Okay, now I'm FDR

Nope, I am not convinced. The Northern Route is the way to go.

If the US can retake Guam (to secure the LOS to Australia) there is little benefit of taking the Central or Southern Routes (or worse yet, both as was the historical case).

While the islands of the north are steep-sided and volcanic so are the islands of the south. We build airfields on them.

The legendary fog of the reason is a problem, however blind-landing gear was coming on line and it is reasonable to expect it could have been speeded up. The fog them becomes a huge smoke screen to protect our bases. Our bombers can take off through the fog, bomb the Japanese using radar to find their cities and get back to base day or night, fog or no fog.

Further we would have the Japanese on the horns of a dilemma. They would have to commit to the ASW war in the South as well as supporting their armies, or go north to try to recapture the islands and stop the bombing. A tough decision.

As I mentioned, the bonus would be pinching the Soviets off from marching into Japan.

Oh, in any event, assigning the very-long range Liberators to the Navy would probably be a good idea.
 
Wendell said:
How about just making sure that Ike beats the Russians to the Oder, or even the Vistula if it can be done?

Wendall

That would be interesting to put it mildly. Even if the US was able to commit vastly greater forces to Europe than historically, or even than the Soviets did you still have the basic centre of gravity of Germany. Its main industrial cores areas were the Rhur and Silesia/Bohemia and its capital is Berlin. You are not going to have massed divisions fighting the Soviets in Poland or further east while allied troops are storming Berlin. Similarly for why it is unlikely the Soviets would reach the Atlantic in a scenario where say the US stays out of the war but Britain is unconquered.

Steve
 
Paul in Saudi said:
Nope, I am not convinced. The Northern Route is the way to go.

If the US can retake Guam (to secure the LOS to Australia) there is little benefit of taking the Central or Southern Routes (or worse yet, both as was the historical case).

While the islands of the north are steep-sided and volcanic so are the islands of the south. We build airfields on them.

The legendary fog of the reason is a problem, however blind-landing gear was coming on line and it is reasonable to expect it could have been speeded up. The fog them becomes a huge smoke screen to protect our bases. Our bombers can take off through the fog, bomb the Japanese using radar to find their cities and get back to base day or night, fog or no fog.

Further we would have the Japanese on the horns of a dilemma. They would have to commit to the ASW war in the South as well as supporting their armies, or go north to try to recapture the islands and stop the bombing. A tough decision.

As I mentioned, the bonus would be pinching the Soviets off from marching into Japan.

Oh, in any event, assigning the very-long range Liberators to the Navy would probably be a good idea.

Paul

It's not the terrain its the weather. Not just fog but a lot of the area is sub-arctic for part of the year. That means a lot of difficulty in simply maintaining bases let alone operating a big bomber force and supplying it.

Actually, given the weather conditions what your suggesting possibly gives the best chance for the Japanese to operate a sub campaign against the US. As a lot of the time a/c would be unavailable and smaller ASW ships will face difficulties.

Your also got to consider the timing. By 45 the sort of equipment your suggesting may moderate losses but the US started its counter attack in late 42.

Also how does this route stop the Russians getting involved? They are still adjacent to Manchuria and Korea. Or do you simply mean you think this would force a Japanese surrender earlier, before the Red Army can become involved?

Steve
 
stevep said:
Wendall

That would be interesting to put it mildly. Even if the US was able to commit vastly greater forces to Europe than historically, or even than the Soviets did you still have the basic centre of gravity of Germany. Its main industrial cores areas were the Rhur and Silesia/Bohemia and its capital is Berlin. You are not going to have massed divisions fighting the Soviets in Poland or further east while allied troops are storming Berlin. Similarly for why it is unlikely the Soviets would reach the Atlantic in a scenario where say the US stays out of the war but Britain is unconquered.

Steve
You raise an interesting point, but several factors could get the allies there first from the West. Furthermore, having "all" of postwar Germany (still assuming the Oder-Niesse line, or something like it is used) in the Western Camp will radically alter the Cold War. Late in the war, the Nazis were more apt to fight the Russians than they were the allies.
 
