it was 1% worse in hindsight... after all they
didn't know USA would have a lucky win in Midway or a nuke endgame.
Why rush to Africa, Italy, and early air raids over Germany when
the concrete attacks came from Japan?

Given how much merchant shipping was lost off the US east and
south coasts in 1942, versus the total merchant and warship
tonnage lost to Japan in the same time period why is one concrete
and the other not?

Post by dumbstruck
You might save 100k US dead
in those early days which didn't accomplish much for the US, as
long as the Brits alone were keeping Rommel from mideast oil. This
could be a saving (not just delay) of US casualties...

Are you saying US dead was 100,000 against the axis powers in
Europe in 1942/43? The US army reports 104,812 KIA in the
European Theatre June 1944 to May 1945, and the figure may
include the USAAF.

In 1942 the US Army (and USAAF?) moved 955,248 personnel
from the US, 82,054 to Alaska, 109,300 Central Pacific,
77,936 South Pacific, 149,494 Southwest Pacific, 13,851
China Burma India, so almost half. Cargo wise it was
11,834,995 measurement tons, 1,742,367 to Alaska,
1,556,563 Central Pacific, 802,577 South Pacific, 1,385,297
Southwest Pacific, 230,288 China Burma India, so again
pushing half of exports. In 1943 the exports to theatres versus
Japan would be around a third of the totals.

Note the table has "America" as an entry, 88,814 personnel
and 1,970,565 measurement tons in 1942, 30,444 and
761,434 in 1943, not counted above as being against Japan.

At the end of 1942 the US had 11 divisions in the Pacific,
versus 7 in North Africa, UK and Iceland. At the end of
1943 it was 17 divisions apiece (including marines)

The USN and marines were more deployed against the
Japanese.

Post by dumbstruck
the Russians
should ultimately take up slack and be slowed down enslaving east
Europe.

Actually given the Red Army Casualties retaking areas helped
Stalin as the population could be conscripted. Stalin wasted
little real effort enslaving western Europe before the end of 1944.

Post by dumbstruck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first#Opposition <long lines>

Yes, as Japan had attacked the US and the long held ideas about
staying out of European wars.

Post by dumbstruck
We would hate to let US Atlantic shipping be attacked, but U.S. could
sell or donate goods bound for UK to Canada for shipment via Canadian
and Brit convoys.

The fundamental problem is the main allied shipping losses in
at least the first half of 1942 were off the US east coast and a
lot of it was non US, as the US merchant fleet was still smaller
than the British controlled one.

Post by dumbstruck
It's irrelevant that the US did in fact put no less resources toward
Asia in the first years according to wiki (maybe excluding lend-lease?).
What if the Japanese weren't so slow to attack the Panama canal, which
had been reported to be just as vulnerable to attack as Pearl Harbor?

Defence wise probably about the same, distance wise was
another matter. Essentially the way would be to blow up
suicide merchant ships in the locks, the gates were rather
strong targets for the average IJNAF bomb.

Post by dumbstruck
What if a shelling of San Francisco hadn't been called off with
moments to spare, as one sub commander reported - what would public
then say about having to ration, melt down family heirlooms, and die
in order to fight Germany rather than Japan as a priority?

A few submarine shells would not be enough, consistent
attacks would be required.

Post by dumbstruck
The attack on Oahu should have put U.S. focus on decisively stopping
concrete Japanese threats.

The concrete Japanese threats to the US to mid 1942 were
minimal, the Japanese were after South East Asia, they also
stretched their supply system to put carriers near Oahu.
Admittedly they could come from the Mandated Islands to
cut the range but they would need more ships. Operating
the IJN off the US west coast was not possible.

The concrete threat Japan posed in 1942 was being able
to fortify and defend a line that would cause heavy
casualties to break. Something Tarawa reinforced.

Post by dumbstruck
Maybe more could be done for Brit areas
in the Pacific so UK wasn't spread so thin.

Except again the British were short of troops as well as
equipment. And the fewer US troops in Europe the
fewer British troops elsewhere.

Post by dumbstruck
But why get so ambitious
with a second front that is less an immediate threat and furthermore
give it priority? If so, why not join a 3rd conflict, like 1941 border
war between Peru and Ecuador?

Basically as of December 1941 the possibility the USSR would
be forced out of the war was very real. In late 1942 the same
thing was a worry given the German summer offensive. That
created at least the need to plan for an invasion of France.

Post by dumbstruck
Otherwise let's save US lives and reduce
economic shock by playing Europe like WW1... join Euro allies at the
last still-viable moment and take credit for victory!

Easier said than done, and given the WWII situation a lot more
shipping and in particular amphibious shipping was going to be
needed before the US could actually mount a real threat to the
German Army. Add also the extra distances in the Pacific
meant more shipping per man was required.

The fundamental situation in the Pacific is the person who
controlled the sea and air had the initiative much more, the
individual islands could be isolated and/or bypassed, rather
hard to bypass France. Until the USN could put together a
carrier force that matched the IJN or the allies could create
large enough land based air forces they were going to be
on the defensive, relying on island garrisons backed by the
USN unless the Japanese decide to invade Australia.

Essentially the allies could attack in New Guinea as there
was enough land based airpower for cover and could
attack in the Solomons provided the USN could contest
the area. In both cases the Japanese supply system
was so stretched it helped even the fight.

Staying on what was largely the defensive/limited offensive
in 1942 was what the allies had to do in the Pacific, until
they could build the fleet and bases and had the supplies
and trained personnel. Very often early it was things like
spare parts that were more important than new units.
Having lots of troops in Hawaii or Australia is nice but
the shipping to move and protect them was lacking.

Submarines engaged in commerce warfare with
reliable torpedoes would be more useful.

While "Germany First" was the official policy it was not
until 1943 it could be said to effect the deployment of
US forces, and it remained setting up an air force in
England was a lot easier and had a lot more targets
than one in India, Australia or Hawaii.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[dumbstruck]

Instead of parrying a ton of quoted points, I'll try some broad OP
clarifications:

- Automatic Europe first: I mean why unquestioning acceptance by POSTWAR
writeups and documentaries. A prewar backslap session with Euro-pals
does not imply you put the whole US thru a meatgrinder to police internal
Euro conflicts when you have troops, ships, and airplanes under Japanese
attack and not yet German attack. Or at least delay a couple years.

- German sub threat: Neutralized by my previous proposal to route all
war material sales and donations only as far as say Toronto (by land, air,
or fresh water. From there the efficient Brit and Canadian convoy system
would alone attract Atlantic subs. There WAS a comparable system that could
have been scaled up - sending stuff to Siberia using Russian crews (USSR
ships? from Seattle?). For example, instead of sending US B17's across the
pond, send Mosquito engines to Toronto to glue onto Canadian wood and ship.

- Luck at Midway, etc: I mean besides US aircraft just barely being able
to find targets at the limits of their fuel, there is a whole world of luck
by Japanese failures we hardly know about. For instance there were supposed
to be screening subs blocking US carriers rushing from Oahu to Midway. Even
if Yorktown didn't get refitted so incredibly fast, the screening subs were
tied up in refits themselves and were late or entirely missing. I believe
official Japanese war accounts are only partially translated, yet memoirs
have anecdotes such as about failed scare efforts against SFO, Panama, etc.

- Humanitarian issues: the six figure slaughter by Japan of Chinese
civilians was known by Pearl Harbor time, while German industrial killing
of Jews was only ordered/organized (secretly) right after Pearl Harbor.
It was too late to save Poland from Germany, and France didn't earn much
US sacrifice because it chose to not organize itself for war (halfhearted
prep/commitments by military and populace). Czechoslovak, Hungary, Romania,
had to some degree come to terms with life with Hitler. Why die for Russia
when Stalin had killed something like 10 million farmers around 1930? I
estimated US lost about 100k soldiers prematurely liberating Africa/Italy.

Reflection: The follow-on details don't matter if they weren't known at
Pearl Harbor time... what matters is the thrust of strategy based on
perceived US interests while under Japanese attack. The issue is why not
throw main US effort at their attackers rather than a speculative Euro
threat. I already conceded the US did in fact put half effort towards
Pacific at first sort of by chance, but why not a decisive majority of it?

Granted this approach threatens the UK which either hangs by fingernails
or does a Dunkirk to Canada. Probably the main threat is if Germany gets to
oil via Russia and becomes unbeatable. If the US gets there too late after
weakening Japan, then maybe "TOO BAD". We didn't know quite how bad Hitler
was going to treat Russia, and maybe he would treat UK with a soft touch
like Denmark (There is a list of Brits to be arrested upon invasion in a
US museum... I didn't read any explanation in the author Schellenberg
"I'm a nice guy" memoirs).

I don't know if I believe in "Asia First", but got the impression that
"Germany First" was more a product of US prewar ideology rather than
post Pearl Harbor pragmatics. Hanfstaengl's memoirs as a German American
who served as Hitler's early foreign press minister gave the impression
that the US press was way ahead in foreseeing the dangers of Hitler, while
the closer view from Germany's neighbor countries and even within Germany
was that Hitler may be mostly talk but not much action. Therefore even
though the US views turned out on target, it maybe reflected a bias that
that should have been rethought more against Japan with Pearly goggles.

< secret code = long lines >

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by dumbstruck
Instead of parrying a ton of quoted points, I'll try some broad OP
- Automatic Europe first: I mean why unquestioning acceptance by POSTWAR
writeups and documentaries.

Because the Japanese economy was strangled a lot sooner
and a lot easier via commerce warfare than the German one
was from bombing. You could conventionally defeat Japan
without invading, provided the Japanese were willing to come
to terms. Because the Germans were more advanced in terms
of new weapons, like jets and so on and had the bigger
economy.

Simply put Germany was the more dangerous opponent.

Post by dumbstruck
A prewar backslap session with Euro-pals
does not imply you put the whole US thru a meatgrinder to police internal
Euro conflicts when you have troops, ships, and airplanes under Japanese
attack and not yet German attack. Or at least delay a couple years.

Simply put this reads as one of those the US has choices and
the rest of the world is forced to accept those choices, a full
US stomach is worth lots of suffering elsewhere.

Who gets to draw these nice neat lines on maps that decide
who has the problem?

Post by dumbstruck
- German sub threat: Neutralized by my previous proposal to route all
war material sales and donations only as far as say Toronto (by land, air,
or fresh water. From there the efficient Brit and Canadian convoy system
would alone attract Atlantic subs.

The simple answer here is you are very wrong. Start with the
U-boats were doing much of their work against independently
routed ships even in 1941. Doenitz was into tonnage sunk,
independently sailing ships were usually easier targets.

The US did and I think still does mandate US coastal shipping
must be US flagged/owned.

In 1937 of the 1,500 ocean going ships in the US merchant fleet,
400 were in foreign trade, the rest in coastal. In 1939 the US
ocean going fleet was around 1,400 ships (1,500 GRT or greater).

Many of the tankers lost in 1942 were shipping oil from the Gulf
to the Northeast. The laying of pipelines was undertaken to
change this.

Lots of British controlled ships were sunk of the US coast, as
were lots of US ships in coastal trade. One of the criticisms
of FDR is he wanted lots of coastal escorts, guess where most
of the US shipping was and was being lost.

Post by dumbstruck
There WAS a comparable system that could
have been scaled up - sending stuff to Siberia using Russian crews (USSR
ships? from Seattle?).

Little in 1941/42 in case the Japanese attacked the ships,
mostly USSR ships early, later came the transfer of US
built ships to USSR flag. Even then the cargoes were
usually non military.

In any case the ships had to be built first.

Post by dumbstruck
For example, instead of sending US B17's across the
pond, send Mosquito engines to Toronto to glue onto Canadian wood and ship.

They did do the Mosquitoes and Lancasters.

Post by dumbstruck
- Luck at Midway, etc: I mean besides US aircraft just barely being able
to find targets at the limits of their fuel, there is a whole world of luck
by Japanese failures we hardly know about. For instance there were supposed
to be screening subs blocking US carriers rushing from Oahu to Midway. Even
if Yorktown didn't get refitted so incredibly fast, the screening subs were
tied up in refits themselves and were late or entirely missing. I believe
official Japanese war accounts are only partially translated, yet memoirs
have anecdotes such as about failed scare efforts against SFO, Panama, etc.

Simply put without radar and controlled interception the IJN
carrier fleet was as vulnerable as the pre war USN exercises
indicated carriers would be. Lots of things went right for the
USN in the 1942 battles, usually thanks to knowing the IJN
plan plus radar plus better damage control then comes
the aircrew training to hit the targets with bombs given the
torpedo problems.

By the way I presume the British fail to help the US crack
the IJN codes, most help was provided in 1941 and early
1942, as concentrating on German codes becomes much
more important. When the JN-25 efforts were merged in
mid 1941 the British and US efforts were about the same
in numbers of code groups recovered and most of the
recoveries did not overlap, that is most of the US book
was new to the British and vice versa. It was in 1942 that
the agreement about who would concentrate on what
codes was made.

Or do we have all aid to the US remains as historical while
the US withdraws aid in the scenario?

Do the Australian and New Zealanders at least still give
their aid to the US or do they react to the lack of help
to Britain?

Post by dumbstruck
- Humanitarian issues: the six figure slaughter by Japan of Chinese
civilians was known by Pearl Harbor time, while German industrial killing
of Jews was only ordered/organized (secretly) right after Pearl Harbor.

The German killing program was well underway by the end of 1941,
you are simply deciding that the more secretive death camps, set up
from late 1941 onwards is some sort of nice neat way of claiming
the US cannot know.

The Germans did a lot of killing from September 1939 on and these
killings were much more open to discovery because of when and
how they were carried out, before we talk of decryption of signals
from the units reporting their activity. Concentration camps were
known but not how bad they really were.

Add the Ghettoes were known to be places with high death rates.

Post by dumbstruck
It was too late to save Poland from Germany, and France didn't earn much
US sacrifice because it chose to not organize itself for war (halfhearted
prep/commitments by military and populace).

You know France was more prepared for war in 1939 than the US,
way more in fact. The failure was more doctrine and the head start
the Luftwaffe had.

Post by dumbstruck
Czechoslovak, Hungary, Romania,
had to some degree come to terms with life with Hitler.

Dear disengaged person, thanks so very much for deciding we
deserve dictatorship so you can carry on undisturbed. Cheque
in mail.

Post by dumbstruck
Why die for Russia
when Stalin had killed something like 10 million farmers around 1930?

If you are quoting the Kiev court of appeal 2010 findings the 10 million
is 3.9 million deaths and 6.1 million birth deficit, that is children not
born. Other figures range from 2.5 to 7.5 million deaths, in the 1932
and 1933 period, modern estimates tend to cluster around the lower
half of the range.

Please tell us all what sort of crimes committed rules out helping
a government. Say given the behaviours of western powers in the
19th and 20th centuries.

Post by dumbstruck
I estimated US lost about 100k soldiers prematurely liberating
Africa/Italy.

So tell us where and when these deaths occurred. Also please tell us
when southern Italy is captured under your new plan, since the Ploesti
oil fields need to be systematically attacked as part of the oil plan.

Post by dumbstruck
Reflection: The follow-on details don't matter if they weren't known at
Pearl Harbor time... what matters is the thrust of strategy based on
perceived US interests while under Japanese attack.

Simply put the US interests were to defeat the axis powers, Japan
represented the lesser threat.

Post by dumbstruck
The issue is why not
throw main US effort at their attackers rather than a speculative Euro
threat.

So the axis powers in Europe were a speculative threat? Why?
Lack of Navy? What?

Post by dumbstruck
I already conceded the US did in fact put half effort towards
Pacific at first sort of by chance,

Actually by necessity, a defensive line needed to be formed.

Post by dumbstruck
but why not a decisive majority of it?

Because as has been pointed out the Pacific could not handle the
air forces for a start, and far more importantly most bases could
be bypassed or isolated and attacked unless you had air and naval
control. Add the problems in merchant shipping and the even more
acute shortage of amphibious lift.

Simply put you needed to build enough navy to control the seas
to secure the bases to fly the aircraft to secure the area and
project power. The US lacked the war fleet.

Post by dumbstruck
Granted this approach threatens the UK which either hangs by fingernails
or does a Dunkirk to Canada.

And if Britain falls as a minimum the Germans take over the French
fleet which combined with the Italian fleet gives the axis in Europe a
battleship strength comparable to the US, then proceeds to see if it
can invade Canada or South America. Canada lacked the industry,
docks etc. to keep the RN operating.

Post by dumbstruck
Probably the main threat is if Germany gets to
oil via Russia and becomes unbeatable. If the US gets there too late after
weakening Japan, then maybe "TOO BAD".

Hey, the RN throws its lot in with Germany and the whole lot
comes for the US, too bad I suppose? As a deal to
recover the British and French colonies in Asia?

Also with an economy not as stretched thanks to less bombing
and building damage what happens to the German western
defences even if the USSR stays in the war?

Post by dumbstruck
We didn't know quite how bad Hitler
was going to treat Russia, and maybe he would treat UK with a soft touch
like Denmark (There is a list of Brits to be arrested upon invasion in a
US museum... I didn't read any explanation in the author Schellenberg
"I'm a nice guy" memoirs).

Try the Nazis intended to deport to the continent all men over the
age of about 15 to retirement age. Britain was to be thoroughly
broken. Denmark was no threat, Britain was.

