What follows is an argument that I got into with my friend, who we will refer to as 'Brad'. It is about Japan's chances of winning WWII. Along the way, our friend 'Dixie' gets caught up.
I am 'Nathan'. What I want to know his how I can completely smash 'Brad's' argument, and completely destroy his ability to argue. I know that the following probably demonstrates our incredibly limited knowledge of history in regards to this matter, and this is why I am appealing to all of you.
We join the debate already in progress.
Brad: Ugh, I said if there wasn't political distress and if Japan had a better strategy and commander, they could have won. it didn't need to be perfect, during that time there was political unrest due to the lack of a strong effective leader. The commander of the military, Tojo was stupid and the Admiral of the Aircraft carrier was even stupider because he thought there would be no defenses at Midway
Nathan: Japan could never have won. I'm sorry Brad, but it would've been impossible in the long run. The US just had too much of an advantage in terms of supplies, and population that they could throw at the Japanese. Besides that, they had the support of the Russians as well. Without the A-bomb, it might have been much more costly (for both sides), but Japan would've gotten the smack-down all the same.
Brad: No Japan could have won if the stupid Admiral didn't make THE STUPIDEST ASSUMPTION IN HISTORY at Midway. And Sun Tzu's Art of War is a Military Philosophical collection of Notes all about War. All the wars up to today could be predicted in his teachings. The Civil War such as the Battle of Gettysburg could have been prevented and the South could have won the war. If you ask why, I'll tell you but I really don't want to explain the significance of Sun Tzu's Art of War in that battle.
Nathan: No, look. I'm sorry Brad, but Japan just could not have won the war no matter what they did! How exactly, could they? They were fighting a defensive war from the very beginning. The best they could have hoped for was tiring the USA out, and getting a truce. Do you know why that couldn't happen? Because the USA had 131 million - along with a much more extensive military and system of logistics and war materials - against Japans' 73 million population, most of which would not have been able to fight in the case of an actual invasion of the Japanese islands proper.
Not only this, but, as I've already pointed out, the US HAD THE SUPPORT OF RUSSIA. I cannot emphasize this enough. A lot had changed between the Russo-Japanese war. The Russian military was the LARGEST MILITARY IN THE ENTIRE 20TH CENTURY. Japan might have been able to ward Russia off on their own (highly doubtful though, if Russia could bring the full brunt of it's power on the small island chain), but combined with the USA there was just NO CONCEIVABLE WAY Japan could have 'won'. It's simply impossible.
Give me one scenario where Japan wins. I dare you. Japan couldn't invade the US - they didn't have the navy, not to mention our capital is ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET. The best they could hope for is to sink our navy. WHICH THEY TRIED. Ever heard of Pearl Harbor? Yeah, they sank most of our navy in the pacific. We re-floated eighty percent of it within eight months. So... that wouldn't work.
What does that leave them with? Suicide bombers? Well, they tried that too.
Sun Tzu's Art of War is an excellent book - I'll give you that. But in the face of overwhelming force, military superiority, not to mention the USSR, Japan was stuck.
Oh, and we built the A-Bomb. All of the above is the scenario if we DIDN"T build it. Can you possibly imagine why Japan couldn't win when we DID have it?
Yeah. Not gonna happen. Sorry. They couldn't even conquer Australia, Brad. AUSTRALIA. They had half of their armed forces in Europe, too. And they're less than half the distance the US is away. Do I make my point clear?
The Japanese had guts. Nobodies gonna argue that. And they had some good planning (on occasion). They were fervent warriors. But they simply could not beat the two LARGEST SUPERPOWERS ON THE PLANET EARTH.
Oh, and for the South to win, it wouldn't have helped if they won Gettysburg. Their army would've been extremely tired out from it - and the Unions ACTUAL army (it was only a small part of it at Gettysburg) was really closeby. It's the same problem as with Japan. The South just didn't have the force, troops, population, or resources to defeat the much ...(tharr be more) Peer into the depthslarger US. The only way the south could've won is super early (before the US raised its army) or with British help. The latter is the most likely. However, to do it, they would've had to win at Antietam - which was before Gettysburg, and which the South also had no chance of winning.