Wendell said:
You raise an interesting point, but several factors could get the allies there first from the West. Furthermore, having "all" of postwar Germany (still assuming the Oder-Niesse line, or something like it is used) in the Western Camp will radically alter the Cold War. Late in the war, the Nazis were more apt to fight the Russians than they were the allies.

Wendell

Must admit I'm doubtful. Don't forget, the earlier the allies land on the continent the more Germans they have to fight and the less tooled up they are themselves. Other than say going for a Balkan campaign rather than Italy or France, which might cut off the oil if/when you get to Rumania I can't see us getting that far east provided the Soviets haven't been driven back by a more successful Germany earlier in the war. [In which case I can't see the western allies making major landings before we get the bomb].

What ideas do you have for getting that far east?

Steve
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Actually trust US citizens of Japanese descent not to desert enmasse to people they only knew as vague ancestors and who had attacked their country of residence and birth. Use Japanese Americans to counter Japanese propaganda saying Americans would torture them, thus saving thousands of American and Japanese lives.

Go MacArthur's Island hopping one step further. Build the Habbukuks and have regular bombing raids on Tokyo by 1942. Also use them against the Germains to forestall the Battle of the Atlantic,
 
I am not trying to be dense here. I simply do not see why gruesome weather ought to close down an air base completely. We know how the climate is, we take that into consideration when we build the thing.

Further, my proposal is workable in the 'Poof! I'm FDR on 8 December 1941' scenario. No new technology or equipment. Other proposals (like iceberg aircraft carriers) require years of preparation. (Although are quite cool.)

Finally, by occupying the some couple of minor northern Home Islands we will be taking over territory that in OTL the Soviets grabbed in the last days of the war.
 
stevep said:
Wendell

Must admit I'm doubtful. Don't forget, the earlier the allies land on the continent the more Germans they have to fight and the less tooled up they are themselves. Other than say going for a Balkan campaign rather than Italy or France, which might cut off the oil if/when you get to Rumania I can't see us getting that far east provided the Soviets haven't been driven back by a more successful Germany earlier in the war. [In which case I can't see the western allies making major landings before we get the bomb].

What ideas do you have for getting that far east?

Steve
Well, for one thing, fewer people will be (further) displaced. Secondly, it keeps that much more of Europe out of the Soviet sphere allowing for a more concerted and continual effort on all fronts to counter any possible Soviet aggression, while still denazifying the Germans. Maybe the Cold War won't even happen?

The West getting to the Oder means that there will be no Berlin Airlift, for one. If I recall correctly, it was after the "Berlin Crisis" that NATO was formalized....
 

blysas

Banned
We are working on the assumptation that we don't know all the future, so let's start with an idea. As cheif of staff, I suggest we push Congress to open up the European war of theater by delcaring war on Germany. Our allies in europe need support quickly. Stalin is on the verge of defeat here.


I also have an idea for the Pacfic. It is called Operation Bluewinter.

We pull back our forces to a defensibile line the west and have strongpoints within the Pacfic so tha the enemy will be shut off from making any further offensives and then we bulid up and launch a counter attack. We also need the British to hold the line in Sinapore so that we can effictivly caudrin of the Jaonese from winning any Maajor battles.
 
blysas said:
We are working on the assumptation that we don't know all the future, so let's start with an idea. As cheif of staff, I suggest we push Congress to open up the European war of theater by delcaring war on Germany. Our allies in europe need support quickly. Stalin is on the verge of defeat here.


I also have an idea for the Pacfic. It is called Operation Bluewinter.

We pull back our forces to a defensibile line the west and have strongpoints within the Pacfic so tha the enemy will be shut off from making any further offensives and then we bulid up and launch a counter attack. We also need the British to hold the line in Sinapore so that we can effictivly caudrin of the Jaonese from winning any Maajor battles.

Blysas

What defencive line would that be? Given the importance of naval matters in the Pacific and Us weakness after Pearl I'm not sure what sort of line could have been held. Also not really sure of any allied attacks prior to the assault on Guatacanal.