Post by dumbstruck
I don't know if I believe in "Asia First", but got the impression that
"Germany First" was more a product of US prewar ideology rather than
post Pearl Harbor pragmatics.

No it was a mixture of military and economic reality and racism, the
Germans were known to be good militarily, the Japanese were not
Caucasian. Then Germany became much more powerful in the 1939
to mid 1941 period.

Post by dumbstruck
Hanfstaengl's memoirs as a German American
who served as Hitler's early foreign press minister gave the impression
that the US press was way ahead in foreseeing the dangers of Hitler, while
the closer view from Germany's neighbor countries and even within Germany
was that Hitler may be mostly talk but not much action. Therefore even
though the US views turned out on target, it maybe reflected a bias that
that should have been rethought more against Japan with Pearly goggles.

In short the US did almost nothing to counter Hitler or for that
matter Japan in the 1930's, if the US really did think there was
going to be a problem then think for a moment about what sort
of military expansion it would have undertaken or simply
announcing it will back Britain and France say over Poland.

By 1939 Hitler had to force confrontation or cope with an economy
running far too much on deficit spending. I suppose, in your terms
it was too bad the US did not move, but then again there were lots
of people in the US wanting no involvement in European affairs,
making it hard to take a stance. Would Japan have attacked if
Germany was at peace?

And yes we can all play the too bad game, to push responsibility
around, Munich in 1938, German elections in the 1920's and early
1930's, WWI....

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[dumbstruck]

There have been a lot of great points made here against my devil's
advocations. I will respond to a few criticisms... not to claim my
case wasn't idiotic, but maybe only half idiotic. It's hard to grasp
the politics of the eve of war when the battles get all the attention.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Because the Japanese economy was strangled a lot sooner
and a lot easier via commerce warfare than the German one
was from bombing. You could conventionally defeat Japan
without invading,

The prewar US embargo on Japan and lend lease to China goaded Japan
toward more aggression. Granted Germany played a role in getting France
to green-light Japan's move into indochina, and a German commerce raider
in the Indian ocean captured secret Brit documents that showed Japan how
militarily vulnerable were Singapore, etc.

But I wonder if Australia was almost lost due to the Asia-second priority.
The battle of Coral sea was almost lost. With an Asia-first policy the US
could possibly have starved Japan by a ring of subs (folks seem to think
the starvation of millions is more humane than nukes for some reason). Then
save nukes for attack on Hitler. Simultaneously hit Berlin and where ever
his latest eagles nest or wolf's lair is, be it Leningrad or Dover <grin>.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Simply put this reads as one of those the US has choices and
the rest of the world is forced to accept those choices, a full
US stomach is worth lots of suffering elsewhere.

Like continental Europe sitting on their hands during 1990's Balkan
atrocities, or like the whole world letting 45 million Chinese get killed
in 1950's "great famine" which was not a famine but political murders. You
need concrete intrusions on yourselves to motivate being world policeman.
I am sorry that with possible exceptions of Russia and China, the whole
world now lost the will to intervene for justice except by safe airstrikes.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
U-boats were doing much of their work against independently
routed ships even in 1941. Doenitz was into tonnage sunk,
independently sailing ships were usually easier targets.

US ships were being targeted as a revenge for the munitions trade, even
if the target ship wasn't involved. If only a truce could have been kept
up for a couple years... maybe Hitler was clever in declaring war on US
after Pearl Harbor, and made Asia-first impractical. I'm starting Doenitz
memoirs, and will watch for his mistake in attacking convoys by wolfpacks
instead of the independents.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
They did do the Mosquitoes and Lancasters.

I meant the US could subcontract to support a vastly increased Canadian
production of British designs like these 2 which were probably more
effective than B17s. Put 50 calibers and drop tanks on a Lancaster and
you wouldn't need B-24s. Flatten Canadian forests for masses of Mozzies.
A bit less confrontational to Germany for a couple years targeting Asia.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
By the way I presume the British fail to help the US crack
the IJN codes, most help was provided in 1941 and early
1942, as concentrating on German codes becomes much
more important. When the JN-25 efforts were merged in
mid 1941 the British and US efforts were about the same
in numbers of code groups recovered and most of the
recoveries did not overlap, that is most of the US book
was new to the British and vice versa. It was in 1942 that

Interesting... I saw a documentary who put initial IJN cracking credit
on an American who was kind of defying orders to shut his operation down.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
The German killing program was well underway by the end of 1941,
you are simply deciding that the more secretive death camps, set up
from late 1941 onwards is some sort of nice neat way of claiming
the US cannot know.

The 300k civilians killed in Nanjing was celebrated in the Japanese
newspapers with photos and all. By end 1941 what was the certainty of
comparable numbers of non-POWs killed by the Germans to nonspecialists?

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
You know France was more prepared for war in 1939 than the US,
way more in fact. The failure was more doctrine and the head start
the Luftwaffe had.

Maybe a documentary mislead me on prewar president of France wringing
his hands because he couldn't get the slightest cooperation for easily
done war preparations. Also alleged very low commitment by many soldiers,
who went awol beforehand or didn't fight.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Dear disengaged person, thanks so very much for deciding we
deserve dictatorship so you can carry on undisturbed. Cheque
in mail.

Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania traded one dictator for another. Patton
was blocked from an easy liberation of Prague anyway, so US deaths were
spent to get nearby without any humanitarian benefit to the Czechs. My
heart has bled for the killings in those countries, but was tempered when
hearing one of the motivations to killing Heydrich was to disrupt the
impression that Heydrich and the Czechs were getting too comfy with each
other. Had to fly in partisans to look better to allies when they enter.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
If you are quoting the Kiev court of appeal 2010 findings the 10 million
is 3.9 million deaths and 6.1 million birth deficit, that is children not
born. Other figures range from 2.5 to 7.5 million deaths, in the 1932
and 1933 period, modern estimates tend to cluster around the lower
half of the range.

Interesting.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Please tell us all what sort of crimes committed rules out helping
a government. Say given the behaviours of western powers in the
19th and 20th centuries.

The excessive support of Stalin could well have led to cold war holocaust.
Withhold just a bit support of him vs Tojo, and he could end weaker and not
end up putting missiles in Cuba. An incident there was only known recently
where a USSR sub was incited to launch nuke torpedo, probably against a
US carrier. By a miracle, one of the 3 approvers held back, a commie party
official onboard who is now called "The man who saved the world".

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
So tell us where and when these deaths occurred. Also please tell us
when southern Italy is captured under your new plan, since the Ploesti
oil fields need to be systematically attacked as part of the oil plan.

I thought I did it carefully, but now it sounds high. Maybe I overestimated
merchant marine deaths which were worse than Marines in proportion, but
not that great in number. Included overmanned B17 deaths (Mosquito almost
as effective with 80% less crew). Maybe Ploesti could have been bombed
from Malta or Greek islands with Lancasters, or carrier based Mozzies :)

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
So the axis powers in Europe were a speculative threat? Why?
Lack of Navy? What?

They hadn't crossed the line to attack the US. If you count minor skirmishes
I will include prewar Japanese attack on US ship at Shanghai. If you didn't
count Oahu as a US state, then heaven help Puerto Rico if say Cuba attacks
it and kills a couple thousand military. Ya might like the US to ignore that
attack to focus on another continent like South American war on illiteracy.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Try the Nazis intended to deport to the continent all men over the
age of about 15 to retirement age. Britain was to be thoroughly
broken. Denmark was no threat, Britain was.

Wow, bad news! As for your scenarios for consolidating a huge German
navy, that is alarming but maybe still not of the type suitable for
landing of troops for occupation. That is a specialized operation; not
sure if Japanese pulled it off under fire. I heard the Russians tried
to land troops at a fort in Hokkaido and were easily fended off until
Tokyo called the fort to say "stop firing, we already surrendered!".

Bottom line, I must return to the strange truth that Hitler himself
was a uniquely dangerous person (although Mao killed more). Maybe more
focus should've been on killing him - his underlings were not the type
who could keep up the war unless maybe Doenitz had the fanaticism and
skills. Too bad the UK turned down an offer by Berlin military attache
to fire on Hitlers podium from 30 feet within his apartment overlooking
it.

It brings me back to seeing what made Hitler tick from memoirs. There
were many responsible Germans in all positions (military and diplomatic)
who didn't want to go along with Hitler's radical plans. But this pasty
pale guy alone could put terrible things in motion. The best of many
explanations I just found near the end of Hanfstaengl's memoirs where he
quotes Hitler explaining how he feeds off the many life disappointments
of the everyman... shows how they can be relieved by a grand altruistic
gamble suggested by Hitler. More tempting than the materialistic-only
appeal of communism.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by dumbstruck
There have been a lot of great points made here against my devil's
advocations. I will respond to a few criticisms... not to claim my
case wasn't idiotic, but maybe only half idiotic. It's hard to grasp
the politics of the eve of war when the battles get all the attention.

The holy quest is really the simplification of the situation. There
are plenty of examples of "as long as I am unharmed I don't care",
it is easy to see now that the fascist powers were actually really
after widespread conquest.

One other point, to invade Japan in 1945 the US needed to load
ships on its east coast and send them through the Panama
canal due to port capacity limits in the east and more importantly
trans continental rail capacity.

The links to Canada were lower capacity, the Canadian ports
lower capacity and more ice bound than the US east coast ones.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Because the Japanese economy was strangled a lot sooner
and a lot easier via commerce warfare than the German one
was from bombing. You could conventionally defeat Japan
without invading,

The prewar US embargo on Japan and lend lease to China goaded Japan
toward more aggression.

The pre war Japanese attacks on China and mistreatment of
westerners goaded the US toward more aggression.

Why once again is the US the main player? The Japanese responding?
Sitting around waiting for the latest directive from the US before
deciding what to do? The US as the centre of the Universe has some
real problems.

Post by dumbstruck
Granted Germany played a role in getting France
to green-light Japan's move into indochina, and a German commerce raider
in the Indian ocean captured secret Brit documents that showed Japan how
militarily vulnerable were Singapore, etc.

France in 1941 had little choice even if the Germans had done nothing,
and while the documents captured from the Automedon were solid
evidence so was the lack of forces in the far east.

Post by dumbstruck
But I wonder if Australia was almost lost due to the Asia-second priority.
The battle of Coral sea was almost lost.

So tell us all what extra ships would have been at Coral Sea?
The Japanese were after Port Moresby then Midway.

Post by dumbstruck
With an Asia-first policy the US
could possibly have starved Japan by a ring of subs (folks seem to think
the starvation of millions is more humane than nukes for some reason). Then
save nukes for attack on Hitler.

Do you have any idea of USN strengths? In January 1935 the USN
destroyer fleet was 54 in service plus 21 in reserve. As new boats
were built older ones were put into reserve, so at the end of 1938 it
was 54 and 36. By the end of April 1941 it was 110 boats in
service, no reserves.

114 boats end 1941
135 end 1942
171 end 1943
233 end 1944.

The above account for losses, transfers and retirements.

Remembering to deduct a number of boats for training of both
submariners and anti submarine ships. Then going with the
Doenitz idea of one third on patrol. Also remembering how old
the average USN submarine was during 1941 and 1942. Plus
the need for bases closer to Japanese trade routes.

In 1941/42 the USSBS thinks submarines were responsible for
around 60% of Japanese merchant ship losses, 75% in 1943
and 65% in 1944.

In terms of total wartime sinkings by submarines 12% to end
1942, 38% to end 1943, 64% end June 1944, 91% end 1944.

Fixing the early war USN torpedoes would make a difference.

Post by dumbstruck
Simultaneously hit Berlin and where ever
his latest eagles nest or wolf's lair is, be it Leningrad or Dover <grin>.

Or New York. Assuming of course the Luftwaffe air defence
system was as beaten down as the Japanese one, something
that maybe happened in April 1945 mainly by that guarantor
or air superiority, your tank on their runway.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Simply put this reads as one of those the US has choices and
the rest of the world is forced to accept those choices, a full
US stomach is worth lots of suffering elsewhere.

Like continental Europe sitting on their hands during 1990's Balkan
atrocities, or like the whole world letting 45 million Chinese get killed
in 1950's "great famine" which was not a famine but political murders.

It seems the consensus famine deaths area round 80% of your figure
but there is a wide band of uncertainties.

How nice that rather than address my point you decide to simply
come up with a list of other people deciding to do nothing.

Also China was exporting food during the famine, part of the
problem was the local officials told lies about food production.
So how exactly was the world to force China to accept food or
at least stop its exports?

As for 1990's as later events have shown you break it you
own it, you can never know what sort of action you do will
make the long term situation better or worse.

Post by dumbstruck
You
need concrete intrusions on yourselves to motivate being world policeman.

Usually.

Post by dumbstruck
I am sorry that with possible exceptions of Russia and China, the whole
world now lost the will to intervene for justice except by safe airstrikes.

Actually not correct, given peace keeping missions, the current
situation is mainly middle east with the evidence of major
intervention in Iraq, regime change in Libya and Tunisia and
minimal intervention in Syria as evidence of outcomes, along
with places like Egypt and Bahrain to go on with.

Lebanon as well.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
U-boats were doing much of their work against independently
routed ships even in 1941. Doenitz was into tonnage sunk,
independently sailing ships were usually easier targets.

US ships were being targeted as a revenge for the munitions trade, even
if the target ship wasn't involved.

Really, care to tell us what ships?

Lloyds reports total US flagged merchant ship losses to submarines was
2 ships to end November 1941, another 2 to mines (1 off the south coast
of Australia) and 1 to aircraft in the Red Sea.

The US lost 266 merchant ships to submarines in 1942.

US companies were often using Panama as a flag of convenience,
13 Panama flagged ships lost to submarines to end 1941.

Post by dumbstruck
If only a truce could have been kept
up for a couple years...

So a less stressed US economy as it knows it cannot put as
many aircraft or soldiers into the Pacific versus the effect on
the European Axis of US forces to the end of 1943 and the
build up to do the 1944 operations.

Big allied loss.

Post by dumbstruck
maybe Hitler was clever in declaring war on US
after Pearl Harbor, and made Asia-first impractical. I'm starting Doenitz
memoirs, and will watch for his mistake in attacking convoys by wolfpacks
instead of the independents.

It was not a mistake, it was rational calculation, the big worry in
March 1943 was well defended convoys were taking heavy losses.
Doenitz worked on a profit basis, maximum tonnage sunk for
minimum effort and/or risk. Convoys were a bigger risk given
escorts so wolfpacks helped reduce the risks.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
They did do the Mosquitoes and Lancasters.

I meant the US could subcontract to support a vastly increased Canadian
production of British designs like these 2 which were probably more
effective than B17s. Put 50 calibers and drop tanks on a Lancaster and
you wouldn't need B-24s.

While certainly Lancasters could be used as VLR anti
submarine aircraft substituting Mosquitoes for B-17
as used by the 8th Air Force is not going to work.

Similarly the Lancaster would need an armament upgrade
to fly deep penetration daylight raids.

Of more use would be P-51.

As for building US designs in Britain and vice versa this
ran into big problems at the most basic levels, rivet types
strength and composition, screw threads, wiring and so
on, it was post war they sorted out standards.

Post by dumbstruck
Flatten Canadian forests for masses of Mozzies.

Ecuador balsa, Canadian yellow birch and Sitka spruce.
When supplies ran out Douglas fir and English ash were
used.

Post by dumbstruck
A bit less confrontational to Germany for a couple years targeting Asia.

You really are still telling us the US had options the rest
of the world, including Hitler, had to accept.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
By the way I presume the British fail to help the US crack
the IJN codes, most help was provided in 1941 and early
1942, as concentrating on German codes becomes much
more important. When the JN-25 efforts were merged in
mid 1941 the British and US efforts were about the same
in numbers of code groups recovered and most of the
recoveries did not overlap, that is most of the US book
was new to the British and vice versa. It was in 1942 that

Interesting... I saw a documentary who put initial IJN cracking credit
on an American who was kind of defying orders to shut his operation down.

What was this fictional work, what person, what code?

The reality is attacks were made against what later was called
JN-25 from when it was introduced in 1939. In the US case it
was the units at Washington and Corregidor doing the work
while Pearl Harbor worked on other codes.

In December 1941 Pearl Harbor changed over to JN-25 work.

Simply put as the British had mobilised earlier than the US it
often had more resources in the 1941/42 period.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
The German killing program was well underway by the end of 1941,
you are simply deciding that the more secretive death camps, set up
from late 1941 onwards is some sort of nice neat way of claiming
the US cannot know.

The 300k civilians killed in Nanjing was celebrated in the Japanese
newspapers with photos and all.

200,000 to 300,000 seem to be the modern estimates.

There was plenty of reporting in the western press and the Japanese
celebration was about heroic military, not civilian massacres.

Post by dumbstruck
By end 1941 what was the certainty of
comparable numbers of non-POWs killed by the Germans to nonspecialists?

About the same certainty as the Japanese actions in China.
The allies were decoding the signals of the units involved,
the resistances were reporting events. The shooting of
hostages was given publicity by the Nazis.

Simply put it was known the Nazis were killing large numbers of
their definition of undesirables.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
You know France was more prepared for war in 1939 than the US,
way more in fact. The failure was more doctrine and the head start
the Luftwaffe had.

