No announcement yet.

No Pearl Harbor?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
    I think alot of the Phillipines build-up was actually evacuation from China. I have read two different accounts on Navy officers who were in China and then transferred to the Phillipines, so I am assuming this was the case for most people.
    The transfer from China included the river gunboats, personnel from some small USN support stations for the gunboats, the 4th Marine Regiment, and some USMC US Army detachments. I dont know how many men there were on the gunboats or how many of those there were. The 4th Marines and the detachments ammounted to less than 3,000 men with rifles and a few machine guns. The 4th Marines had been organized for installation security and riot control.

    From the US in late 1941 had come a heavy bomber group and miscl squadrons of lighter aircraft ammounting to a over size wing. Two tank battalions, battalions of medium & heavy corps artillery. Dont have a count of the other reinforcements at hand. A significant part of the men sent in 1941 were support or advance units sent to prepare the way for the combat units scheduled to be sent in early 1942. A brigades worth of artillery was actially embarking for PI in December when the Japanese attacked.

    I expect there are experts here who can summarize the composition of the units sent during 1941, and those scehduled for early 1942.


    • #62
      The book 19 weeks by Norman Moss is pretty illustrative of how US public opinion changed in the spring and summer of 1940. Of course it is focussed on the European situation.

      I think the US public opinion would support all aid to the allies and the soviet union possible short of war given the OP's counter-factual. As time goes on, there would undoubtly be a series of incidents that would push the US and Japan to the brink of war. The question is whether they actually result in war or not.

      Historically the Japanese managed their expansion in 6 months. If they can accomplish the same, they can shut down the war and perhaps negoitate a settlement with UK,Australia and Holland.


      • #63
        Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
        I have a definite opinion on the broader question of Nazi Germany vs Soviet Union in the setting you have disucussed here, but will sidestep that for now. What I would like to ask for the moment is, if you agree with a certain writer that attacking the Soviets without having first secured the Med & Middle East was a mistake, then by what date do you believe such a prerequisite might have been accomplished?
        I didn't say I agreed with Alexander about the need to secure the Middle East (and for the record he didn't say Babarosa should have been stalled, just that Rommel should have gotten more troops, a division or so IIRC, and don't quote me on the exact numbers), but I don't think it would have hurt the Axis cause none. If I recall correctly Alexander's criticism did not have a timetable but considering the criticism of Hitler's disinerest, probably he meant that Rommel should have gotten more troops and air help from the start in early 1941. *I* would say Rommel should have been dispatched in November of 1940 after it became clear there would be no Sealion and Italy was militarily inept. Whether that was possible or not I do not know.

        I do agree that a postponment of Babarosa was dangerous because it gave tghe Red Army a chance to re-organize. In the 1941 German Command thread I said that Babarosa should have been chucked for a year, but more for political and psychological reasons. If the Axis controled the middle East, Stalin would be forced to leave a lot of troops on the Iranian border, because if the Germans could get Grozny or sweep up in the stans, Stalin would be in trouble, not just for the flank, but because the loyalty of the non-Slavic peoples to Moscow was tenous even with Nazi race war (that's why the entire populace of Chechenya was deported in 43 or 44). But as far as Rommel getting into the Middle East, I beleive it could have been done before Crusader was launched. Even as late as El-Alemain there could have been a total breakthrough. And in the scenario we are talking about, without Torch Rommel could keep trying until the inevitable treaty between Nazi Germany and Britian was signed.
        How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
        275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird


        • #64
          Wiki or not(which can actually be quite useful when annotated correctly), there is not much actual quoting happening anywhere. Posters are alluding to sources, but not actually providing any. It's all opinions pretty much. Any chance of some verifiable sources, you know, LINKS etc? e.g. "Apparently all of the overt American moves in 1941 toward involvement in the war against Germany had solid backing in American public opinion, with only an increasingly small though vociferous minority criticizing the President for the nation's departures from neutrality. But the American people were still not prepared for an open declaration of war."
          Now, I'm not certain that the highlighted statement is true(it probably is), or is only the author's opinion, but at least it's a start.
          At the risk of hijacking the thread, what you get on the web is essentially caveat emptor. Best sources are peer review journals/magazines (with attribution) or a source like the Center of Military History which has active editors. Unfortunately, many of the former are only available by subscription.

          A classic example is Wiki if you Google the Powell Doctrine. Their evaluation is based on an interview on "The Rachel Maddow Show" (which they state). They also attribute the original article in Foreign Affairs (which you should be able to get at most large library systems, but not online). In any event, if you read the actual article you won't get the same understanding as you do in Wiki.

          That having been said, anyone who thinks the internet provides (at least in its current iteration) a shortcut to good information is on a fools errand. You must be willing to read . . . BOOKS. However, online discussions are often an excellent source when such sources are noted.

          P.S. &


          Latest Topics