Brad: Its okay but the reason that the Japanese couldn't attack Australia is because they lost a key battle in the Coral Sea. However it could have been avoided and the Japanese would have been in a Maneuverable position if the Admiral had taken a different move against the Allied defense. From there, if they hadn't launched the offensive at Midway and quote "It is assumed that there will be no Allied Aircraft Carriers near Midway" which is probably the Stupidest Assumption in history because there were carriers and all this happened before the U.S.S.R. even thought of attacking Japan because they had their hands tied with Hitler in 1943. I would had a prepared offensive and maneuver from the Southern flank and totally annihilated the Allied defensive. From there an Aerial offensive could have been launched in the beginning to mid-1944 towards half of Australia and Hawaii. I would then propose a truce to the U.S. which if they deny would have Panama Canal bombed from the Pacific islands. Knowing this, there will be hate against the Japanese but the U.S. would have a better chance of proposing a truce since their naval power would then be hindered as they would no longer have a 2-ocean navy. By then Operation Cart Wheel would be in affect but it would only work if they had a continual supply of troops which could be cut off with the Australian offensive. The second pronged Allied offensive would be heavily delayed due to the destruction of Panama Canal and thus the Japanese would launch an offensive opposite of the island hooping offensive and on from the mother country to counter the second pronged attack. From Hawaii and other naval bases, I would launch a carpet bombing of the western naval ship building port and utter destroy the ships. From there if the U.S. doesn't give in, I will launch an offensive on American soil and possibly Alaska for oil since I would have controlled that part of Russia since they are busy with Hitler. It would be the end of 1945 and if the U.S. hasn't and I wouldn't believe this if it happen agreed to an armistice then I would have captured the Manhatten Project..
Concerning the Battle of Gettysburg yes they could have. There were SEVERAL chances that Lee could have taken in order to when. When the small force was waiting for reinforcements, they set up to be "the best and most advantageous defensive position ever." If the Union were to reinforce, Lee knew it would be troublesome. However he ordered the second in command to "attack when practical" which was unclear. That commander thought that it was impractical to attack since his troops were exhausted. But Lee meant attack when it is most advantegeous but was unclear. And according to Sun Tzu, "If the orders are unclear, it is the fault of the commander." By that time the Union troops were able to reinforce onto the advantegeous plain. Another commander proposed an offensive against the capital around the Horse Shoe Hill (where the defense was) and attack the capital since it was wide open. If the Union reacted, they would lose their territorial advantage and Lee would outmanuver them and win. But he didn't and attacked the army up hill. And Sun Tzu says that "NEVER attack the enemy if they have the higher ground. And If they attack, never oppose them" but he did and lost heavily.
Dixie: First of all, there WERE NO CARRIERS AT MIDWAY. Until Admiral Nimitz's cryptanalysts broke JN-25 code, letting the Americans know that the Japanese were intending to attack Midway. Thus, if you were the Japanese Admiral you would also have thought that your plan to attack Midway was secret, and that your spies' information that there were no carriers at Midway was correct. (In fact it was, until the U.S. broke the Japanese code). Furthermore, the element of surprise, which is essential in many battles, would have been removed. You would have never won Midway. You would never gain Hawaii (the whole purpose of the Japanese invasion of Midway was to gain Hawaii). The rest of your argument on WWII is total crap, because YOU WOULD NEVER HAVE GAINED MIDWAY!!! ATTACKING AND GAINING MIDWAY WAS ESSENTIAL FOR A JAPANESE OFFENSIVE ON AMERICA!
Even though the rest of your arguments are useless, I will still refute them. Bombing the Panama Canal would do little good in stopping the United States from having a two-ocean navy. First, what does bombing do a canal? Make it wider. Thus ships would still be able to pass through the canal, although it would be inefficient. Second, the United States isn't going to be stupid enough to have all of its navy on ONE side of the country; in fact, during WWII it had a navy on BOTH sides of the country. Third, the canal isn't the only way you can transport a battleship across the country -- you can transport a ship by LAND. The whole purpose of the canal was to transport foreign ships full of PASSENGERS across the continent...but with a passenger-less non-foreign ship, you can simply empty the United States ship, move it across the country, and restock it. And this is IF bombing the canal worked. The United States did do this in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor...moved ships ACROSS the country to serve in the Pacific fleet.