Maybe a documentary mislead me on prewar president of France wringing
his hands because he couldn't get the slightest cooperation for easily
done war preparations. Also alleged very low commitment by many soldiers,
who went awol beforehand or didn't fight.

Maybe you should not give the impression you are recycling
myths from TV.

Simply put the French had no better or worse a record in changing
over to war than the other powers. And their main problems were
the lack of training of reserve formations, army doctrine and a lack
of air power. The Germans had Poland to tell them where their
weaknesses were.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Dear disengaged person, thanks so very much for deciding we
deserve dictatorship so you can carry on undisturbed. Cheque
in mail.

Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania traded one dictator for another.

Thanks for telling us the democratically elected government in
Czechoslovakia was a dictatorship.

Romania went to a dictatorship from a rather unstable democracy
after the USSR took territory from it in 1940.

Post by dumbstruck
Patton
was blocked from an easy liberation of Prague anyway, so US deaths were
spent to get nearby without any humanitarian benefit to the Czechs.

The national redoubt was over estimated by the allies.

Those US lives were occupying the country between France and
Czechoslovakia, a little place called Germany. Eisenhower made
a conscious decision to largely stay within the agreed post war
zones, that saved US lives. Something you seem rather keen on.

Post by dumbstruck
My
heart has bled for the killings in those countries, but was tempered when
hearing one of the motivations to killing Heydrich was to disrupt the
impression that Heydrich and the Czechs were getting too comfy with each
other. Had to fly in partisans to look better to allies when they enter.

I presume suppressing Czech culture and executing resistance
members is the way to make the Czechs like you. Being given
the title of Butcher of Prague is an honour. All workers
celebrated the work day going from 8 to 12 hours.

Heydrich was quite effective in terms of eliminating the non
communist resistance. He was also willing to try the carrot
approach at times but overall he was not a friend of the
Czechs.

By the way the partisans were sent into Czechoslovakia
in 1944, mostly under communist control.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
If you are quoting the Kiev court of appeal 2010 findings the 10 million
is 3.9 million deaths and 6.1 million birth deficit, that is children not
born. Other figures range from 2.5 to 7.5 million deaths, in the 1932
and 1933 period, modern estimates tend to cluster around the lower
half of the range.

Interesting.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Please tell us all what sort of crimes committed rules out helping
a government. Say given the behaviours of western powers in the
19th and 20th centuries.

The excessive support of Stalin could well have led to cold war holocaust.
Withhold just a bit support of him vs Tojo, and he could end weaker and not
end up putting missiles in Cuba.

I note the lack of answer.

So I gather the idea is the grand plan is to ensure the USSR, over 15
years after WWII

a) does not have nuclear weapons,
2) does not have short range missile technology,

And this can be done by actions in the 1940's. This is junk.

How about making Cuba a democracy before Castro has a
chance at revolution?

Post by dumbstruck
An incident there was only known recently
where a USSR sub was incited to launch nuke torpedo, probably against a
US carrier. By a miracle, one of the 3 approvers held back, a commie party
official onboard who is now called "The man who saved the world".

Given your track record can we please have names and dates?

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
So tell us where and when these deaths occurred. Also please tell us
when southern Italy is captured under your new plan, since the Ploesti
oil fields need to be systematically attacked as part of the oil plan.

I thought I did it carefully, but now it sounds high. Maybe I
overestimated
merchant marine deaths which were worse than Marines in proportion, but
not that great in number.

So essentially you once again have no idea of the actual
situation.

Post by dumbstruck
Included overmanned B17 deaths (Mosquito almost
as effective with 80% less crew).

In short no.

Post by dumbstruck
Maybe Ploesti could have been bombed
from Malta or Greek islands with Lancasters, or carrier based Mozzies :)

Mosquitoes never operated off carriers in WWII, please
look up the supply requirements of heavy bombers, they
make armoured divisions seem like misers.

Southern Italy was one of the few places where the infrastructure
and land layout enables large forces of heavy bombers to be
based. The 8th Air force ended up with fuel pipelines to its
airfields.

Plus of course the reality of the RAF was if anything going to be
smaller as it coped with fewer US aircraft and more fighting.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
So the axis powers in Europe were a speculative threat? Why?
Lack of Navy? What?

They hadn't crossed the line to attack the US.

Oh sorry, above you had them hunting US ships.

By the way since the USSR never attacked the US directly I
presume it was always a speculative threat and the US could
ignore it? Same for China and Cuba.

Post by dumbstruck
If you count minor skirmishes
I will include prewar Japanese attack on US ship at Shanghai.

So one ship is attacked and that is it? At least for Japan.
So really we are talking excuses, you want a war with
Japan.

Post by dumbstruck
If you didn't
count Oahu as a US state, then heaven help Puerto Rico if say Cuba attacks
it and kills a couple thousand military.

I gather the above is an attempt to insult your way out of reality.

Post by dumbstruck
Ya might like the US to ignore that
attack to focus on another continent like South American war on illiteracy.

Yes it seems clear you are fighting forces well beyond WWII and
need to label reality as the one with the problems.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Try the Nazis intended to deport to the continent all men over the
age of about 15 to retirement age. Britain was to be thoroughly
broken. Denmark was no threat, Britain was.

Wow, bad news!

Nice to see trite replies.

Post by dumbstruck
As for your scenarios for consolidating a huge German
navy, that is alarming but maybe still not of the type suitable for
landing of troops for occupation.

Germany pre war merchant marine 3.7 million GRT, Italy 3.1
million, France 2.6 million, other axis powers would add over
another 0.5 million GRT.

Plenty of transport to land on lightly defended or friendly shores.

Post by dumbstruck
That is a specialized operation; not
sure if Japanese pulled it off under fire.

We are talking the European axis and their options for
example to go after European colonies in the Americas
or aid friendly governments and this is after the British
fail in your scenario.

Post by dumbstruck
I heard the Russians tried
to land troops at a fort in Hokkaido and were easily fended off until
Tokyo called the fort to say "stop firing, we already surrendered!".

Names, dates, locations,.

Post by dumbstruck
Bottom line, I must return to the strange truth that Hitler himself
was a uniquely dangerous person (although Mao killed more).

Bottom line, I must return to the actual truth you know very little
about WWII and are busy projecting the cold war backwards
in time.

Post by dumbstruck
Maybe more
focus should've been on killing him - his underlings were not the type
who could keep up the war unless maybe Doenitz had the fanaticism and
skills.

Manstein is generally considered the best army commander
of WWII. The German military was generally better trained,
equipped and lead than the Japanese one, fortunately in both
cases the senior leadership was not as competent.

Post by dumbstruck
Too bad the UK turned down an offer by Berlin military attache
to fire on Hitlers podium from 30 feet within his apartment overlooking
it.

Name, date, location.

Post by dumbstruck
It brings me back to seeing what made Hitler tick from memoirs. There
were many responsible Germans in all positions (military and diplomatic)
who didn't want to go along with Hitler's radical plans.

Which plans exactly? Restoring Germany to greatness was
generally preferred. The attack on Poland not so.

Strangely enough all you need is a relatively small number of
people before someone objects to the plan, or the timing of
the plan, or the emphasis of the plan or...

Post by dumbstruck
But this pasty
pale guy alone could put terrible things in motion. The best of many
explanations I just found near the end of Hanfstaengl's memoirs where he
quotes Hitler explaining how he feeds off the many life disappointments
of the everyman... shows how they can be relieved by a grand altruistic
gamble suggested by Hitler.

Or to put it another way you deserve more, everything you do is
right, you deserve to/must rule, they are the problem, nirvana
can be achieved if we just get rid of enough of the right people.

Standard creed, plenty of movements use it with different
definitions of the deserving, right people, enough and get rid
of. Even today.

Unfortunately as Solzhenitsyn put it the dividing line between
good and evil cuts through all of us. So revolutions tend to
have post revolt rounds of violence as nirvana fails to appear.

Post by dumbstruck
More tempting than the materialistic-only
appeal of communism.

Communism in the 1930's had the heady appeal of removing
much of human economic suffering, even more so thanks to
the depression. The profit motive was held as the reason
senior people treated junior people badly, eliminate the
profit and lots of misery would go away was the theory.
Somewhat wrong.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[dumbstruck]

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
The holy quest is really the simplification of the situation. There
are plenty of examples of "as long as I am unharmed I don't care",
it is easy to see now that the fascist powers were actually really
after widespread conquest.

A lot of powers have aspired toward conquest, but we all must conserve
our (depression strangled?) resources for opponents that not only match
words with actions, but look like they won't peter out thru blunders.
You pose England as a maiden in distress that I cruelly ignore, but
hadn't Hitler given up on invasion by this 12/1941 decision point, and
with his growing case of frostbite the US might reduce Europe to 2nd
priority for a while without causing another country to fall.

You should stop stereotyping countries and people and me as not
caring for what does one no harm. They can care a lot, yet should not
leap mindlessly into huge scale unpredictable actions unless against
the wall somehow. Looking into the "Europe second" alternative is not
born of some natural bias, but a surprise sanity check after decades of
accepting "Europe first". We should be free to retest our cherished
assumptions here without digressions questioning our motives or ethics.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
The pre war Japanese attacks on China and mistreatment of
westerners goaded the US toward more aggression.
Why once again is the US the main player? The Japanese responding?
Sitting around waiting for the latest directive from the US before

No, no - it was just one counter example to economic sanctions being
a substitute for "Asia first" military push. When I say aggression or
threat I mean bayonets into flesh; you mistake my meaning as something
like harsh posturing.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Do you have any idea of USN strengths? In January 1935 the USN

No, battles like at Samar have shown me that naval battles can be
so quirky that large fleets can get mauled by small ones. I think such
cases come from the way big ships "chunk" up the players more than
infantry or aircraft and statistics don't get long enough run to
overcome idiosyncrasies of a few captain's decisions in fog of war.
However small craft like subs seem to be effective in proportion
to their numbers, esp if an Asia First policy let them spend more
on testing torpedos (it was a money concern at the time).

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
It seems the consensus famine deaths area round 80% of your figure
but there is a wide band of uncertainties.

That top down consensus analysis may be bogus if not all of them
heard Hong Kong University recently breaking down the doors of
Chinese secret archives and pushing up the duration and severity of
the "famine" as previously assumed. If the 80% represents critique
and knowledge of UHK techniques, then so be it.

Guess what uncaring me did when a big gathering of Zhou enLai clan
members gathered here to establish a tax deductable foundation to
celebrate this person who UHK called the secret author of great famine?
I peppered reporters and poly-sci professors with the UHK findings,
maybe at the risk of getting beat up by visiting clan members.

And during the Tien. "massacre" I gathered several TV's (like small b/w)
in one place so to watch multi channel coverage before and after work.
Then flew into China to show support to the citizens, like the desperate
tourist hawkers who were going broke. While others go to resorts or family
gatherings I use tiny budget of vacation and money to for instance visit
WW2 civilian massacre monuments, and walk hours to visit each grave as
well as killing site. What did I do to deserve isolationist label here?

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Actually not correct, given peace keeping missions, the current
situation is mainly middle east with the evidence of major
intervention in Iraq, regime change in Libya and Tunisia and
minimal intervention in Syria as evidence of outcomes, along
with places like Egypt and Bahrain to go on with.

By "now" I meant last 5 years with no backbone to enforce "red line"
talk, except Russia vs Ukraine and Chinese vs disputed islands.
The whole world is taking a virtual "Germany-never" policy, yet
I get flak for "Germany second" which is moderate in comparison.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
So a less stressed US economy as it knows it cannot put as
many aircraft or soldiers into the Pacific versus the effect on
the European Axis of US forces to the end of 1943 and the
build up to do the 1944 operations.

I'm not sure there was lack of alternatives, but as WW2 is recreational
rather than analytical reading for me, I may never be able to get a
handle on it. I am surprised to be depicted as uncaring. I remember
the author of "rape of nanking" visiting here before her suicide, and
in a sad lonely voice saying few folks she met had known of the killing.
I should have spoken up that I knew even as a kid, speed reading thru
5 books a week from an Air Force library heavy on WW2. I knew of Nanking
and while other kids played ball I read books on various concentration
camps, Hiroshima, and recently read multi thick diary volumes of Jewish
V. Klemperer surviving in Dresden 30s-50s.

Later before the internet, I subscribed to World Press Review magazine,
and sometimes every word of the weekly economist which is a world affairs
magazine in disguise. Yet I am called self centered by some probably
focusing more on wine women and song at the time.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
What was this fictional work, what person, what code?
The reality is attacks were made against what later was called
JN-25 from when it was introduced in 1939. In the US case it
was the units at Washington and Corregidor doing the work
while Pearl Harbor worked on other codes.
In December 1941 Pearl Harbor changed over to JN-25 work.
Simply put as the British had mobilised earlier than the US it
often had more resources in the 1941/42 period.

It may be referring the HYPO vs. OP-20-G infighting which stole credit
from Rochefort.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Thanks for telling us the democratically elected government in
Czechoslovakia was a dictatorship.

Any generous reader would see I meant a German then Russian based
dictatorship.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Heydrich was quite effective in terms of eliminating the non
communist resistance. He was also willing to try the carrot
approach at times but overall he was not a friend of the
Czechs.
By the way the partisans were sent into Czechoslovakia
in 1944, mostly under communist control.

I meant the Heydrich killers brought in from England, apparently against
the wishes of Czech underground. A documentary with a posh BBC accent
claimed that Heydrich had recently turned nicer to build his legacy and
get promoted. The Czechs in England thought they would lose postwar
bargaining power without more anti nazi spectacles, so rushed before
Heydrich got more popular. This sounds strange, but I did see some
memoir complaints about Heydrich getting too nice in Prague. I am
fully aware of him being a monster most of his life, and had to abandon
his biography half way in disgust. I'm not all sold on the nice conversion.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
I note the lack of answer.

Brevity is next to godliness in the case of digressions.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
So I gather the idea is the grand plan is to ensure the USSR, over 15
years after WWII
a) does not have nuclear weapons,
2) does not have short range missile technology,

No, Krush. was strong enough to react to JFK's disastrous meeting with
him as a fruit ripe for the plucking. USSR could have been weakened by
WW2 even more and end up as less of an opportunist later.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Given your track record can we please have names and dates?

A non ww2 issue, so I will let you search the cspan video archives. It
was a side point by a high ranking USN guy, possibly the one that did
the most extensive below ice submarine trips and found the northwest
passage. Not the first nautilus one. Or else it was the video
of other navy conference of elderly brass that among other things
talked about Russia failed efforts to land troops on Japan. Recent vid.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
So essentially you once again have no idea of the actual
situation.

Neither did you! You expressed how hard it was to pin that down, and
I hadn't think it necessary to add that nobody knows the merchant marine
numbers because they were never officially counted. I only remember
using a chart with the 400k broken down by service with AAF breakout,
and don't remember how or from what I estimated the time window.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Southern Italy was one of the few places where the infrastructure
and land layout enables large forces of heavy bombers to be
based. The 8th Air force ended up with fuel pipelines to its
airfields.

Were the Germans stupid to be convinced that Sardinia and Croatian
islands were to be taken instead, by that planted body and briefcase?

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Nice to see trite replies.

I gave you some credit rather than pointing out you had the wrong
timeframe for British invasion threat - this thread is for 12/41 decision.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Plenty of transport to land on lightly defended or friendly shores.

Churchill said the LST (run aground tank landing ship) won the war,
and the Russians were begging to borrow US ones. Merchant ships need
harbors which are more easily defense points.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Names, dates, locations,.

Aforementioned video conference, and I believe they just published a
book. Covered all the ways Russia tried with and without US involvement
to land a token force in Japan. After the surrender the Russians tried
to bully into a fort which was on a tiny island near or attached to Hokk.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Bottom line, I must return to the actual truth you know very little
about WWII and are busy projecting the cold war backwards
in time.

That is one of the mildest of uncalled-for insults that you soiled
your otherwise generous reputation with here.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Manstein is generally considered the best army commander

Manstein was an implementor, probably not a visionary fanatic that
made Germany so mobilized and persistant to the end. Doenitz might be.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Name, date, location.

One of the Hitler bodyguard shows I believe focused on the Brit military
attache who had an easy shot at Hitler prewar, but was refused permission.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Or to put it another way you deserve more, everything you do is
right, you deserve to/must rule, they are the problem, nirvana
can be achieved if we just get rid of enough of the right people.

No. It was unusual in that folk's banal everyday unjustified annoyances,
like getting caught stealing or sleeping around, could be given relief
in a cathartic way that gives NO material benefits to them. Go for a
greater cause like the nation as a whole, not for the economy sake or
shedding of Versailles. Join a greater MYSTICAL cause for no benefits
except to forget your inner demons whatever they are. Not just demons
(which Hitler would fish for), but remember the saying that the most
spectacular lives are but splendid wrecks of their actual loftier goals
(thus disappointments). I don't expect all to understand.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
The holy quest is really the simplification of the situation. There
are plenty of examples of "as long as I am unharmed I don't care",
it is easy to see now that the fascist powers were actually really
after widespread conquest.

A lot of powers have aspired toward conquest, but we all must conserve
our (depression strangled?) resources for opponents that not only match
words with actions, but look like they won't peter out thru blunders.

Yet it seems you use hindsight to decide who these would be.