I don't think Britain could have held Malaya and Singapore without reinforcements and better planning prior to 7/12/41. The forces there lacked too much in the way of modern equipment and also training and leadership. Sending reinforcements at the last moment, which somehow reached Malaya, only increased the final bag of prisoners. Also I don't think the Japanese needed the forces committed in Malaya for their invasions of the Dutch Islands so they would probably still have fallen.

Steve
 
Wendell said:
Well, for one thing, fewer people will be (further) displaced. Secondly, it keeps that much more of Europe out of the Soviet sphere allowing for a more concerted and continual effort on all fronts to counter any possible Soviet aggression, while still denazifying the Germans. Maybe the Cold War won't even happen?

The West getting to the Oder means that there will be no Berlin Airlift, for one. If I recall correctly, it was after the "Berlin Crisis" that NATO was formalized....

Wendell

Those are details about how the situation would be changed IF the western allies got that far east. Think they are accurate. However I was asking HOW we get there before the Russians. That's what I can't see short of a virtual Soviet collapse, in which case we have to wait for the bomb.

Steve
 
Paul in Saudi said:
I am not trying to be dense here. I simply do not see why gruesome weather ought to close down an air base completely. We know how the climate is, we take that into consideration when we build the thing.

Further, my proposal is workable in the 'Poof! I'm FDR on 8 December 1941' scenario. No new technology or equipment. Other proposals (like iceberg aircraft carriers) require years of preparation. (Although are quite cool.)

Finally, by occupying the some couple of minor northern Home Islands we will be taking over territory that in OTL the Soviets grabbed in the last days of the war.
Paul

I agree that a successful northern route would mean the west rather than the Soviets occupy the Kurils.

To the best of my understanding modern airports can be closed down in the US nowadays, even with all the up to date equipment, by bad weather, including snow and fog. However we are talking about operating 60 years earlier, on a very long supply line and in worse conditions. Don't forget airborne radar was only just being developed so using it for blind landings on small airfields on barren islands will mean a lot more accidents and casualties. This will probably mean with such large a/c closing them from time to time while the debris is being picked up.

Don't forget that you also have to build and supply those bases, taking everything to them in very bad weather conditions. You will probably see ships damaged or lost in those waters and considerable losses and delays.

I'm not saying its impossible. Just think it will be very costly and have markedly less capacity than the historical route, although you might be able to get say B17s and B24's operating over Japan a bit earlier.

Steve
 
Well, I just got back from it. I'll do a full reply later, but for now, the salient points:

It was very, very informal. Only 4 people were in it, including me, plus one of the people running the conference played Japanese strategy.

After about six-eight hours over two days, we only got from Dec. 8, 1941, to June 1942.

The timescale was very erratic. Some days took hours to pass. Others flew by, and we weren't able to assemble attack forces enough.

We only built about 3 aircraft carriers, and only about 6 or7 were ever available as assets at a time.

We evacuated the Philippines in a much better way than in OTL.

Because we moved all of the CVs out to secure Hawaii and the Pacific perimeter, the Japanese bombed Seattle. About 400 died.
 
Taking as given you only control the PTO, & only on or after 7 Dec '41 (meaning you can't surplus off 100 or so more old DDs to Britain, or ignore Winston's fantasies for an Italian campaign):
*order a thoroughgoing investigation into how surprise was achieved at Pearl Harbor
*transfer Kimmel to London as USN liaison
*retire Short
*order Wainwright & Brerton out of P.I., allowing MacArthur to remain
*listen to King's CoS, Frog Low, when he tells you B-25s can fly off CVs; order them to attack Rabaul when Nimitz reports a potential attack in the Coral Sea. Allow Enterprise & Hornet to remain for the subsequent battle.
*after victory at Midway, order Nimitz's 4 CVs, plus Ranger, to attack Japan's major rail connections with B-25s, effectively severing Japan into independent territories, unable to ship food or products between them
*make it clear when Japan's government falls after the conquest of Saipan the Atlantic Charter will apply & an Emperor (if not the current one) may be retained, since the U.S. does not desire Japan's extinction, just the defeat of her armed forces
*stop asking the Soviets for aid against Japan (especially as the sub war makes it clear it isn't needed)
*listen to OSS & DST in Vietnam & agree to support Viet nationalists (including any in French jails, not including Ho) against Japan; if France protests, remind de Gaulle of American aid in liberating his country & suggest (strongly) he adopt a commonwealth model, rather than insist on retaining colonies.
 