Your contention about the Civil War is unrelated and beyond the scope of this debate on WORLD WAR TWO. Thus, it doesn't meet your value premise NOR does it meet your determining criterion. (I also don't know crap about the Civil War).
Thank you. I am now open to cross examination.
Nathan: Sorry, Brad. Doesn't work. First of all, as Dixie pointed out above. You tried to get Midway. And failed. Even with the assumptions (which were correct), Midway wasn't taken.
Even if you did get Midway, consider: Hawaii was incredibly heavily defended as well, and the cost of taking it (all this so far away from home, away from what little reinforcement was possible) would have been too much to try an invasion of US soil.
AND EVEN IF YOU GOT HAWAII, the range of planes A. would not be enough to bomb Panama, and Japan had only two carriers. If you think that you can invade Midway, and Hawaii and keep both your carriers, you're nuts.
Also. Panama was one of the most heavily defended areas in THE WORLD. The planes might've been able to bomb it, but so what? Do you know how easy it would have been to rebuild given a couple months?
Finally, attacking California. You might be able to get away with attacking Alaska, and holding it. MAYBE. But by that point your forces would be spread so thin - remember, Japan had THE THIRD SMALLEST ARMY IN WW2. If you think you can take Midway, Australia, Hawaii, and Alaska (none of which would persuade the US to agree to a truce in the slightest) and hold onto it, with your Japanese army - then you've been going pretty heavy into the Sake.
Wait, wut? Capture the Manhattan Project? By taking San Fransisco? Wut? I don't understand.
Also, as for Russia. Your whole concept of taking the US might have a pretty good chance (not really) if you didn't ignore this fact - it all depends on time. Japan couldn't sustain what you're proposing unless the US surrendered. After you took Hawaii, Alaska, and one city. Maybe destroyed the canal (temporarily). As Dixie pointed out, our system of transporting ships isn't even taken out, either.
You think the US is gonna surrender? Why would they? Because they're scared? The people at the head of the military aren't that stupid. They know Japan couldn't even BEGIN to penetrate inland.
Your plan falls even more apart when you realize that - if this whole occupation and invasion thing goes into 1945... Hitler's gone. The USSR has a free schedule. The US's troops in Europe have a slot open for KICKING ASS on Friday.
Yeah, sure Brad. Japan could win.
Let's not forget the A-Bomb (which, apparently you get for free if you conquer SanFran?) (that was sarcasm, btw). Oh, and EVERY ALLIED POWER WHICH IS NOW FREE TO GO WHOOP JAPAN'S ASS. Especially (and this is important) the LARGEST STANDING ARMY IN THE WORLD, while Japan's army is away holding Hawaii and Alaska (the second of which is kind useless, considering how much oil you could ring out of it from occupying it for a couple moths. You know what's up there? Nothing vital to the US. Nothing except meager oil rigs which hadn't even really developed by 1945).
It's just not gonna happen. AT THE MOST you could hold Hawaii and/or Alaska for a couple months. Not Australia, though, because you're too busy with Hawaii and Alaska. And the British navy in the area is better than yours (because the bulk of your navy is, once again, occupying Hawaii). And let's not forget the large bulk of your army in China and elsewhere. Face it, Brad. You're just spread too thin. Offensive is not an option.
Man, this argument is fun.
Oh, and Dixie - Sun Tzu's Art of War actually applies to pretty much any war, even now (sorta). It's actually incredible useful. It wouldn't have changed ww2, but Brads got a point in saying that it is useful.
Still couldn't have helped the Civil War, though. Do you know how well defended D.C was, Brad? And how little troops would've been left ...(tharr be more) Peer into the depthsover for Lee (with no hope of reinforcement) after even a victorious Gettysburg?
They might've approached the city (if Lee was stupid, which he wasn't. Their supplies were reaching a critical level when Gettysburg happened, and Lee was thinking about withdrawing at the time, anyway.), but they would've gotten smacked down.