Perhaps out of China, Russia, various non state organisations etc.
you can let us know which ones today are going to peter out so
we can just leave them alone.

Essentially as of 1939 Germany was known to be a dangerous
military opponent, as of July 1940 its power had increased
dramatically.

Post by dumbstruck
You pose England as a maiden in distress that I cruelly ignore, but
hadn't Hitler given up on invasion by this 12/1941 decision point, and
with his growing case of frostbite the US might reduce Europe to 2nd
priority for a while without causing another country to fall.

No, I simply note you ignore the costs of the do nothing option. And
of course as of early December 1941 people were still unsure whether
the USSR would remain in the war, the Red Army counter attack was
launched on 5 December.

While the USSR was still in the war the threat to Britain reduced,
at the same time the U-boat crisis was still to come as was the
1942 crisis in the USSR.

The US treated Europe as second priority for most of 1942,
hence the first 8th Air Force B-17 raid on 17 August and the
stripping of units in Britain for Torch. The US tried to have
an emergency landing force in Britain in case the USSR
situation required it.

You should look at the various force deployments and supply
shipments instead of deleting them.

Post by dumbstruck
You should stop stereotyping countries and people and me as not
caring for what does one no harm.

Countries as a general rule are less likely to be altruistic than
the population. As for not caring you really should look at the
way you have chosen to present your case.

Post by dumbstruck
They can care a lot, yet should not
leap mindlessly into huge scale unpredictable actions unless against
the wall somehow.

Any action has unpredictable consequences, large scale actions
large consequences.

Or to put it another way people on board the IJN strike force after
the Pearl Harbor attack were quiet, they conformed to the way
humans tend to be very sober after big victories and more
exuberant over little ones.

Post by dumbstruck
Looking into the "Europe second" alternative is not
born of some natural bias, but a surprise sanity check after decades of
accepting "Europe first".

Actually so far your look seems more about post war than
wartime.

Post by dumbstruck
We should be free to retest our cherished
assumptions here without digressions questioning our motives or ethics.

As you wish, I presume lines about people not thinking Puerto
Rico or Oahu are not important enough parts of the US will be
dropped.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
The pre war Japanese attacks on China and mistreatment of
westerners goaded the US toward more aggression.
Why once again is the US the main player? The Japanese responding?
Sitting around waiting for the latest directive from the US before

No, no - it was just one counter example to economic sanctions being
a substitute for "Asia first" military push. When I say aggression or
threat I mean bayonets into flesh; you mistake my meaning as something
like harsh posturing.

Again you miss the point, it is all from the US view, the rest of
the world awaits the missives and acts accordingly.

Sanctions are short of war disapproval, just like ending military
equipment. A secondary consideration is it avoids claims of
aiding the enemy if war does break out.

And aggression can be verbal, if you mean force state it.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Do you have any idea of USN strengths? In January 1935 the USN

No, battles like at Samar have shown me that naval battles can be
so quirky that large fleets can get mauled by small ones. I think such
cases come from the way big ships "chunk" up the players more than
infantry or aircraft and statistics don't get long enough run to
overcome idiosyncrasies of a few captain's decisions in fog of war.
However small craft like subs seem to be effective in proportion
to their numbers, esp if an Asia First policy let them spend more
on testing torpedos (it was a money concern at the time).

Why are the strength figures deleted?

Why is one of the few major fleet battles cited? Do you think that
is the way the submarines worked?

Instead of literally thousands of torpedo attacks during the war?

US submarines are reported as firing 14,748 torpedoes against
Japanese ships. The USSBS credits allied submarines with
1,150.5 Japanese merchant ships. This puts the campaign
well beyond quirky and idiosyncratic.

If money for torpedo testing was the problem then it should
have been resolved in 1942, not 1943. For example in early
1942 one US battleship was ordered to fire its after guns as
fast as possible until it ran out of ammunition, to check what
would actually happen. Not a test that can be easily justified
in peace time. The torpedo situation was more than money.

Also note apart from better torpedoes from late 1943 the fitting
of radar sets to US submarines was a major force multiplier.
And in December 1941 few US cruisers had a set.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
It seems the consensus famine deaths area round 80% of your figure
but there is a wide band of uncertainties.

That top down consensus

Tell us all, how is it a top down?

Post by dumbstruck
analysis may be bogus if not all of them
heard Hong Kong University recently breaking down the doors of
Chinese secret archives and pushing up the duration and severity of
the "famine" as previously assumed. If the 80% represents critique
and knowledge of UHK techniques, then so be it.

So the definition of recent is?

Simply put it is clear finding such figures requires population figures
to be accurately kept then deciding normal death rates versus
actual ones. As a result there will always be a margin for error.

Post by dumbstruck
Guess what uncaring me did when a big gathering of Zhou enLai clan
members gathered here to establish a tax deductable foundation to
celebrate this person who UHK called the secret author of great famine?

More part of the senior team and so directly responsible,
also his record tends to competence over ideology.

Post by dumbstruck
I peppered reporters and poly-sci professors with the UHK findings,
maybe at the risk of getting beat up by visiting clan members.
And during the Tien. "massacre" I gathered several TV's (like small b/w)
in one place so to watch multi channel coverage before and after work.
Then flew into China to show support to the citizens, like the desperate
tourist hawkers who were going broke. While others go to resorts or family
gatherings I use tiny budget of vacation and money to for instance visit
WW2 civilian massacre monuments, and walk hours to visit each grave as
well as killing site.

Then you are doing more than most to highlight injustices.

Post by dumbstruck
What did I do to deserve isolationist label here?

The label comes from your writings about why care. The casual idea
about dropping nuclear bombs on Leningrad or Dover to kill Hitler,
followed by a grin. Makes it look as though you either think it is a
fun joke or a good idea.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Actually not correct, given peace keeping missions, the current
situation is mainly middle east with the evidence of major
intervention in Iraq, regime change in Libya and Tunisia and
minimal intervention in Syria as evidence of outcomes, along
with places like Egypt and Bahrain to go on with.

By "now" I meant last 5 years with no backbone to enforce "red line"
talk, except Russia vs Ukraine and Chinese vs disputed islands.

There has been no physical attempt to eject either Russia or China.
The Red Line was about gas in Syria.

Post by dumbstruck
The whole world is taking a virtual "Germany-never" policy, yet
I get flak for "Germany second" which is moderate in comparison.

The whole world notes the risks when nuclear weapons are around.
It also notes that so far none of the solutions applied in the current
major hot spot of the middle east have worked all that well. Tunisia
comes closest at the moment.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
So a less stressed US economy as it knows it cannot put as
many aircraft or soldiers into the Pacific versus the effect on
the European Axis of US forces to the end of 1943 and the
build up to do the 1944 operations.

I'm not sure there was lack of alternatives, but as WW2 is recreational
rather than analytical reading for me, I may never be able to get a
handle on it. I am surprised to be depicted as uncaring.

You need to read your writings.

Post by dumbstruck
I remember
the author of "rape of nanking" visiting here before her suicide, and
in a sad lonely voice saying few folks she met had known of the killing.

Of course, like lots of other WWII events. Heard of the Bengal
and Indo China famines? Know about the Thai-Burma rail line?

Post by dumbstruck
I should have spoken up that I knew even as a kid, speed reading thru
5 books a week from an Air Force library heavy on WW2. I knew of Nanking
and while other kids played ball I read books on various concentration
camps, Hiroshima, and recently read multi thick diary volumes of Jewish
V. Klemperer surviving in Dresden 30s-50s.

So your writings are telling us you have a preference for the
war in the Pacific dating back a long way.

Post by dumbstruck
Later before the internet, I subscribed to World Press Review magazine,
and sometimes every word of the weekly economist which is a world affairs
magazine in disguise. Yet I am called self centered by some probably
focusing more on wine women and song at the time.

Then you are probably more informed about non local affairs
than most and at the same time are not expressing it at all
well, and if you are going to add the wine women and song
lines do not complain about insults. Anyway it was Christmas,
then New Year. And wine infused women have been known
to do lots of singing.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
What was this fictional work, what person, what code?
The reality is attacks were made against what later was called
JN-25 from when it was introduced in 1939. In the US case it
was the units at Washington and Corregidor doing the work
while Pearl Harbor worked on other codes.
In December 1941 Pearl Harbor changed over to JN-25 work.
Simply put as the British had mobilised earlier than the US it
often had more resources in the 1941/42 period.

It may be referring the HYPO vs. OP-20-G infighting which stole credit
from Rochefort.

You may be referring to the struggle between Washington and
Hawaii over the Midway intelligence and the way Rochefort
was removed for what Layton thought was proving the bosses
wrong.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Thanks for telling us the democratically elected government in
Czechoslovakia was a dictatorship.

Any generous reader would see I meant a German then Russian based
dictatorship.

Any generous reader would appreciate you leaving your text
in so they can decide for themselves.

"Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania traded one dictator for another"

Romania managed to avoid German occupation before switching
sides after becoming a fascist government in 1940

The Czechs went from Democratic to Nazi to communist control.

The Hungarians went from a local fascist to Nazi to communist
control.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Heydrich was quite effective in terms of eliminating the non
communist resistance. He was also willing to try the carrot
approach at times but overall he was not a friend of the
Czechs.
By the way the partisans were sent into Czechoslovakia
in 1944, mostly under communist control.

I meant the Heydrich killers brought in from England, apparently against
the wishes of Czech underground.

Correct as far as from England and partially correct as far as
the local leadership was concerned. It was a common thing,
the local resistance knew the cost of active operations given
Nazi reprisals, those SOE and OSS operations included.

Post by dumbstruck
A documentary with a posh BBC accent
claimed that Heydrich had recently turned nicer to build his legacy and
get promoted.

You see I decide things like how serious someone is about
the issue when they do things like delete,

"I presume suppressing Czech culture and executing resistance
members is the way to make the Czechs like you. Being given
the title of Butcher of Prague is an honour. All workers
celebrated the work day going from 8 to 12 hours.

Heydrich was quite effective in terms of eliminating the non
communist resistance. He was also willing to try the carrot
approach at times but overall he was not a friend of the
Czechs."

This has to be deleted as you decide that yet another bunch
of Europeans are bad.

Post by dumbstruck
The Czechs in England thought they would lose postwar
bargaining power without more anti Nazi spectacles, so rushed before
Heydrich got more popular. This sounds strange, but I did see some
memoir complaints about Heydrich getting too nice in Prague. I am
fully aware of him being a monster most of his life, and had to abandon
his biography half way in disgust. I'm not all sold on the nice conversion.

Yet argue for it with bad faith implications for the people
involved.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
I note the lack of answer.

Brevity is next to godliness in the case of digressions.

"Please tell us all what sort of crimes committed rules out helping
a government. Say given the behaviours of western powers in the
19th and 20th centuries."

Since it is clearly important to you.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
So I gather the idea is the grand plan is to ensure the USSR, over 15
years after WWII
a) does not have nuclear weapons,
2) does not have short range missile technology,

No, Krush. was strong enough to react to JFK's disastrous meeting with
him as a fruit ripe for the plucking. USSR could have been weakened by
WW2 even more and end up as less of an opportunist later.

This is nothing more than wishful thinking given the original
idea was a handful of missiles in Cuba. I note the alternative
Cuba option was deleted.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Given your track record can we please have names and dates?

A non ww2 issue, so I will let you search the cspan video archives.

Good, classified fiction. Note by the way how much non WWII
material you have been including. So follow your own advice
and stop doing so.

Post by dumbstruck
It
was a side point by a high ranking USN guy, possibly the one that did
the most extensive below ice submarine trips and found the northwest
passage. Not the first nautilus one. Or else it was the video
of other navy conference of elderly brass that among other things
talked about Russia failed efforts to land troops on Japan. Recent vid.

Or in other words no names, no dates, no nothing.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
So essentially you once again have no idea of the actual
situation.

Neither did you!

Actually I noted the US Army lost around 100,000 KIA in the ETO
June 1944 onwards, when it was much more heavily engaged
than ever before. Also of course people can consult the various
histories that break down the losses by campaign.

I note another 16,000 died of wounds in the ETO for example
and note the forces invading Southern France were officially
MTO units until after they two forces joined up.

Post by dumbstruck
You expressed how hard it was to pin that down, and
I hadn't think it necessary to add that nobody knows the merchant marine
numbers because they were never officially counted.

The merchant marine losses were officially counted, like the
British they have a level of error in them because they were
civilian volunteers and so have less precise records.

Military records have definition problems as well. The US
Adjutant General's report gives US army combat deaths
as 216,005, the Surgeon General's report gives 213,030.
And the US army rarely lost records.

The Surgeon General's report gives 192,220 killed in action, 20,810
died of wounds, 723,560 wounded in action (599,724 admitted to
hospital), and 16,793 "Other battle deaths", including deaths as
prisoners of the enemy.

Died of wounds was defined as death after reaching an aid station,
otherwise it was killed in action.

Disease deaths 14,904
nonbattle injury deaths 61,503
total 306,230.

Note in 1944/45 the US Army hospitals had 1,061,370 admissions
for non battle injuries, and another 7,664,995 admissions for disease.

Post by dumbstruck
I only remember
using a chart with the 400k broken down by service with AAF breakout,
and don't remember how or from what I estimated the time window.

The 400,000 dead figure has around 110,000 non combat deaths,
then there are the 30,000 missing but you need to add the civilian
combat deaths given the merchant sailors were civilians.

So your idea is around a third of US combat deaths were
against the European Axis in 1942 and into 1943?

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Southern Italy was one of the few places where the infrastructure
and land layout enables large forces of heavy bombers to be
based. The 8th Air force ended up with fuel pipelines to its
airfields.

Were the Germans stupid to be convinced that Sardinia and Croatian
islands were to be taken instead, by that planted body and briefcase?

Do you think the readers of this thread are so stupid as to note
you keep deleting the test I am replying to then changing the
subject?

The deception was for the Sicily operation. The islands in the
Adriatic ended up in an interesting configuration as some were
held by the Germans, others by the allies.

Simply put you want effective heavy bomber operations
from the Mediterranean into Europe you needed south Italy.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Nice to see trite replies.

I gave you some credit rather than pointing out you had the wrong
timeframe for British invasion threat - this thread is for 12/41 decision.

Actually yet again it comes across as you are wrong, time
to ignore that and carry on.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Plenty of transport to land on lightly defended or friendly shores.

Churchill said the LST (run aground tank landing ship) won the war,
and the Russians were begging to borrow US ones. Merchant ships need
harbors which are more easily defense points.

Really, time, date, location?

Meantime the reality is invasion ships are needed against hostile
and defended shores. The axis had plenty of merchant shipping
with England out of the way.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Names, dates, locations,.

Aforementioned video conference,

Ah yes, the one you have no names, dates or anything else
but expect others to find it.

Post by dumbstruck
and I believe they just published a
book.

No names, dates or anything though.

Heard about Project HULA: Soviet-American Cooperation in the
War Against Japan, by Richard A. Russell. No. 4 in The U.S. Navy
in the Modern World series. 1997.

Post by dumbstruck
Covered all the ways Russia tried with and without US involvement
to land a token force in Japan. After the surrender the Russians tried
to bully into a fort which was on a tiny island near or attached to Hokk.

Except they never made it to Hokkaido but did take the
Kuriles.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Bottom line, I must return to the actual truth you know very little
about WWII and are busy projecting the cold war backwards
in time.

That is one of the mildest of uncalled-for insults that you soiled
your otherwise generous reputation with here.

Echoing text with changes has a way of generating responses.

If you are going to keep deleting so much inconvenient information
why do you expect others to think you are showing good faith?

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Manstein is generally considered the best army commander

Manstein was an implementor, probably not a visionary fanatic that
made Germany so mobilized and persistant to the end. Doenitz might be.

Yes we know that being European you apply a near automatic
discount and continue to delete what does not fit.

"The German military was generally better trained,
equipped and lead than the Japanese one, fortunately in both
cases the senior leadership was not as competent."

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Name, date, location.

One of the Hitler bodyguard shows I believe focused on the Brit military
attache who had an easy shot at Hitler prewar, but was refused permission.

So once again no name or date.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Or to put it another way you deserve more, everything you do is
right, you deserve to/must rule, they are the problem, nirvana
can be achieved if we just get rid of enough of the right people.

No.

To put it mildly leaving in your text would be useful.

Post by dumbstruck
It was unusual in that folk's banal everyday unjustified annoyances,
like getting caught stealing or sleeping around, could be given relief
in a cathartic way that gives NO material benefits to them.

Master race, destined to rule the others, you become the person
the system gives more to while doing less?

Plenty of material benefits, note the gap between most colonial
administrators and colonial subjects.

Post by dumbstruck
Go for a
greater cause like the nation as a whole, not for the economy sake or
shedding of Versailles.

Or the religion, or the "race" etc.

Post by dumbstruck
Join a greater MYSTICAL cause for no benefits
except to forget your inner demons whatever they are.

Simply put higher causes are one way for people to deal
with their problems, and the appeal by Hitler was more
along the lines of remove undesirables, and be powerful
enough to force others to do what they are told.

The Nazis were trying for guns and butter pre war.

Post by dumbstruck
Not just demons
(which Hitler would fish for), but remember the saying that the most
spectacular lives are but splendid wrecks of their actual loftier goals
(thus disappointments). I don't expect all to understand.