Tell the Soviets youll quadruple their lend lease if they allow you to invade Manchuria through Siberia but if they refuse youll cut it.Then proceed to hammer the Japanese in a large campaign using Patton and armour and tactical superiority.

Once China has been liberated crush the Japanese first in Burma and then Indochina.

This will make the sub war even more successfull,and give the American people a major victory to celebrate,boosting morale massively.
 
Tell Truman in a note after your death that if/when Japan sues for the conditional surrender of giving up if the Emperor is kept in place, to accept it (they'll do it too if the OTL is any indication). It'll save you two bombings and the atomic age.
 
So, how to screw up the Cold War as well as possible? Well, crap up the war effort, but make it so the Axis can't win anyway. Push De Gaulle into Stalin's camp and find a way to screw the post-war boom.
Worst that can happen to me is that FDR becomes villified for his war incompetence... Like I care.
 
Tell Truman in a note after your death that if/when Japan sues for the conditional surrender of giving up if the Emperor is kept in place, to accept it (they'll do it too if the OTL is any indication). It'll save you two bombings and the atomic age.
That may not be the best idea: I've read they convinced Stalin the U.S. was willing to use the Bomb on (Soviet...) cities if needed, & so averted nuclear war in the '50s-'60s. (Tho pushing JFK wasn't a real smart idea...)
 
President Roosevelt;

The Japanese Campaign of Asia for the Asians represents a political coup for their endeavors, and we need to negotiate concessions with the ABDA powers to reduce the threat of a pro-Japan movement mobilizing against us. While we have considerable forces in the Philippines, the destruction of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor means that we are unable to send major reinforcements to the island. In any case, MacArthur appears to be as negligent as General Short, and I know that after the whole "Bonus Army" ordeal he's not been too friendly. I say sack him.

Clearly, we need to discuss matters of a "full mobilization." Giving in to demands to impound the Japanese plays directly into Japan's propaganda, while sources closer to seen seem to report a frenzy of Japanese-American volunteers. If anything, understanding this community is going to be critical to what we can reasonably expect from Post-War Japan.

Europe is a giant mystery, no questions asked. You've already made the decision to support the Soviet Union, but so much of the fighting over there seems to be rumors and myths. Although Germany has not claimed to take Moscow, the withdrawal of our diplomats to Kubeychev is ominous, and be should be taken as a sign that massive action is needed in Europe.

We do have an interesting idea about the war in Europe--perhaps the United States can broker a peace deal between Finland and the Soviet Union. As the United States now has a clear interest in this war, although it is uninvolved in the European conflict, a "Northern Settlement" might be workable.

If Germany does decide to declare war on the United States, I would not expect that it would be included with conditions or causes. But I have to consider that Germany gains very little by declaring war on the United States--I would express concern that the Japanese may well attack the Soviet Union as part of the bargain.

Finally, this conflict calls for a massive mobilization of resources and manpower. It may seem a little crooked, but the United States has several flunkies in Latin America who may be very useful in direct alliance with our country. It will mean a major US investment, but doing this should build goodwill with them, and their efforts may be decisive. Mexico, Cuba, Nicaracgua and Panama should be bargained into joining the war effort in exchange for generous compensation.

The War Aims against Japan are Simple:

Japan is defeated, Unconditional Surrender.
All Japanese Territory falls into our Sphere of influence, sans that which is the property of our allies;
Independence movements are supported if they are anti-Japanese. This means Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Mohandas Gandhi in India, and others.

Our War Aims against a hypothetical war in Europe are harder.

The question of who declares war against the United States remains an issue. Germany and Italy may split on this decision; certainly it is not likely that Finland would want to fight the United States. In any case, the desired outcome is simple: The Soviets and the Germans both lose. To achieve this aim, we should set our war aims on the Soviets' 1938 border as a desired concession, and its 1940 border as perhaps a sop to Soviet Support. If, however, the Germans take Moscow and the US Army digs deep into Russia to take it back, I think we may well consider replacing Stalin entirely.
 
Top