Brad: Ugh for one thing, Dixie, your arguement relies on my strategy will fail at Midway. Yes surprise is the key to success in warfare as described by Sun Tzu and the Japanese were not prepared for an attack by the Allied forces and instead the forces were unprepared to fight. My strategy would have made myself prepared for any situation and I would never lose. As Sun Tzu said "Know your enemy and know yourself and in 100 battles, you will never be in peril." and the Admiral at that time did not know himself and failed epically at Midway. Also Nathan Japan was on an Offensive war when they launched their large offenses in the Pacific Islands. THEY WERE WINNING because the U.S. focus was on Germany. Even if they happen to crack my code, I would never lose because I could use dummy codes. Even if I had the smallest army, I don't give a shit because I KNOW how to use them and only controlling KEY points that I see fit. And your concept of time is off as the USSR wasn't ready against Japan in 1944. And yes I would have more troops because the Americans have interned the Japanese-Americans of which I can conscript into my army as America has treated them so poorly. Also since my bombing plan would involve tactical bombing of the DEFENSES of Panama with a land offensive for CONTROL of Panama.
Dixie: Hello? How bout actually reading what I'm saying? Surprise IS the key to success...i pointed that out. However, the Japanese had their code hacked, so they didn't have surprise. You yourself would assume that there were no troops at Midway. This was true, as i pointed out, until the code got hacked. And by the way, Japan did use dummy codes. But their real code GOT HACKED. And attacking defenses in Panama? What would that do? How would you get from across the Pacific ocean? Its extremely inconvenient to launch an attack on any region that across the biggest ocean in the world. You don't have any islands, because you lost Hawaii and you would never gain Midway. Even if you do gain Panama, what would that do? Stop the U.S. from transporting ships? I pointed this out as a contention in a previous case, and you never refuted it. Yes, Midway was essential to your domination of the United States. This is the ONLY way you could dominate...the only way is to launch an attack across the Pacific ocean. Yes, you did have an offensive position against the United States. However, you would NEVER WIN BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE MIDWAY! You fail to link your contentions with your value premise and determining criterion. Do you even HAVE a value and criterion? You have not refuted countless arguments. I have successfully refuted your arguments. Thus I have won this debate.
I am 'Nathan'. What I want to know his how I can completely smash 'Brad's' argument, and completely destroy his ability to argue. I know that the following probably demonstrates our incredibly limited knowledge of history in regards to this matter, and this is why I am appealing to all of you.
We join the debate already in progress.
Brad: Ugh, I said if there wasn't political distress and if Japan had a better strategy and commander, they could have won. it didn't need to be perfect, during that time there was political unrest due to the lack of a strong effective leader. The commander of the military, Tojo was stupid and the Admiral of the Aircraft carrier was even stupider because he thought there would be no defenses at Midway
Nathan: Japan could never have won. I'm sorry Brad, but it would've been impossible in the long run. The US just had too much of an advantage in terms of supplies, and population that they could throw at the Japanese. Besides that, they had the support of the Russians as well. Without the A-bomb, it might have been much more costly (for both sides), but Japan would've gotten the smack-down all the same.
Brad: No Japan could have won if the stupid Admiral didn't make THE STUPIDEST ASSUMPTION IN HISTORY at Midway. And Sun Tzu's Art of War is a Military Philosophical collection of Notes all about War. All the wars up to today could be predicted in his teachings. The Civil War such as the Battle of Gettysburg could have been prevented and the South could have won the war. If you ask why, I'll tell you but I really don't want to explain the significance of Sun Tzu's Art of War in that battle.
Nathan: No, look. I'm sorry Brad, but Japan just could not have won the war no matter what they did! How exactly, could they? They were fighting a defensive war from the very beginning. The best they could have hoped for was tiring the USA out, and getting a truce. Do you know why that couldn't happen? Because the USA had 131 million - along with a much more extensive military and system of logistics and war materials - against Japans' 73 million population, most of which would not have been able to fight in the case of an actual invasion of the Japanese islands proper.