Actually you are close to echoing Japanese military ideas in WWII,
which had a strong base in Japanese culture, rather than German
or Nazi.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Kenneth Young]

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Actually yet again it comes across as you are wrong, time
to ignore that and carry on.

Something nobody has mentioned yet is the Reuben James something I
consider more important than one more attack on a foreign gunboat in
China years before Pearl. Note Lend Lease and Cash and Carry both
predated any US fighting.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Kenneth Young

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Actually yet again it comes across as you are wrong, time
to ignore that and carry on.

Something nobody has mentioned yet is the Reuben James something I
consider more important than one more attack on a foreign gunboat in
China years before Pearl. Note Lend Lease and Cash and Carry both
predated any US fighting.

Both the USS Reuben James and USS Greer incidents took place AFTER the
Atlantic Charter (08/1941) which established the "Germany First"
doctrine.

As for the attack on the Panay (which I assumeis the 'one more attack
on a foreign gunboat in China') it was part of the lead-up to war with
Japan. Certainly had FDR wanted war with Japan at that time it would
have been a casus belli - it was as blatant as the Maine which was the
start of the Spanish-American war.

[dumbstruck]

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Perhaps out of China, Russia, various non state organisations etc.
you can let us know which ones today are going to peter out so
we can just leave them alone.

The world is assuming North Korea nukes and missile program will
peter out, as well as assuming Iran nukes won't finish Hitler's
racial extermination aspirations. I am not in that appeasement camp,
but I know that if one bully actually attacks you harder than you
thought possible, you may prioritize them higher than an absent bully.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
No, I simply note you ignore the costs of the do nothing option. And
of course as of early December 1941 people were still unsure whether
the USSR would remain in the war, the Red Army counter attack was
launched on 5 December.

Well I question rather than ignore. Weren't the Germans clearly bogged
down a month before Pearl? Remember I am not advocating Asia-first, I
started with "Let's brainstorm pro arguments for Asia first strategy".

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
You should look at the various force deployments and supply
shipments instead of deleting them.

Gone is not forgotten... your carryover of all text is against all
netiquette and makes replies unmanageable. The ancient newsgroup model
of old posts being discarded is long dead, and ISP's tend to no longer
give direct access to spammy newsgroup servers. We access by web page
software where older posts can be easily viewed by clicks and scrolls.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
As you wish, I presume lines about people not thinking Puerto
Rico or Oahu are not important enough parts of the US will be
dropped.

That was my counter to a post here that said Oahu attack shouldn't
matter enough to consider Asia-first, because it wasn't yet a state.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Instead of literally thousands of torpedo attacks during the war?

I specifically said that the small granularity sub action allowed it's
success to more follow statistical strength. I read memoirs of surface
battles early in Pacific war that were sickeningly chunky with arbitrary success... not just Samar.

Sidelight: As for per-sub effectiveness I just read Doenitz memoirs
where he calculates fellow Italian subs sunk one-fiftyth as much
tonnage per sub-day-on-patrol. His solution was to cancel joint Med
maneuvers, although he consulted on how Italians could improve.
I wonder how US subs compared, first with dud torpedos that were so long forbidden to testfire due to cost considerations, then after the fixes.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Tell us all, how is it a top down?

You pose a cold statistical death estimate that assumes wise heads
have reviewed all major claims. But a bottom up view of recent work
can show the others must be de-emphasized due to non-access to new data.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
So the definition of recent is?

Recent enough for the new estimates to be peer-reviewed and prioritized
as way better than the others or whatever.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
The label comes from your writings about why care. The casual idea
about dropping nuclear bombs on Leningrad or Dover to kill Hitler,
followed by a grin. Makes it look as though you either think it is a
fun joke or a good idea.

Think of omitting the grin... it was not to make fun but avoid the false
impression of reading it in purposeful tone. Many regret the nukes hitting
Japan rather than the intended Germany, including the involved scientists.
With Hitler being your main threat, why not use it on one of his bunkers.
With the possible exception of Ukraine one, didn't he make them quite
remote? Dover or Stalingrad bunker would be in an empty outskirt, and
the bombs needn't be high airbursts... just fused for local earthquake
shaking. This is the scenario of Asia-first which delays Euro progress.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Of course, like lots of other WWII events. Heard of the Bengal
and Indo China famines? Know about the Thai-Burma rail line?

Bengal and Dutch one (that got priority). Hadn't heard the Indochine one.
I have visited Burma and the fake Thai Riv Kwai bridge that tourists are
sent to instead of the nearby historical POW built bridge remains.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
So your writings are telling us you have a preference for the
war in the Pacific dating back a long way.

No, but again I said let's brainstorm the Asia-First case, regardless
of whether it has more con's than pro's. My extremely limited travel
opportunities have brought me twice to Japan (first time there seemed a
MacArthur halo hangover where folks would seem to stereotype me racially
as a favorable cartoon figure). I have avoided Germany as a place with
creepy memories from all the memoirs I have read. I had an orgy of
misguided compassion on a recent trip to Palermo. All kinds of buildings
seemed to have 20 or 30mm shell holes splattered about, until I realized
they had ripped out a forest of old fashioned criss-cross power insulators
everywhere. Then online I found Patton's surrender demand for Palermo
penciled on yellow pad... they escaped combat.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Correct as far as from England and partially correct as far as
the local leadership was concerned. It was a common thing,
the local resistance knew the cost of active operations given
Nazi reprisals, those SOE and OSS operations included.
This has to be deleted as you decide that yet another bunch
of Europeans are bad.

You incorrectly jump to a hostile interpretation of my Czech comments
as well as others. I am simply showing hypothetical Asia-first scenario
which means the US fails to liberate CZ later than it actually did fail.
The UK has already decided CZ is doing less than other occupied states
to resist. Why not divert a few Asia-first bucks into Rhode Island
torpedo factory that had a frugal no-realistic-test policy.

Gosh, one of the smartest person I ever worked for was a CZ emigre,
and it was his cultural approach that made things click. Now I have
sacrificed my travel budget maybe forever by buying an incredible
huge recreational craft from CZ. Endless hair-tearing pain of import
restrictions and brokers, currency xfer restrictions, carriers who
balked at 12 timezone airfreight connections, but I wanted to reward
CZ for making such a technology possible via clever collapse-ability.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
The merchant marine losses were officially counted, like the
British they have a level of error in them because they were
civilian volunteers and so have less precise records.

Where? I found a source that said US MM were not counted, and then
made an attempt to estimate best-as-can.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Really, time, date, location?
Ah yes, the one you have no names, dates or anything else
but expect others to find it.
No names, dates or anything though.
So once again no name or date.

I had given you the source where I found these and where you could
search for it. You demand it served to you on a silver platter, when often
it was just a generous aside. You say stop the digressions, but turn it
into a point scoring process by implying that I hold back umpteen answers
and thus discredited. All you have to do for many of these is a google
search, like mouse-over my description and right click.

I did this in another posting about "the man who saved the world" that you
demanded. First google page points to the wrong russian, but when I add
cuba it comes up with the credible answer which I posted the link for.
Same for your demand on the easy opportunity for Hitler to be shot by
UK military attache in Berlin... first google page brought up credible
newspaper story which I stuck in anothr post, which you can confirm
elsewhere if you remain suspicious.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Perhaps out of China, Russia, various non state organisations etc.
you can let us know which ones today are going to peter out so
we can just leave them alone.

The world is assuming North Korea nukes and missile program will
peter out, as well as assuming Iran nukes won't finish Hitler's
racial extermination aspirations. I am not in that appeasement camp,
but I know that if one bully actually attacks you harder than you
thought possible, you may prioritize them higher than an absent bully.

Oh good, nice to know, of course the one thing we all know about
predicting the future is how wrong most of the predictions can be.
However in your scenario people have much better predictive
powers.

By the way one of the North Korea scenarios is the leadership
launches because the economy collapsed.

Deleted text,

"Essentially as of 1939 Germany was known to be a dangerous
military opponent, as of July 1940 its power had increased
dramatically."

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
No, I simply note you ignore the costs of the do nothing option. And
of course as of early December 1941 people were still unsure whether
the USSR would remain in the war, the Red Army counter attack was
launched on 5 December.

Well I question rather than ignore.

Deleting what does not fit is ignore.

deleted text,

"While the USSR was still in the war the threat to Britain reduced,
at the same time the U-boat crisis was still to come as was the
1942 crisis in the USSR.

The US treated Europe as second priority for most of 1942,
hence the first 8th Air Force B-17 raid on 17 August and the
stripping of units in Britain for Torch. The US tried to have
an emergency landing force in Britain in case the USSR
situation required it."

Post by dumbstruck
Weren't the Germans clearly bogged
down a month before Pearl? Remember I am not advocating Asia-first, I
started with "Let's brainstorm pro arguments for Asia first strategy".

Are you really so badly informed?

The Germans kept attacking and taking ground around Moscow
until about the day of the counter attack. The counter attack in the
south began on 27 November.

By the way wasn't Japan clearly bogged down in China well
before 1941?

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
You should look at the various force deployments and supply
shipments instead of deleting them.

Gone is not forgotten...

Ignored then.

Post by dumbstruck
your carryover of all text is against all
netiquette and makes replies unmanageable. The ancient newsgroup model
of old posts being discarded is long dead, and ISP's tend to no longer
give direct access to spammy newsgroup servers. We access by web page
software where older posts can be easily viewed by clicks and scrolls.

Translation forget what I said yesterday, only worry about
what I am saying today. Marvellous modern message
management.

Actually people are reading the messages days apart and rely
on enough context to keep up, rather than be expected to reach
back over several messages to figure out the context. This is
a leisure activity, not a paid project. Even then the idea is to
make things clear.

I find in order to frame a coherent reply I need at least the last
message I wrote in plain sight. Those simply reading the
exchange usually have less recall than the writers.

By the way I do note your answer is completely consistent with
you go do the work, I am right.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
As you wish, I presume lines about people not thinking Puerto
Rico or Oahu are not important enough parts of the US will be
dropped.

That was my counter to a post here that said Oahu attack shouldn't
matter enough to consider Asia-first, because it wasn't yet a state.

Really? This quote from Rich Rostrom's post?

" Neither Germany nor Japan ever attacked the
continental U.S. "

Or something else? Should be easy to find, only a click or scroll away.

Deleted text,

"Again you miss the point, it is all from the US view, the rest of
the world awaits the missives and acts accordingly.

Sanctions are short of war disapproval, just like ending military
equipment. A secondary consideration is it avoids claims of
aiding the enemy if war does break out.

And aggression can be verbal, if you mean force state it.

Why are the strength figures deleted?

Why is one of the few major fleet battles cited? Do you think that
is the way the submarines worked?"

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Instead of literally thousands of torpedo attacks during the war?

I specifically said that the small granularity sub action allowed it's
success to more follow statistical strength.

Not in any reply to me. Go reread your text before mine, only a
quick scroll or click away. Plus of course your idea about the
torpedo performance being a money problem.

deleted text,

"US submarines are reported as firing 14,748 torpedoes against
Japanese ships. The USSBS credits allied submarines with
1,150.5 Japanese merchant ships. This puts the campaign
well beyond quirky and idiosyncratic.

If money for torpedo testing was the problem then it should
have been resolved in 1942, not 1943. For example in early
1942 one US battleship was ordered to fire its after guns as
fast as possible until it ran out of ammunition, to check what
would actually happen. Not a test that can be easily justified
in peace time. The torpedo situation was more than money.

Also note apart from better torpedoes from late 1943 the fitting
of radar sets to US submarines was a major force multiplier.
And in December 1941 few US cruisers had a set."

Post by dumbstruck
I read memoirs of surface
battles early in Pacific war that were sickeningly chunky with arbitrary
success... not just Samar.

Yes I see, once again the small number of surface actions
are compared with thousands of submarine attacks, but
only after the numbers have been deleted.
You are good at sidelights, largely as your main ideas
need distractions.

Post by dumbstruck
As for per-sub effectiveness I just read Doenitz memoirs
where he calculates fellow Italian subs sunk one-fiftyth as much
tonnage per sub-day-on-patrol. His solution was to cancel joint Med
maneuvers, although he consulted on how Italians could improve.

The U-boats were sent to the Mediterranean largely because the
Italian navy was in trouble.

Also the Italians usually operated in their own area in the Atlantic.

Post by dumbstruck
I wonder how US subs compared, first with dud torpedos that were
so long forbidden to testfire due to cost considerations, then after the
fixes.

Oh sorry we are back to the torpedoes could not be test fired due
to costs, when do you think the cost constraints went away?

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Tell us all, how is it a top down?

You pose a cold statistical death estimate that assumes wise heads
have reviewed all major claims. But a bottom up view of recent work
can show the others must be de-emphasized due to non-access to new data.

So in other words we have jargon that essentially says you have
your figures and an excuse why others are wrong.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
So the definition of recent is?

Recent enough for the new estimates to be peer-reviewed and prioritized
as way better than the others or whatever.

Ah recent is whatever, and of course apparently any "old" estimates
are apparently not peer reviewed. Apparently.

By the way how do you peer review such estimates unless you have
access to the original population documents? Is this all about
assumed "normal" death rates then calculating excess?

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
The label comes from your writings about why care. The casual idea
about dropping nuclear bombs on Leningrad or Dover to kill Hitler,
followed by a grin. Makes it look as though you either think it is a
fun joke or a good idea.

Think of omitting the grin... it was not to make fun but avoid the false
impression of reading it in purposeful tone.

Writing lacks intonation, your attitude to the Europeans comes
across as assuming the idea was good.

Post by dumbstruck
Many regret the nukes hitting
Japan rather than the intended Germany, including the involved scientists.

Ah another sweeping statement.

Post by dumbstruck
With Hitler being your main threat, why not use it on one of his bunkers.

Because he would survive in a bunker and that is assuming they know
where he is.

Why not have the air force level the housing in your area, should drive
out all the criminals. Same basic idea.

Post by dumbstruck
With the possible exception of Ukraine one, didn't he make them quite
remote?

You mean like Berlin?

Post by dumbstruck
Dover or Stalingrad bunker would be in an empty outskirt, and
the bombs needn't be high airbursts... just fused for local earthquake
shaking. This is the scenario of Asia-first which delays Euro progress.

I see you have the idea of a friendlier use nuclear weapons.

Looked at a map of the Dover area?

Also is the idea the US has so many they can afford such attacks?

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Of course, like lots of other WWII events. Heard of the Bengal
and Indo China famines? Know about the Thai-Burma rail line?

Bengal and Dutch one (that got priority).

Actually both got priority. Ever read the UK merchant ship history?
The pleas for food from around the Indian Ocean and into the Middle
East in 1942/43

Like in Chapter XVI, The shortage of shipping, a stranglehold on
essential civilian services (March 1943).

Merchant Shipping and the Demands of War, by C Behrens.

Post by dumbstruck
Hadn't heard the Indochine one.

Not to mention the Chinese one.

Post by dumbstruck
I have visited Burma and the fake Thai Riv Kwai bridge that tourists are
sent to instead of the nearby historical POW built bridge remains.

And this gives you credibility in what way when proposing
the Japan first strategy?

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
So your writings are telling us you have a preference for the
war in the Pacific dating back a long way.

No,

Your deleted words,

" I should have spoken up that I knew even as a kid, speed reading thru
5 books a week from an Air Force library heavy on WW2. I knew of Nanking
and while other kids played ball I read books on various concentration
camps, Hiroshima, and recently read multi thick diary volumes of Jewish
V. Klemperer surviving in Dresden 30s-50s."

Post by dumbstruck
but again I said let's brainstorm the Asia-First case, regardless
of whether it has more con's than pro's.

This is not brainstorming, this is dealing with someone who is busy
deleting anything that will not fit.

Post by dumbstruck
My extremely limited travel
opportunities have brought me twice to Japan (first time there seemed a
MacArthur halo hangover where folks would seem to stereotype me racially
as a favorable cartoon figure). I have avoided Germany as a place with
creepy memories from all the memoirs I have read. I had an orgy of
misguided compassion on a recent trip to Palermo. All kinds of buildings
seemed to have 20 or 30mm shell holes splattered about, until I realized
they had ripped out a forest of old fashioned criss-cross power insulators
everywhere. Then online I found Patton's surrender demand for Palermo
penciled on yellow pad... they escaped combat.

And how is this relevant? What do you think you learnt there
that is relevant here?

Deleted text,

"Heydrich was quite effective in terms of eliminating the non
communist resistance. He was also willing to try the carrot
approach at times but overall he was not a friend of the
Czechs.

By the way the partisans were sent into Czechoslovakia
in 1944, mostly under communist control."

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Correct as far as from England and partially correct as far as
the local leadership was concerned. It was a common thing,
the local resistance knew the cost of active operations given
Nazi reprisals, those SOE and OSS operations included.
This has to be deleted as you decide that yet another bunch
of Europeans are bad.

You incorrectly jump to a hostile interpretation of my Czech comments
as well as others.

No, I simply note active resistance had huge casualties, for
the Poles there was little difference, the Nazis tended to
treat the rest of western Europe better but were already
shooting hostages in 1940.

Post by dumbstruck
I am simply showing hypothetical Asia-first scenario
which means the US fails to liberate CZ later than it actually did fail.

Actually the later the US arrives the less chance of occupying
Germany before worrying about points east of it.

Post by dumbstruck
The UK has already decided CZ is doing less than other occupied states
to resist.

No, you decide the UK has decided, in fact with things like the
divided loyalties in France and the way the Danish government and
King were left in place the reality is there was little active resistance
in western Europe in 1942. Ignore the idea of going with winners
there is the reality of what benefit for the costs. Passive operations
like intelligence and rescuing aircrew were done much more.

The communists were being hunted of course, along with the Poles.

Do you have any idea of the resistance during WWII?

Post by dumbstruck
Why not divert a few Asia-first bucks into Rhode Island
torpedo factory that had a frugal no-realistic-test policy.

Ah yes, the torpedo money problem again.

Try the USN command, given their resistance to the
reports coming in mostly from the Pacific. And the way
the Pacific ran its own tests.

Post by dumbstruck
Gosh, one of the smartest person I ever worked for was a CZ emigre,
and it was his cultural approach that made things click.

Gosh we are going on a sidetrack again.

Post by dumbstruck
Now I have
sacrificed my travel budget maybe forever by buying an incredible
huge recreational craft from CZ. Endless hair-tearing pain of import
restrictions and brokers, currency xfer restrictions, carriers who
balked at 12 timezone airfreight connections, but I wanted to reward
CZ for making such a technology possible via clever collapse-ability.

Lets see now recreational space craft, air craft, train craft, boat
craft, car craft, bicycle craft, tricycle craft, hover board craft?

deleted text,

"Please tell us all what sort of crimes committed rules out helping
a government. Say given the behaviours of western powers in the
19th and 20th centuries."

Since it is clearly important to you."

So much so it has been ignored again.

More deleted text,

"Actually I noted the US Army lost around 100,000 KIA in the ETO
June 1944 onwards, when it was much more heavily engaged
than ever before. Also of course people can consult the various
histories that break down the losses by campaign.

I note another 16,000 died of wounds in the ETO for example
and note the forces invading Southern France were officially
MTO units until after they two forces joined up."

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
The merchant marine losses were officially counted, like the
British they have a level of error in them because they were
civilian volunteers and so have less precise records.

Where? I found a source that said US MM were not counted, and then
made an attempt to estimate best-as-can.

You know for example the MM site and even Wikipedia?

The civilian seamen are not counted as military casualties.

Deleted text,

"The 400,000 dead figure has around 110,000 non combat deaths,
then there are the 30,000 missing but you need to add the civilian
combat deaths given the merchant sailors were civilians.

So your idea is around a third of US combat deaths were
against the European Axis in 1942 and into 1943?

Do you think the readers of this thread are so stupid as to note
you keep deleting the test I am replying to then changing the
subject?

The deception was for the Sicily operation. The islands in the
Adriatic ended up in an interesting configuration as some were
held by the Germans, others by the allies.

Simply put you want effective heavy bomber operations
from the Mediterranean into Europe you needed south Italy."

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Really, time, date, location?

(For a Churchill quote on LST)

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Ah yes, the one you have no names, dates or anything else
but expect others to find it.

Supposed to be a videoconference.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
No names, dates or anything though.

Believed just published a book apparently.

Deleted text,

"Heard about Project HULA: Soviet-American Cooperation in the
War Against Japan, by Richard A. Russell. No. 4 in The U.S. Navy
in the Modern World series. 1997.

The German military was generally better trained,
equipped and lead than the Japanese one, fortunately in both
cases the senior leadership was not as competent."

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
So once again no name or date.

Supposed to be one of the Hitler bodyguard shows.

Post by dumbstruck
I had given you the source where I found these and where you could
search for it.

Actually I expect people to back their statements and no you
have not given "the source".

Post by dumbstruck
You demand it served to you on a silver platter, when often
it was just a generous aside.

Actually most of these asides are supposed to be backing your
case, and they are not generous.

Post by dumbstruck
You say stop the digressions, but turn it
into a point scoring process by implying that I hold back umpteen answers
and thus discredited. All you have to do for many of these is a google
search, like mouse-over my description and right click.

All I have to do.

You are so generous allocating work to other people.

Post by dumbstruck
I did this in another posting about "the man who saved the world" that you
demanded.

Which I noted.

Post by dumbstruck
First google page points to the wrong russian, but when I add
cuba it comes up with the credible answer which I posted the link for.

Actually it comes up with a newspaper article. And I note how
we need the correct search string to find it.

Post by dumbstruck
Same for your demand on the easy opportunity for Hitler to be shot by
UK military attache in Berlin... first google page brought up credible
newspaper story which I stuck in anothr post, which you can confirm
elsewhere if you remain suspicious.

So you could have posted the URL here but instead spent more time
on a "go look it up" reply?

Why?

I note the deletion of the idea of Nazi ideology ideas when challenged.

By the way if the US does put more effort into the Pacific as you say I
presume it does better, that is arrives at places like Okinawa before
historical? What then, an invasion of Japan given the summer
weather and Manhattan being months away? A more effective
blockade? Japan had starvation deaths in 1945/46, the US had to
ship in food aid. At around 73 million people on the home islands
that is a lot of potential famine victims.

And of course Stalin, who kept 1,000,000 men with thousands of
tanks and aircraft in the east for the whole war will be constrained
and not take advantage of the Japanese defeats, right?

See Great Battles on the Eastern Front by T.N. Dupuy and
Paul Martell. The chapter on the Soviet Campaign in
Manchuria.

Strength is put at 23 rifle, 1 cavalry, 8 tank and 13 air divisions
on 22 June 1941. On 1 December 1941 that had changed to
24 rifle, 2 cavalry, 4 tank and 23 air divisions. On 1 July 1942
it was 29 Infantry, 3 Cavalry, 2 tank and 10 air divisions. During
this time period (22 June 1941 to 1 July 1942) an additional 17
infantry and 19 tank brigades were added. Personnel is put
at 704,000 on 22 June 1941, to 1,343,000 in December 1941
peaking at 1,450,000 in July 1942 and thereafter kept at around
1,100,00 to 1,200,000 until May 1945. Never less than 2,000
tanks and 3,000 combat aircraft.

For the August 1945 offensive the Soviets transferred an
additional 400,000 troops and 2,100 tanks, to join the troops
already present.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:19:34 -0500, "Geoffrey Sinclair"

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
As you wish, I presume lines about people not thinking Puerto
Rico or Oahu are not important enough parts of the US will be
dropped.

That was my counter to a post here that said Oahu attack shouldn't
matter enough to consider Asia-first, because it wasn't yet a state.

Agreed - don't forget the Panama Canal Zone. In any case I cannot see
any American president not seeking a declaration of war in any
situation where 1000+ US servicemen have just been killed.

The idea that any US president wouldn't go completely apeshit (recall
Bush after 9/11 for a recent example) would be inconceivable.

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Really? This quote from Rich Rostrom's post?
" Neither Germany nor Japan ever attacked the
continental U.S. "

Depends on what you mean by attacked. There was the machine-gunning of
a Canadian lighthouse by a Japanese submarine; there were German
saboteurs caught and executed in the US. There were the completely
ineffective Japanese balloons which attempted to cause forest fires in
the Pacific Northwest.

None of them were remotely as effective as German efforts against
Russia or even against the Channel Islands (much less efforts by the
Luftwaffe)

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
" I should have spoken up that I knew even as a kid, speed reading thru
5 books a week from an Air Force library heavy on WW2. I knew of Nanking
and while other kids played ball I read books on various concentration
camps, Hiroshima, and recently read multi thick diary volumes of Jewish
V. Klemperer surviving in Dresden 30s-50s."

Stupid question perhaps but why would the survival of a Jew in Dresden
after 8 May 1945 be particularly problematic? Sure living conditions
in the immediate postwar period weren't great but nobody was trying to
gas them.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
As for building US designs in Britain and vice versa this
ran into big problems at the most basic levels, rivet types
strength and composition, screw threads, wiring and so
on, it was post war they sorted out standards.

I could add language.

To illustrate the situation here is a list of aviation terms,
USAAF then the British equivalent (US = British) from
the P-40B and C pilot's notes

Accumulator (hydraulic) = Should not be confused with
electrical accumulator or battery

Anti-friction bearings = Ball and roller bearings
Battery (electrical) = Electrical accumulator
Blade connecting rod = Plain connecting rod
Block test = Bench test under engine's own power
Bombardier or bomber = Bomb aimer
Box-end wrench = Circular-ended wrench (for hexagon)
Cap screw = Setscrew or screw
Center of inboard wing panel = Center section
Check valve (hydraulic) = Non-return valve
Clevis = Fork or knuckle joint
Closed spanner - wrench with internal lugs or surface
lugs = Ring spanner

Co-pilot = second pilot
Cotter pin = Split pin
Crock (used in heat treatment) = Earthenware jug
Cylinder (hydraulic) = Jack
Dump-valve = Jettison valve
Fillister head screw = Cheese head screw
Flight indicator = Artificial horizon
Gall = To fret or score
Gasoline (gas) = Petrol
Green run = Endurance test
Ground (electrical) = Earth
Gross weight = All up weight
Gyro horizon = Artificial horizon
Gyro pilot = Automatic pilot
Kerosene = Paraffin
Knuckle pin (for radial engine) = Wrist or anchor pin
Lock Washer = Spring washer
Manifold pressure = Boost
Oil Pan = Sump
Outboard panel = Outer plane
Pad = Often used to designate that portion of a raised
machined surface designed for mounting accessories etc.

Palnut = Type of lock nut
Piston pin = Gudgeon pin
Propeller = Airscrew
Reticule (gun sight etc.) = Graticule
Round head screw = Cup head screw
Screen = Filter
Setscrew = Grub screw
Ship = Aircraft
Slushing compound = Corrosion inhibitor
Socket wrench = Box spanner
Spanner = C-spanner
Spanner wrench = Ring spanner
Stabilizer - horizontal = Tail plane
Stabilizer - vertical = Fin
Stack = Manifold (inlet or exhaust)
Sylphon = Aneroid
Tachometer = Engine speed indicator
Tag = Label
Test club = Test fan
Tube (radio) = Valve
Turn indicator = Direction indicator
Valve (fuel or oil) = Cock
Weight empty = Tare

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Les]

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 1:23:29 AM UTC-4, dumbstruck wrote:

(stuff deleted)

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
You could conventionally defeat Japan
without invading,

The prewar US embargo on Japan and lend lease to China goaded Japan
toward more aggression.

However, appeasement encouraged Japan towards more aggression,
doing nothing was also seen as sanctioning Japan's aggression, and
bolstering armed defenses in the Pacific was also seen as provocation.
The mindset of the Japanese Hawks tended to interpret any development
to their preferences. Remember when they learned the USSR had
declared war against Japan, they hoped to use that as leverage against
the West to prevent Japan from being gobbled up by the Soviets.

(stuff deleted)

Post by dumbstruck
But I wonder if Australia was almost lost due to the Asia-second priority.

Not really. The Allies accurately predicted that it was beyond
Japan's reach.

Post by dumbstruck
The battle of Coral sea was almost lost. With an Asia-first policy the US
could possibly have starved Japan by a ring of subs (folks seem to think
the starvation of millions is more humane than nukes for some reason).

The US had to first be able to establish close enough air and naval
bases to make this possible. This was not possible until after they
had first built up the means.

Post by dumbstruck
Then
save nukes for attack on Hitler.

...Assuming he doesn't nuke them first. The Germans were the first to
achieve nuclear fission, and FDR approved the Manhattan Project on
Dec. 6 out of fears the Nazis were building their own bomb.

Post by dumbstruck
Simultaneously hit Berlin and where ever
his latest eagles nest or wolf's lair is, be it Leningrad or Dover <grin>.

...Assuming the US has a bomber that can carry a nuclear payload
halfway around the world, and that that Nazis, with the industry and
resources of a conquered USSR and UK at hand, haven't invaded the US
through Canada.

(stuff deleted)

Post by dumbstruck
US ships were being targeted as a revenge for the munitions trade, even
if the target ship wasn't involved.

US ships were being targeted for the sole purpose of unlimited
submarine warfare as part of Hitler attempt to blockade the UK
into submission.

Post by dumbstruck
If only a truce could have been kept
up for a couple years... maybe Hitler was clever in declaring war on US
after Pearl Harbor, and made Asia-first impractical.

(rest of post deleted. What's the point?)

So, by your own admission, you have now abandoned your claim that
the US should have had an Asia-first strategy. By the way, I
find it strange to read how Hitler was "clever" in assuring his
ultimate defeat by formally declaring war against the US.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by dumbstruck
But I wonder if Australia was almost lost due to the Asia-second priority.
The battle of Coral sea was almost lost. With an Asia-first policy the US
could possibly have starved Japan by a ring of subs (folks seem to think
the starvation of millions is more humane than nukes for some reason). Then
save nukes for attack on Hitler. Simultaneously hit Berlin and where ever
his latest eagles nest or wolf's lair is, be it Leningrad or Dover <grin>.

Are you seriously suggesting all this was knowable in June/July 1941?
Cause that's when the Germany First policy was first articulated. Yes
- and FDR agreed to that 6 months BEFORE Pearl Harbor.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Simply put this reads as one of those the US has choices and
the rest of the world is forced to accept those choices, a full
US stomach is worth lots of suffering elsewhere.
U-boats were doing much of their work against independently
routed ships even in 1941. Doenitz was into tonnage sunk,
independently sailing ships were usually easier targets.

Try as early as 1939. There's a reason Britain went to the convoy
system immediately at the start of the war - a WW2 in which Britain
suffered the kind of shipping losses Britain DID suffer 1914-16 would
have been a very different war and the Kriegsmarine of 1939-41 was
incomparably better than 1914-16.

Post by dumbstruck
US ships were being targeted as a revenge for the munitions trade, even
if the target ship wasn't involved. If only a truce could have been kept
up for a couple years... maybe Hitler was clever in declaring war on US
after Pearl Harbor, and made Asia-first impractical. I'm starting Doenitz
memoirs, and will watch for his mistake in attacking convoys by wolfpacks
instead of the independents.

But the historical records show that Hitler WANTED war with Poland in
1939. Meanwhile there is strong evidence to show that Japan undertook
some of the actions that most irritated the USA (for instance the
occupation of French Indochina) only after certain specific things
happened - like the fall of France. This led directly to the American
embargo on iron and oil which led directly to the planning for Pearl
Harbor (that's oversimplified but you get the idea)

Had the British and French held the line in 1940 there might not have
been a Japanese attack in 1941 in the first place.

Post by dumbstruck
I meant the US could subcontract to support a vastly increased Canadian
production of British designs like these 2 which were probably more
effective than B17s. Put 50 calibers and drop tanks on a Lancaster and
you wouldn't need B-24s. Flatten Canadian forests for masses of Mozzies.
A bit less confrontational to Germany for a couple years targeting Asia.

Again - that's entirely not knowable in the summer of 1941 when the
Germany first policy was adopted.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
The German killing program was well underway by the end of 1941,
you are simply deciding that the more secretive death camps, set up
from late 1941 onwards is some sort of nice neat way of claiming
the US cannot know.

True though not on the scale of 1943-44. Besides in 1941 Britain and
the United States knew Hitler was treating Jews badly - but mass
genocide on the scale later in the war was not contemplated in 1941.

Post by dumbstruck
The 300k civilians killed in Nanjing was celebrated in the Japanese
newspapers with photos and all. By end 1941 what was the certainty of
comparable numbers of non-POWs killed by the Germans to nonspecialists?

Yes there was nothing secret about Nanjing. Certainly nothing
resembling the secrecy of the Final Solution.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
You know France was more prepared for war in 1939 than the US,
way more in fact. The failure was more doctrine and the head start
the Luftwaffe had.

What's your point? Everybody knew the USA had a lot of slack in its
economy though much of the 1940-41 pre Lend-lease transfer of
munitions to Canada and the UK was simply bringing US factories up to
capacity with more to follow.

Post by dumbstruck
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania traded one dictator for another. Patton
was blocked from an easy liberation of Prague anyway, so US deaths were
spent to get nearby without any humanitarian benefit to the Czechs. My
heart has bled for the killings in those countries, but was tempered when
hearing one of the motivations to killing Heydrich was to disrupt the
impression that Heydrich and the Czechs were getting too comfy with each
other. Had to fly in partisans to look better to allies when they enter.

One of the reason Patton's orders kept him out of Prague was that
there was a large concentration of Vlasov's men which Washington did
NOT want to have to deal with as the potential for blowing the
alliance apart was very high. It was Vlasov's men who crushed the SS
in Prague not the Red Army - and then made an unsuccessful attempt to
reach US lines. (Not knowing that Patton had orders to fire on them if
they had tried to surrender)

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
If you are quoting the Kiev court of appeal 2010 findings the 10 million
is 3.9 million deaths and 6.1 million birth deficit, that is children not
born. Other figures range from 2.5 to 7.5 million deaths, in the 1932
and 1933 period, modern estimates tend to cluster around the lower
half of the range.

Interesting.

What this has to do with WW2 planning is a complete mystery to me.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Please tell us all what sort of crimes committed rules out helping
a government. Say given the behaviours of western powers in the
19th and 20th centuries.