Not only this, but, as I've already pointed out, the US HAD THE SUPPORT OF RUSSIA. I cannot emphasize this enough. A lot had changed between the Russo-Japanese war. The Russian military was the LARGEST MILITARY IN THE ENTIRE 20TH CENTURY. Japan might have been able to ward Russia off on their own (highly doubtful though, if Russia could bring the full brunt of it's power on the small island chain), but combined with the USA there was just NO CONCEIVABLE WAY Japan could have 'won'. It's simply impossible.
Give me one scenario where Japan wins. I dare you. Japan couldn't invade the US - they didn't have the navy, not to mention our capital is ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET. The best they could hope for is to sink our navy. WHICH THEY TRIED. Ever heard of Pearl Harbor? Yeah, they sank most of our navy in the pacific. We re-floated eighty percent of it within eight months. So... that wouldn't work.
What does that leave them with? Suicide bombers? Well, they tried that too.
Sun Tzu's Art of War is an excellent book - I'll give you that. But in the face of overwhelming force, military superiority, not to mention the USSR, Japan was stuck.
Oh, and we built the A-Bomb. All of the above is the scenario if we DIDN"T build it. Can you possibly imagine why Japan couldn't win when we DID have it?
Yeah. Not gonna happen. Sorry. They couldn't even conquer Australia, Brad. AUSTRALIA. They had half of their armed forces in Europe, too. And they're less than half the distance the US is away. Do I make my point clear?
The Japanese had guts. Nobodies gonna argue that. And they had some good planning (on occasion). They were fervent warriors. But they simply could not beat the two LARGEST SUPERPOWERS ON THE PLANET EARTH.
Oh, and for the South to win, it wouldn't have helped if they won Gettysburg. Their army would've been extremely tired out from it - and the Unions ACTUAL army (it was only a small part of it at Gettysburg) was really closeby. It's the same problem as with Japan. The South just didn't have the force, troops, population, or resources to defeat the much ...(tharr be more) Peer into the depthslarger US. The only way the south could've won is super early (before the US raised its army) or with British help. The latter is the most likely. However, to do it, they would've had to win at Antietam - which was before Gettysburg, and which the South also had no chance of winning.
Brad: Its okay but the reason that the Japanese couldn't attack Australia is because they lost a key battle in the Coral Sea. However it could have been avoided and the Japanese would have been in a Maneuverable position if the Admiral had taken a different move against the Allied defense. From there, if they hadn't launched the offensive at Midway and quote "It is assumed that there will be no Allied Aircraft Carriers near Midway" which is probably the Stupidest Assumption in history because there were carriers and all this happened before the U.S.S.R. even thought of attacking Japan because they had their hands tied with Hitler in 1943. I would had a prepared offensive and maneuver from the Southern flank and totally annihilated the Allied defensive. From there an Aerial offensive could have been launched in the beginning to mid-1944 towards half of Australia and Hawaii. I would then propose a truce to the U.S. which if they deny would have Panama Canal bombed from the Pacific islands. Knowing this, there will be hate against the Japanese but the U.S. would have a better chance of proposing a truce since their naval power would then be hindered as they would no longer have a 2-ocean navy. By then Operation Cart Wheel would be in affect but it would only work if they had a continual supply of troops which could be cut off with the Australian offensive. The second pronged Allied offensive would be heavily delayed due to the destruction of Panama Canal and thus the Japanese would launch an offensive opposite of the island hooping offensive and on from the mother country to counter the second pronged attack. From Hawaii and other naval bases, I would launch a carpet bombing of the western naval ship building port and utter destroy the ships. From there if the U.S. doesn't give in, I will launch an offensive on American soil and possibly Alaska for oil since I would have controlled that part of Russia since they are busy with Hitler. It would be the end of 1945 and if the U.S. hasn't and I wouldn't believe this if it happen agreed to an armistice then I would have captured the Manhatten Project..