The excessive support of Stalin could well have led to cold war holocaust.
Withhold just a bit support of him vs Tojo, and he could end weaker and not
end up putting missiles in Cuba. An incident there was only known recently
where a USSR sub was incited to launch nuke torpedo, probably against a
US carrier. By a miracle, one of the 3 approvers held back, a commie party
official onboard who is now called "The man who saved the world".

There would have been huge casualties in Europe plus the near
annihilation of the Soviet Union. There was a missile gap in 1961 and
it WASN'T in the Soviet's favor.

Post by dumbstruck
They hadn't crossed the line to attack the US. If you count minor skirmishes
I will include prewar Japanese attack on US ship at Shanghai. If you didn't
count Oahu as a US state, then heaven help Puerto Rico if say Cuba attacks
it and kills a couple thousand military. Ya might like the US to ignore that
attack to focus on another continent like South American war on illiteracy.

Surely you don't think any attack on US troops anywhere would not be
considered an act of war?

Post by dumbstruck
Bottom line, I must return to the strange truth that Hitler himself
was a uniquely dangerous person (although Mao killed more). Maybe more
focus should've been on killing him - his underlings were not the type
who could keep up the war unless maybe Doenitz had the fanaticism and
skills. Too bad the UK turned down an offer by Berlin military attache
to fire on Hitlers podium from 30 feet within his apartment overlooking
it.

Are you talking about assassination? Because do you have any idea how
many assassination attempts Hitler survived particularly after 1937?
Hint: double digits and NOT in the teens.

Post by dumbstruck
It brings me back to seeing what made Hitler tick from memoirs. There
were many responsible Germans in all positions (military and diplomatic)
who didn't want to go along with Hitler's radical plans. But this pasty
pale guy alone could put terrible things in motion. The best of many
explanations I just found near the end of Hanfstaengl's memoirs where he
quotes Hitler explaining how he feeds off the many life disappointments
of the everyman... shows how they can be relieved by a grand altruistic
gamble suggested by Hitler. More tempting than the materialistic-only
appeal of communism.

You've made some real howlers in the above and I really do think
further reading is required. Hope Hanfstaengl isn't the only book
you're reading...

[William Clodius]

<snip>
Try as early as 1939. There's a reason Britain went to the convoy
system immediately at the start of the war - a WW2 in which Britain
suffered the kind of shipping losses Britain DID suffer 1914-16 would
have been a very different war and the Kriegsmarine of 1939-41 was
incomparably better than 1914-16.
<snip>

I would disagree with the incomparably better. At the start of the war
the Kriegsmarine was proportionally much smaller than at the start of
WWI, its torpedos had unrecognized problems, it had no aircraft carrier,
and the engines and AA systems of its major ships also had major
limitations. However its submarine branch was in better relative shape.
With the fall of France and the entry of Italy on the Axis side, the
U-boats were in a much better position to attack British commerce, and
the British had to divert major resources to the Meditteranean. The
Germans (and Italians) also put in a significant effort developing
torpedo planes, dive bombers, and pilots capable of performing an
anti-shipping role, that was a significant problem for the British in
the Meditteranean for three and a half years, and for the Murmansk
convoys for a few months.

[dumbstruck]

Post by The Horny Goat
Are you seriously suggesting all this was knowable in June/July 1941?
Cause that's when the Germany First policy was first articulated. Yes
- and FDR agreed to that 6 months BEFORE Pearl Harbor.

No, look at my title and my OP which refers only to reconsidering maybe
obsolete guesstimates of 6 months previous. Hadn't Japan demonstrated
itself as more effective an opponent than was calculated back then?

Post by The Horny Goat
Try as early as 1939. There's a reason Britain went to the convoy

Realize you are countering an unnamed ">>" quote that wasn't by me.

Post by The Horny Goat
1939. Meanwhile there is strong evidence to show that Japan undertook
some of the actions that most irritated the USA (for instance the
occupation of French Indochina) only after certain specific things
happened - like the fall of France. This led directly to the American
embargo on iron and oil which led directly to the planning for Pearl
Harbor (that's oversimplified but you get the idea)

I had already posted on how Vichy France greenlighted indoch occupation.

Post by The Horny Goat
Again - that's entirely not knowable in the summer of 1941 when the
Germany first policy was adopted.

The summer 1941 decision has no bearing on this thread... I don't care
if they voted to attack MARTIANS-FIRST. The question is what direction
from that same menu after the shell shock of Pearl, Philippines, etc.

Post by The Horny Goat
genocide on the scale later in the war was not contemplated in 1941.

Hat's off to your counterarg at my attacker whom you didn't attribute.
Actually I support some of your other points, without room to quote all.

Post by The Horny Goat
What this has to do with WW2 planning is a complete mystery to me.

Knowledge of Stalin's past civvie massacres in millions might lower
the amount of blood and treasure that the US should spare to rescue
USSR ahead of weakening Japan.

Post by The Horny Goat
Are you talking about assassination? Because do you have any idea how
many assassination attempts Hitler survived particularly after 1937?
Hint: double digits and NOT in the teens.

Since I have referred to the Hitler's Bodyguard series, you should have
assumed knowledge of the 40+ they cover in 13 episodes which I have
seen multiple times. And the Brit one was one of the most striking
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/newsreview/features/article1654119.ece
because it unlike almost any other one could have easily succeeded
due to safe, predictable setup, and unusually easy evasion by sniper.

Post by The Horny Goat
You've made some real howlers in the above and I really do think
further reading is required. Hope Hanfstaengl isn't the only book
you're reading...

In this forum I have reviewed or referred to countless ww2 books I've
read over the years. True, I read them more for reliving experiences
rather than analysis. But most of the "howlers" come from y'all not
reading my statements correctly and jumping to negative interpretations.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by dumbstruck

Post by The Horny Goat
Again - that's entirely not knowable in the summer of 1941 when the
Germany first policy was adopted.

The summer 1941 decision has no bearing on this thread... I don't care
if they voted to attack MARTIANS-FIRST. The question is what direction
from that same menu after the shell shock of Pearl, Philippines, etc.

Well the point is that was their policy before Pearl Harbor and
barring a presidential order this policy was going to remain in force.
And FDR wasn't about to change his mind unless he had to.

A crushing defeat at Midway might have forced his hand but Hitler
could just as easily had a major breakthrough in Russia at the same
time so it could just as easily gone decisively in Germany's favor as
Japan.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by The Horny Goat
genocide on the scale later in the war was not contemplated in 1941.
What this has to do with WW2 planning is a complete mystery to me.

Knowledge of Stalin's past civvie massacres in millions might lower
the amount of blood and treasure that the US should spare to rescue
USSR ahead of weakening Japan.

Well sure - but in the summer of 1941 (and even immediately after
Pearl Harbor) there was a serious risk of Stalin going down to
complete defeat in which case Germany would REALLY be a greater threat
than Japan. Obviously Germany becomes a MUCH bigger threat if they
have achieved victory over the Soviets.

Post by dumbstruck

Post by The Horny Goat
Are you talking about assassination? Because do you have any idea how
many assassination attempts Hitler survived particularly after 1937?
Hint: double digits and NOT in the teens.

Since I have referred to the Hitler's Bodyguard series, you should have
assumed knowledge of the 40+ they cover in 13 episodes which I have
seen multiple times. And the Brit one was one of the most striking
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/newsreview/features/article1654119.ece
because it unlike almost any other one could have easily succeeded
due to safe, predictable setup, and unusually easy evasion by sniper.

As you say I am well aware that Hitler survived numerous assassination
attempts and that 20 July 1944 was far from the first.

As for the Manhattan Project I have no doubt that had Germany not
surrendered before Little Boy was ready it would have been dropped on
Germany. Absolutely no question about it - had you asked any military
person or physicist at Alamogordo they would have told you to a man it
was intended for use vs Germany. (Obviously you would not have been
allowed in at that time to ask the question!)

As for the famous Truman - Stalin meeting at Potsdam where Truman
revealed the bomb, I'm chiefly surprised Truman was surprised. Even if
Stalin had no advance word from his spies of course his response to
such a revelation would be something along the lines of "I look
forward to seeing you use it against the enemy" no matter what the
weapon was!

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by dumbstruck

Post by The Horny Goat
Are you seriously suggesting all this was knowable in June/July 1941?
Cause that's when the Germany First policy was first articulated. Yes
- and FDR agreed to that 6 months BEFORE Pearl Harbor.

No, look at my title and my OP which refers only to reconsidering maybe
obsolete guesstimates of 6 months previous. Hadn't Japan demonstrated
itself as more effective an opponent than was calculated back then?

NOt really; as early as the US takeover of the PI, Teddy Roosevelt
recognized those islands would be indefensible in the event of a
concerted Japanese attack. In 1925, Bywater's book _The Great Pacific
War_ predicted the initial Japanese gains almost exactly. But it was
also known that Japan couldn't sustain the war, or the momentum.

Mike

[John Dallman]

Post by The Horny Goat
Try as early as 1939. There's a reason Britain went to the convoy
system immediately at the start of the war

That was because they'd learned the convoys lesson painfully in 1914-16,
found that they were much easier to run than had been thought before it
was tried, and saw no reason why they shouldn't use them again. There was
at least one point at which abandoning convoy was considered during WW2,
but it never happened.

John

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by dumbstruck
There have been a lot of great points made here against my devil's
advocations. I will respond to a few criticisms... not to claim my
case wasn't idiotic, but maybe only half idiotic. It's hard to grasp
the politics of the eve of war when the battles get all the attention.
The prewar US embargo on Japan and lend lease to China goaded Japan
toward more aggression.

No; the Japanese Army was out of control, and were self-goading by that
point, a fact recognized by the Tokyo goverment.

Mike

[William Clodius]

<snip>
In 1937 of the 1,500 ocean going ships in the US merchant fleet,
400 were in foreign trade, the rest in coastal. In 1939 the US
ocean going fleet was around 1,400 ships (1,500 GRT or greater).

The US lost 100 ships in two non-war years. Was this due to reduced
shipping from the depression, loss of foreign trade to low salary/cost
fleets, or more efficient ships?

<snip>
Lots of British controlled ships were sunk of the US coast, as
were lots of US ships in coastal trade. One of the criticisms
of FDR is he wanted lots of coastal escorts, guess where most
of the US shipping was and was being lost.

I thought the main criticism of FDR in this topic was not that he
emphasized coastal escorts, but that he emphasize light escorts, i.e.,
the Naval high command thought that the best coastal escorts were light
destroyers of about 2000 tons or a little less, and he thought they
could get by with frigates of less than 1000 tons. The Naval high
command preference would have resulted in increased demand for the major
shipyards, with probably reduced production of normal destroyers, while
his proposal would have resulted in the more rapid production of ships
and used smaller facilities, that, unfortunately, were also in demand
for landing craft and other small ships. As I understand it, in the
event light destroyers proved much more capable than the frigates, so in
most ways the high command was right, but the real problem was that both
sides put a lot of effort killing the other's proposal so that their
proposal would get funded. As a result many months went by before
Congress could agree on any proposal, and escort production only caught
up with need in early 43.

<sni>

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by William Clodius

<snip>
In 1937 of the 1,500 ocean going ships in the US merchant fleet,
400 were in foreign trade, the rest in coastal. In 1939 the US
ocean going fleet was around 1,400 ships (1,500 GRT or greater).

The US lost 100 ships in two non-war years. Was this due to reduced
shipping from the depression, loss of foreign trade to low salary/cost
fleets, or more efficient ships?

Possibly, or the different references are using different definitions,
like the minimum size being counted.

However like WWII in WWI the US undertook a major merchant
ship building program. Like the associated WWI naval program
it delivered most of the ships post war. In early 1917 the US had
37 shipyards building steel ships and 24 building wooden ones,
by the armistice there were 341 shipyards.

The schematic says around 300,000 tons of merchant ships
built by the US in 1916, 750,000 in 1917, 1.3 million in 1918,
3.3 million in 1919, nearly 4 million in 1920, 2.25 million in
1921 and under 750,000 in 1922. The Emergency Fleet
Corporation built 2,318 vessels.

"Very few" merchant ships were built in the US between 1922
and 1937. So some of the losses 1937 to 1939 would be due
to age. The depression meant 1930's US merchant seamen
were almost back to the conditions of the 1890's in terms of
pay and treatment. Strikes in 1936-37 resulted in improvements.

The US mainly built passenger ships and tankers post 1922.

In 1922 the US had 11 million GRT of shipping employed on
foreign trade, in 1935 around 4.5 million.

In 1936 of the 6 biggest merchant fleets the US was fourth
in tonnage, sixth in terms of vessels 10 or more years old
and fifth in terms of vessels capable of 12 or more knots.

The Maritime Commission initial objective was 50 new
cargo ships a year for 10 years, with defence features,
adequate crew quarters and "be the finest, fastest, safest
ships on the sea."

So yes, there is a good chance much of the reduction was
due to age.

Post by William Clodius

<snip>
Lots of British controlled ships were sunk of the US coast, as
were lots of US ships in coastal trade. One of the criticisms
of FDR is he wanted lots of coastal escorts, guess where most
of the US shipping was and was being lost.

I thought the main criticism of FDR in this topic was not that he
emphasized coastal escorts, but that he emphasize light escorts, i.e.,
the Naval high command thought that the best coastal escorts were light
destroyers of about 2000 tons or a little less, and he thought they
could get by with frigates of less than 1000 tons.

Not quite, part of the problem is the mix of escorts but you are
correct the USN wanted its then standard 1,620/1,630 ton
destroyer to become the ocean going anti submarine escort
with the 2,000+ ton destroyers for fleet work, while FDR was
more supportive of what became the destroyer escort.

The DE's as built were all over 1,000 tons.

Post by William Clodius
The Naval high
command preference would have resulted in increased demand for the major
shipyards, with probably reduced production of normal destroyers, while
his proposal would have resulted in the more rapid production of ships
and used smaller facilities, that, unfortunately, were also in demand
for landing craft and other small ships. As I understand it, in the
event light destroyers proved much more capable than the frigates, so in
most ways the high command was right, but the real problem was that both
sides put a lot of effort killing the other's proposal so that their
proposal would get funded. As a result many months went by before
Congress could agree on any proposal, and escort production only caught
up with need in early 43.

The summary is as follows, the USN did a lot of work on anti
submarine ships from the late 1930's onwards. It kept coming
back to the soon to be smaller fleet destroyer as the preferred
ocean going solution.

The basic DE design was around in the third quarter of 1940,
ordered, then cancelled. What I know as light destroyers were
a Gibbs and Cox special, sent to FDR, approved, ordered and
then cancelled.

My understanding is the light destroyers were right to be cancelled,
but not the DE. Ultimately the DE design was ordered for the RN in
the second half of 1941 and US orders were added. As you noted
the DE competed with invasion shipping and you can see the mass
cancellation of LST to build DE in 1942 then the reverse in 1943.

However as far as I know there was little effort in killing funding for
the various proposals, they had to be ordered first. By 1940/41
money was less an issue than industrial capacity.

As to right simply put the DE could be built in numbers quickly
but had little use outside anti submarine and were quickly
obsolete, however so were the 1,620 ton destroyers post war
thanks to the increase in submarine capabilities. The 2,000
ton hulls were required.

I have a longer version of the above based on the Norman
Friedman book on US Destroyers posted a couple of
times now.

The crash program in smaller Submarine chasers ran parallel
to the DE program. The US PF/Frigate program ran from
August 1943 to October 1944 in terms of ships completed.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by dumbstruck
- German sub threat: Neutralized by my previous proposal to route all
war material sales and donations only as far as say Toronto (by land, air,
or fresh water. From there the efficient Brit and Canadian convoy system
would alone attract Atlantic subs.

1) PAUKENSCHLAG was directed at U.S. coastal shipping,
also shipping in the Gulf of Mexico and to the
Caribbean. Unless the U.S. shuts down _all_ coastal
shipping in the Atlantic, the U-boats will have targets.
Note the effort put into the "Gulf Intracoastal Waterway".

2) The St. Lawrence freezes over in winter. Since 1964,
Canada has used icebreakers to keep it open, but during
WW II, Canada's only year-round Atlantic port was Halifax,
which could not possibly handle the volume of traffic.

3) The U-boats did severe damage to convoys on the Atlantic
run throughout 1942. The U.S. was heavily involved in ASW
on the trans-Atlantic route, e.g. Dan Gallery's PBY squadron
flying from Iceland.

[William Clodius]

<snip>
- German sub threat: Neutralized by my previous proposal to route all
war material sales and donations only as far as say Toronto (by land, air,
or fresh water. From there the efficient Brit and Canadian convoy system
would alone attract Atlantic subs. There WAS a comparable system that could
have been scaled up - sending stuff to Siberia using Russian crews (USSR
ships? from Seattle?). For example, instead of sending US B17's across the
pond, send Mosquito engines to Toronto to glue onto Canadian wood and ship.
<snip>

There are several problems with this proposal:

1. The allies relied on significant shipments of oil, rubber, and other
goods from Latin America that could only be transported by oceangoing
freighters, and would be vulnerable whatever was done withother maritime
shipments.

2. Maritime shipping is the most economical meas of transporting goods.
As a result pre-war commerce relied extensively on coastal shipments. If
those were stopped then the goods that had relied on the coastal
transport, would have to be sent by other means truck/railway/fresh
water at time when the demand for transport was already growing rapidly.
The result would be higher costs and shortages.