Concerning the Battle of Gettysburg yes they could have. There were SEVERAL chances that Lee could have taken in order to when. When the small force was waiting for reinforcements, they set up to be "the best and most advantageous defensive position ever." If the Union were to reinforce, Lee knew it would be troublesome. However he ordered the second in command to "attack when practical" which was unclear. That commander thought that it was impractical to attack since his troops were exhausted. But Lee meant attack when it is most advantegeous but was unclear. And according to Sun Tzu, "If the orders are unclear, it is the fault of the commander." By that time the Union troops were able to reinforce onto the advantegeous plain. Another commander proposed an offensive against the capital around the Horse Shoe Hill (where the defense was) and attack the capital since it was wide open. If the Union reacted, they would lose their territorial advantage and Lee would outmanuver them and win. But he didn't and attacked the army up hill. And Sun Tzu says that "NEVER attack the enemy if they have the higher ground. And If they attack, never oppose them" but he did and lost heavily.
Dixie: First of all, there WERE NO CARRIERS AT MIDWAY. Until Admiral Nimitz's cryptanalysts broke JN-25 code, letting the Americans know that the Japanese were intending to attack Midway. Thus, if you were the Japanese Admiral you would also have thought that your plan to attack Midway was secret, and that your spies' information that there were no carriers at Midway was correct. (In fact it was, until the U.S. broke the Japanese code). Furthermore, the element of surprise, which is essential in many battles, would have been removed. You would have never won Midway. You would never gain Hawaii (the whole purpose of the Japanese invasion of Midway was to gain Hawaii). The rest of your argument on WWII is total crap, because YOU WOULD NEVER HAVE GAINED MIDWAY!!! ATTACKING AND GAINING MIDWAY WAS ESSENTIAL FOR A JAPANESE OFFENSIVE ON AMERICA!
Even though the rest of your arguments are useless, I will still refute them. Bombing the Panama Canal would do little good in stopping the United States from having a two-ocean navy. First, what does bombing do a canal? Make it wider. Thus ships would still be able to pass through the canal, although it would be inefficient. Second, the United States isn't going to be stupid enough to have all of its navy on ONE side of the country; in fact, during WWII it had a navy on BOTH sides of the country. Third, the canal isn't the only way you can transport a battleship across the country -- you can transport a ship by LAND. The whole purpose of the canal was to transport foreign ships full of PASSENGERS across the continent...but with a passenger-less non-foreign ship, you can simply empty the United States ship, move it across the country, and restock it. And this is IF bombing the canal worked. The United States did do this in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor...moved ships ACROSS the country to serve in the Pacific fleet.
Your contention about the Civil War is unrelated and beyond the scope of this debate on WORLD WAR TWO. Thus, it doesn't meet your value premise NOR does it meet your determining criterion. (I also don't know crap about the Civil War).
Thank you. I am now open to cross examination.
Nathan: Sorry, Brad. Doesn't work. First of all, as Dixie pointed out above. You tried to get Midway. And failed. Even with the assumptions (which were correct), Midway wasn't taken.
Even if you did get Midway, consider: Hawaii was incredibly heavily defended as well, and the cost of taking it (all this so far away from home, away from what little reinforcement was possible) would have been too much to try an invasion of US soil.
AND EVEN IF YOU GOT HAWAII, the range of planes A. would not be enough to bomb Panama, and Japan had only two carriers. If you think that you can invade Midway, and Hawaii and keep both your carriers, you're nuts.
Also. Panama was one of the most heavily defended areas in THE WORLD. The planes might've been able to bomb it, but so what? Do you know how easy it would have been to rebuild given a couple months?
Finally, attacking California. You might be able to get away with attacking Alaska, and holding it. MAYBE. But by that point your forces would be spread so thin - remember, Japan had THE THIRD SMALLEST ARMY IN WW2. If you think you can take Midway, Australia, Hawaii, and Alaska (none of which would persuade the US to agree to a truce in the slightest) and hold onto it, with your Japanese army - then you've been going pretty heavy into the Sake.
Wait, wut? Capture the Manhattan Project? By taking San Fransisco? Wut? I don't understand.
Also, as for Russia. Your whole concept of taking the US might have a pretty good chance (not really) if you didn't ignore this fact - it all depends on time. Japan couldn't sustain what you're proposing unless the US surrendered. After you took Hawaii, Alaska, and one city. Maybe destroyed the canal (temporarily). As Dixie pointed out, our system of transporting ships isn't even taken out, either.
You think the US is gonna surrender? Why would they? Because they're scared? The people at the head of the military aren't that stupid. They know Japan couldn't even BEGIN to penetrate inland.
Your plan falls even more apart when you realize that - if this whole occupation and invasion thing goes into 1945... Hitler's gone. The USSR has a free schedule. The US's troops in Europe have a slot open for KICKING ASS on Friday.
Yeah, sure Brad. Japan could win.
Let's not forget the A-Bomb (which, apparently you get for free if you conquer SanFran?) (that was sarcasm, btw). Oh, and EVERY ALLIED POWER WHICH IS NOW FREE TO GO WHOOP JAPAN'S ASS. Especially (and this is important) the LARGEST STANDING ARMY IN THE WORLD, while Japan's army is away holding Hawaii and Alaska (the second of which is kind useless, considering how much oil you could ring out of it from occupying it for a couple moths. You know what's up there? Nothing vital to the US. Nothing except meager oil rigs which hadn't even really developed by 1945).
It's just not gonna happen. AT THE MOST you could hold Hawaii and/or Alaska for a couple months. Not Australia, though, because you're too busy with Hawaii and Alaska. And the British navy in the area is better than yours (because the bulk of your navy is, once again, occupying Hawaii). And let's not forget the large bulk of your army in China and elsewhere. Face it, Brad. You're just spread too thin. Offensive is not an option.
Man, this argument is fun.
Oh, and Dixie - Sun Tzu's Art of War actually applies to pretty much any war, even now (sorta). It's actually incredible useful. It wouldn't have changed ww2, but Brads got a point in saying that it is useful.
Still couldn't have helped the Civil War, though. Do you know how well defended D.C was, Brad? And how little troops would've been left ...(tharr be more) Peer into the depthsover for Lee (with no hope of reinforcement) after even a victorious Gettysburg?
They might've approached the city (if Lee was stupid, which he wasn't. Their supplies were reaching a critical level when Gettysburg happened, and Lee was thinking about withdrawing at the time, anyway.), but they would've gotten smacked down.
Brad: Ugh for one thing, Dixie, your arguement relies on my strategy will fail at Midway. Yes surprise is the key to success in warfare as described by Sun Tzu and the Japanese were not prepared for an attack by the Allied forces and instead the forces were unprepared to fight. My strategy would have made myself prepared for any situation and I would never lose. As Sun Tzu said "Know your enemy and know yourself and in 100 battles, you will never be in peril." and the Admiral at that time did not know himself and failed epically at Midway. Also Nathan Japan was on an Offensive war when they launched their large offenses in the Pacific Islands. THEY WERE WINNING because the U.S. focus was on Germany. Even if they happen to crack my code, I would never lose because I could use dummy codes. Even if I had the smallest army, I don't give a shit because I KNOW how to use them and only controlling KEY points that I see fit. And your concept of time is off as the USSR wasn't ready against Japan in 1944. And yes I would have more troops because the Americans have interned the Japanese-Americans of which I can conscript into my army as America has treated them so poorly. Also since my bombing plan would involve tactical bombing of the DEFENSES of Panama with a land offensive for CONTROL of Panama.
Dixie: Hello? How bout actually reading what I'm saying? Surprise IS the key to success...i pointed that out. However, the Japanese had their code hacked, so they didn't have surprise. You yourself would assume that there were no troops at Midway. This was true, as i pointed out, until the code got hacked. And by the way, Japan did use dummy codes. But their real code GOT HACKED. And attacking defenses in Panama? What would that do? How would you get from across the Pacific ocean? Its extremely inconvenient to launch an attack on any region that across the biggest ocean in the world. You don't have any islands, because you lost Hawaii and you would never gain Midway. Even if you do gain Panama, what would that do? Stop the U.S. from transporting ships? I pointed this out as a contention in a previous case, and you never refuted it. Yes, Midway was essential to your domination of the United States. This is the ONLY way you could dominate...the only way is to launch an attack across the Pacific ocean. Yes, you did have an offensive position against the United States. However, you would NEVER WIN BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE MIDWAY! You fail to link your contentions with your value premise and determining criterion. Do you even HAVE a value and criterion? You have not refuted countless arguments. I have successfully refuted your arguments. Thus I have won this debate.