3. The convoy system was inefficient. Even using most of the major East
coast ports there were significant bottlenecks. Restricting yourself to
the Canadian ports would result in a major decrease in throughput, even
neglecting the wintertime ice problems.

4. Export in the USA was set up to rely on the East coast ports.
Diverting it to Canada would increase transport distances (particularly
for good sfrom the southeast and mid-Atlantic), and put a large strain
on a few rail lines, resulting in additional bottlenecks, and degraded
rail lines and rolling stock at a time when factories built to produce
rolling stock were diverted to building tanks and landing craft.

5. The Soviet shipments on the west coast took time to scale up given
the need to replace Atlantic losses, and support forces across the wide
Pacific.

[Don Phillipson]

I . . . but got the impression that
"Germany First" was more a product of US prewar ideology rather than
post Pearl Harbor pragmatics.

Your general impression seems wrong, so far as the OP implies
Washington planners gave no serious thought before 1941 to what
to do if at war with any country or combination. The various war
plans (jointly by the War and Navy depts., with State
dept and FDR's approval) were identified by colours for each
contingency, hence as a group called the Rainbow Plans, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_war_plans
It took months of planning and argument, but the US government
decided before Pearl Harbor, if at war with Japan and Germany
simultaneously, to give Germany priority (because German power
could hurt the USA worse.) As soon as Germany declared war,
this policy took effect. The reason was not American "prewar
ideology" but the consensus of the actual what-if planners and their
political masters.

[dumbstruck]

Post by Don Phillipson
Your general impression seems wrong, so far as the OP implies
Washington planners gave no serious thought before 1941 to what
to do if at war with any country or combination. The various war
plans (jointly by the War and Navy depts., with State
dept and FDR's approval) were identified by colours for each

You misconstrued my ignorance of pre 12/41 planning. I have commented
here about the colored plans which I heard from a US Naval War College
lecturer, and I enjoyed it even more than a Japanese bomber veteran talk
at the same conference (he preferred bombing moving ships over anchored).

My logic is different... only consider the decision point immediately
post Pearl attack. Must they proceed robo-fashion on the scenario seen
6 months ago? One of the most disastrous decisions in anglo world
history was the UK respecting it's dusty Belgium mutual defense
agreement in WW1... pointless deaths times a million.

The fact that europe-first did not get even re-evaluated 12/41 may
be connected to the extreme dial-in to Hitler's threat by FDR admin
and US press before it was fully formed or planned in Germany. I
got this impression for instance in 1934 Harvard visit by Ernst; he
is asked point blank whether they will exterminate all jews. 1935
and onward he gets all sorts of questions of impending wars etc from
US pressmen visiting Germany which was hardly a certainty or even a
likelyhood in even Hitler's mind. They had more than foresight... bias.

I'm not evangelizing Asia-first, I said stop treating it as gospel and
"Let's brainstorm pro arguments for Asia first strategy" even if they
don't tip the balance. But that intellectual exercise seems heresy here.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by dumbstruck

Post by Don Phillipson
Your general impression seems wrong, so far as the OP implies
Washington planners gave no serious thought before 1941 to what
to do if at war with any country or combination. The various war
plans (jointly by the War and Navy depts., with State
dept and FDR's approval) were identified by colours for each

You misconstrued my ignorance of pre 12/41 planning. I have commented
here about the colored plans which I heard from a US Naval War College
lecturer, and I enjoyed it even more than a Japanese bomber veteran talk
at the same conference (he preferred bombing moving ships over anchored).

You seem full of anecdotal evidence which is then turned into
sweeping statements. You are aware the US was trying to
move from accepting the Philippines would be over run to
giving it the force to repel a Japanese attack?

As the situation evolved in the late 1930's and early 1940's it became
obvious the axis in Europe were more dangerous opponents than
the Japanese. Even after the shocks of the first half of 1942.

It was much harder to attack the European economies, they had much
more industry and bigger population to draw from. A major investment
in shipping and invasion shipping and amphibious attack doctrine
was needed for the west to invade Europe as well as island hop
to Japan, but once the bases were in place the Japanese economy
could be strangled via blockade in a way western Europe could not.

Add from June 1941 onwards that victory would be much cheaper for
the western allies if the USSR stayed in the war, something that was
not certain until the German 1942 summer offensive exhausted itself.
Even then the USSR had a third of its population and over a third of
its economy under axis occupation.

Meantime the losses to U-boats and the need for convoys put a
major brake on western allied options due to lack of shipping.

Another point is if the allies had invaded France with their amphibious
doctrine of November 1942 they would have been in serious trouble.
Each operation in the 1942 and 1943 period taught valuable lessons.

Opening the Mediterranean is rated as saving the allies around a
million tons of merchant shipping, plus those bomber bases in
southern Italy opening up places like South France and the Balkans
to attack while causing Italy to surrender.

Post by dumbstruck
My logic is different... only consider the decision point immediately
post Pearl attack. Must they proceed robo-fashion on the scenario seen
6 months ago?

Perhaps it is because they did not follow the pre Japanese attack plans?

After all the Japanese were not expected to be as good as they turned
out to be. As a result about half the US military effort/supplies went
into the Pacific in 1942.

To repeat they did NOT follow the pre war plans, the did
follow a modified version of the pre war strategy.

Post by dumbstruck
One of the most disastrous decisions in anglo world
history was the UK respecting it's dusty Belgium mutual defense
agreement in WW1... pointless deaths times a million.

Ah yes, good to know the British deciding fighting Germany
with allies was not a better real politick option, versus the moral
decision to help a country invaded for simply being where it
was or the long term diplomatic problem of walking away from
a treaty.

Since the treaty was so old why exactly is Germany excused for
invading a place the British had treaty obligations for? In fact
designing a mobilsation plan that required the invasion.

Anyway how about the US in 1941 announcing the Philippines
are up for occupation, no action will be taken, keeps the US
out of the Pacific war. Perhaps the Panama Canal zone as
well? Given how important friendly Belgian ports were to
Britain in 1914, the High Seas Fleet was really the short range
fleet.

Post by dumbstruck
The fact that europe-first did not get even re-evaluated 12/41 may
be connected to the extreme dial-in to Hitler's threat by FDR admin
and US press before it was fully formed or planned in Germany. I
got this impression for instance in 1934 Harvard visit by Ernst; he
is asked point blank whether they will exterminate all jews. 1935
and onward he gets all sorts of questions of impending wars etc from
US pressmen visiting Germany which was hardly a certainty or even a
likelyhood in even Hitler's mind. They had more than foresight... bias.

No actually your writings indicate you are the one with the bias
problems. And Hitler was rearming and was talking about
living room, which required wars to take from before he became
Chancellor.

By the way noted the fact Japan was much quieter than Germany
in the period to mid 1937? Things like the February 1936 coup
attempt? More directed to internal politics than Hitler's
expansionist rhetoric, plus the obvious Nazi persecutions of
those they did not like?

Italy invaded Abyssinia in October 1935.

Try German and Italian intervention in the Spanish civil war which
began in mid 1936. Communism versus Fascism.

Japan gave a 2 year notification of withdrawal from the naval
treaty system effective end 1936

Japan attacked China in mid 1937 and became bogged down
within months, in many eyes ensuring it could not do much else
militarily. It committed atrocities including against westerners
which could be matched by stories like Crystal Night.

Japan joined the anti comintern pact at the end of 1937.

Hitler brought Austria under control in 1938, then Czechoslovakia
in 1938/39, Italy invaded Albania in 1939. Rhetoric against
Poland was stepped up in early 1939.

In mid 1938 and again in mid 1939 the IJA took on the Red
Army and lost comprehensively and while details were not
available in the west it was taken as further proof the
Japanese military was not strong.

Note racism, the west did not rate the Japanese as highly as
westerners.

Post by dumbstruck
I'm not evangelizing Asia-first, I said stop treating it as gospel and
"Let's brainstorm pro arguments for Asia first strategy" even if they
don't tip the balance.

Except so far when people have checked you are using at best
anecdotes at worse looking for quotes that agree with you, not
evidence.

As for let's brainstorm you simply keep deleting everything that
does not fit.

The time to build the USN needed to do island hopping. The lack
of infrastructure in the Pacific to support large forces, especially
air forces, the reality of what the axis in Europe could do in terms
of weapons production and fortification if the US ignores the
continent. The larger amount of shipping needed per person.
And so on.

Post by dumbstruck
But that intellectual exercise seems heresy here.

No not heresy, rather exposure of your lack of knowledge of
the period.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Dave Smith]

Post by dumbstruck
My logic is different... only consider the decision point immediately
post Pearl attack. Must they proceed robo-fashion on the scenario seen
6 months ago? One of the most disastrous decisions in anglo world
history was the UK respecting it's dusty Belgium mutual defense
agreement in WW1... pointless deaths times a million.

Heaven forbid that a country should be expected to honour its treaties.
England had good reason to want Belgium to remain neutral. It had good
reason to be concerned about the growing militarization of Germany and
hoped to maintain the balance of power in Europe ... and its colonial
world. It was a German who referred to it as a scrap paper, as if it
had no substance to it. That should not be too surprising, considering
the way that Germany later violated section after section of the Treaty
of Versailles and the Munich Agreement.

Post by dumbstruck
The fact that europe-first did not get even re-evaluated 12/41 may
be connected to the extreme dial-in to Hitler's threat by FDR admin
and US press before it was fully formed or planned in Germany. I
got this impression for instance in 1934 Harvard visit by Ernst; he
is asked point blank whether they will exterminate all jews. 1935
and onward he gets all sorts of questions of impending wars etc from
US pressmen visiting Germany which was hardly a certainty or even a
likelyhood in even Hitler's mind. They had more than foresight... bias.

Perhaps you should consider the fact that they was sort of alliance
between Japan and Germany, and it was Germany that declared war on the
US after Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, which was just a small
part of it sweeping across south east Asia and the Pacific. Germany had
already swept across western Europe and then Russia. There was a serious
threat that Germany would win the war, and that left the possibility of
the US being at war with Japan on the Pacific and a German controlled
Europe, including Russia on the other side of the Atlantic.

Post by dumbstruck
I'm not evangelizing Asia-first, I said stop treating it as gospel and
"Let's brainstorm pro arguments for Asia first strategy" even if they
don't tip the balance. But that intellectual exercise seems heresy here.

It is not heresy. It is just a bad argument in hindsight. It tends to
be more effective to concentrate one's forces on a series of smaller
engagements and to overwhelm the enemy in smaller steps than to divide
your forces and risk losing them.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by dumbstruck
I'm not evangelizing Asia-first, I said stop treating it as gospel and
"Let's brainstorm pro arguments for Asia first strategy" even if they
don't tip the balance. But that intellectual exercise seems heresy here.

You're getting a lot of disagreement; you're not being called a heretic. But
what could have been done sooner in the Pacific? The US wasn't in a position
to re-take territory until much later in the war, and Japan was pretty
much maxed out, especially once the Midway battle was fought. Meanwhile,
Germany was close to seizing several more valuable sources of raw material
and potentially knocking allies out of the war. Japan was in no such
position.

Mike

[dumbstruck]

I just ran across a brief defense of the Japan-first argument, which claims it
was proved correct by events. I don't understand this particular argument
and will just provide some quotes to show whether to followup in the book.

But first I will followup a previous digression on what Russian saved the
world from Cuba crises going nuclear. Not the subject of a recent movie
of an 1983 incident, but Vasili Arkhipov featured in this Daily Mail article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208342/Soviet-submariner-single-handedly-averted-WWIII-height-Cuban-Missile-Crisis.html

Anyway the memoirs of ex nazi E Hanfstaengl end with his role as an
advisor to the US about nazi psychology, and actually to FDR himself
as an old Harvard pal. But I will start with his son's post mortem afterword
which is less unclear. The son was a US Army sergeant assigned to
guard his interned father, and isn't inclined to whitewash based on him
calling his father a child beater, bad husband, and too long a nazi.

P. 306: Like Admiral King, though for somewhat different reasons, my
father consistently urged that the war in the Pacific be given priority:
"If the war in Europe ends and you're still stuck with your war in Japan,
your allies will arrange matters as it suits THEM and not necessarily
YOU."

P. 298: There is no satisfaction in being a prophet without honor . "If
you insist on beating Germany before dealing with the Japanese," I
used to tell my visitors, "you will see how Stalin will blackmail you in
Europe" (and then something about organizing a coup Italian style).

The son asked a nameless but involved L. Col. whether his father's
advice was taken. The LC said it was always filed away with a
plausible counterargument, but had the advice been taken he estimates
50k US lives would have been saved. (from paperback - long lines)

So far that sounds close to my estimates, but probably centered on
his advice on timing troop movements within Italy (most now agree
with his advice in hindsight) and within Germany (he identified a real
problem but I didn't hear any solution for it). My proposal apparently
needed a fleet of zeppelins shipping goods to be feasible... well, we
had plenty of non flammable helium at hand.

[Don Phillipson]

Post by dumbstruck
I just ran across a brief defense of the Japan-first argument, which claims it
was proved correct by events. I don't understand this particular argument
and will just provide some quotes to show whether to followup in the book.
. . .
the memoirs of ex nazi E Hanfstaengl end with his role as an
advisor to the US about nazi psychology, and actually to FDR himself
as an old Harvard pal. But I will start with his son's post mortem afterword
which is less unclear. The son was a US Army sergeant assigned to
guard his interned father, and isn't inclined to whitewash based on him
calling his father a child beater, bad husband, and too long a nazi.
P. 306: Like Admiral King, though for somewhat different reasons, my
"If the war in Europe ends and you're still stuck with your war in Japan,
your allies will arrange matters as it suits THEM and not necessarily
YOU."

The Halfstaengl "memoir" was published in 1957 i.e. before wartime
code-breaking became publicly known, and quotes 1941 opinions
about Japanese events by people who spoke no Japanese. When
taken alone (with no other information or later scholarship about
war plans and war events) it is too feeble a reed to support any argument.

Besides (acc. Wikipedia) the "memoir" presents as fact implausible
fantasies, e.g. that a fat 50-year-old holding no government post was
"received orders to parachute into an area held by the nationalist side
of the Spanish Civil War, to assist in negotiations" when no negotiatons
were taking place and Franco's nationalists held all the airfields they
wanted. Anomalies like this should warn any reader.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Don Phillipson
Besides (acc. Wikipedia) the "memoir" presents as fact implausible
fantasies, e.g. that a fat 50-year-old holding no government post was
"received orders to parachute into an area held by the nationalist side
of the Spanish Civil War...

The Simon & Schuster _Encyclopedia of World War II_
also mentions this incident, but describes it as a
bizarre prank played on Hanfstaengl by some Nazis
who regarded him as "soft". The article says he was
"hustled onto an airplane" which then flew around
Germany for a while, eventually landing where it
took off.

He did have a government office - he was head of the
foreign-press bureau from 1933. Though he might have
left that job by the time of the prank, which would
have been in 1936 to 1938.

[dumbstruck]

Post by Don Phillipson
The Halfstaengl "memoir" was published in 1957 i.e. before wartime
code-breaking became publicly known, and quotes 1941 opinions
about Japanese events by people who spoke no Japanese. When
taken alone (with no other information or later scholarship about
war plans and war events) it is too feeble a reed to support any argument.

As I had said, I read in parallel the respected 2004 bio of Hanfstaengl
by Peter Conradi (grad of Oxford and Munich). He uses diverse sources
to flesh out Ernst as an internee reporting to OSS, FDR, and US army.
Like the memoir, he dished out Japan-first quotes at the end with little
explanation. Again, I didn't understand his point, but it makes me not
alone in at least questioning europe-first (note my ? mark in title).

In sum I gathered from the bio that for every good suggestion, he buried
that among 10 looney suggestions. His military intel was considered
worthless, but FDR loved it because was colorful and salacious about nazis.
He gave analysis of nazi shortwave broadcasts, but not sure of the value.
However the OSS gave him praise for propaganda ideas. Thousands of his
recordings were dropped over Germany where he asked the top nazis (in
song to his famous piano) to stop the war bringing destruction to them.
I searched archives.org for a copy with no luck.

I'm not sure the Germans were affected by allied propaganda, besides
the stuff suggesting fake invasion landing zones. But they did respond
for example to Ernst's story about the depravity of Hitler's affair with
his niece. Not the murder one you probably heard which stems from a wacky
article Ernst wrote for Cosmopolitan. This one which he consistantly
gave otherwise also seems sinister involving Hitler getting blackmailed
about pornography he created with Geli, and that niece being no angel.

Post by Don Phillipson
Besides (acc. Wikipedia) the "memoir" presents as fact implausible
fantasies, e.g. that a fat 50-year-old holding no government post was

Like another poster said this was well known event. I first heard of it
in Goebbels diary and Speer's memoirs I believe. Post war there have
been interviews with the pilot, etc. It wasn't a joke but a spanking and
warning for him mouthing off complaints (as foreign press chief) about
the radicalization of nazi policy which made his job a impossible. He
turned up on several nazi death lists, which he tried and failed to
leverage with his allied captors who recognized he was a nazi at heart.

P.S. one of the books has a picture of Goering's letter to Ernst claiming
it was a joke and that he should return to Germany. It had a handwritten
extra saying something like "I expect you to comply". Why is it that
I write facts which I can back up, and yet get pounded here with false
speculations appearing like some kind of group witch-hunt?