A more effective Dec 1941 preemptive attack on the USA

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

If the colonies didn't achieve it's war aims then it can't be a win.

Burning down the house. White House that is. Don't look so white now!

The Americans had no zip for invading the Japanese home islands. None at all. So maybe this reluctance was what was considered less than fighting spirit.

Although of course the battles of the Pacific had clearly shown it was the Japanese who lost. The Japanese had fighting spirit all the way to the surrendering table. Someone should have told em that you don't win wars by losing
 

You seem to think that national power is solely a land-based military matter. I disagree. This is one thing Wiki gets right:


Superpower - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You will notice that most of those factors aren't military at all.

For your last sentence ("If they landed in the wrong place, their options became limited"), this holds true of every superpower in history, so it's not a disqualifier.
 
When the British Expeditionary Force landed in 1914 where was Bismarck?

Dead he was.

So checkmate Bismarck. Where was Bismarck when the Red Army was storming Berlin? Probably trying to get the police to arrest them.

So let's look at the facts rather than the quotes.
 
The British Expeditionary Force landed in France. It was the job of the French police to arrest them, and for some reason, they didn't.

The point is that by mid-nineteenth century, the continental powers had huge, conscript armies. The British army was small, professional, and under the command of Queen Victoria's cousin George. The WWII Russian army was a typical European mass conscript army.

Otto Von Bismark firmly believed in not waging war against Russia.
 
Top of me head...could be wrong but too lazy to check.
The French army in 1914 the bulk were reservist not conscript.

So every able bodied man was legally obliged to join the army at a moment's notice. They would spend a week each year doing military things. So the majority would be middle aged and of dubious quality.

This is the way the French would be able to put a large army in the field against an equally large German army.

So similar to Switzerland today.

This meant the BEF was better as it had professional soldiers and not butchers and bakers and candlestick makers with a Label.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Did Germany give a DoW before invading the USSR? This seems like a rare thing.
Click to expand...
Still debatable. First German aircraft were spotted near Sevastopol and the order to open fire was issued at 03:06.
German Ambassador Schulenburg handed over the diplomatic note to Molotov at 05:30 - according to the official Soviet version, or "not later 03:00" according to Felix Chuev who interviewed Molotov in 1969-1974.
Moscow time everywhere.
 
The French army and the Swiss army and a whole bunch of other armies required young men to show up for military training. That is conscription. They spent a year or two in the army, then they were discharged. They remained in the reserves, from which they could be called up in the event of an emergency. The 1914 British army were long term professionals, and their effectiveness was out of proportion to their numbers. There were not very many of them, and few of those survived to the end of the war.

It was sort of like Japanese fighter pilots in WWII. In Saburo Sakai's year, they graduated twenty five of them. They regarded themselves as the best pilots in the world, and perhaps they were. Then, everybody but Sakai got killed. You know the rest.
 
The Basket said:
China was USA biggest failure in WW2. They tried to get the Nationalists to fight and they didn't. So the Nationalists were too corrupt and inept and waited for the USN to defeat Japan and then the true war against the communists could begin.
Click to expand...
"they didn't fight" - Sorry, but nothing can be further from the truth.
China has lost hundreds of thousands of lives, millions became refugees just in the first year of their war when they fought alone. When the USA continued to supply Japan with oil and other goods.
"inept and waited for" - The lowest, the most conservative estimate of the Chinese combat losses in the Second Sino-Japanese War is 1.5 mln. Civilian losses are counted in millions, whatever source to use.

Everyone in "the West" knows Midway and El-Alamein. Many heard about Stalingrad. What about Taierzhuang? The first defeat of the modern Japanese Army - before the Khalkin Gol (Nomonhan).
 
The Americans tried to turn the Chinese into a fighting force which they could defeat the Japanese on Chinese soil.

This never happened.

My post was about America in China and options that the Americans had.

Not what happened earlier.
 
Eh?
Obviously the French had a conscript army and a reservist army.

Probably a core of professional soldiers as well.

But the query is that to call a reservist a soldier and then to bulk out your army with middle aged men is not the basis for military success.

A conscript is usually a young man in his early twenties who serves for 2 or 3 years as an actual soldier living in barracks under military discipline. He will be trained and as physically fit for a twenty year old.

A reservist is a guy who turns up.

They are not the same. So depending on country a reservist can be up to say 48 years old.
 

To quote:

The specific date of mobilization for each class was October 1 (of their mobilization class year). For example, the class of 1910 began their military service on October 1, 1911 (the year in which the men turned 21 years of age). The "Two Years Law" saw a reduction of soldier's active army service obligation to 2 years. From 1875 until the passage of this law, a soldier's total commitment of service had been 25 years, including 3 in the active army, 7 in the reserve, 6 in the territorial and 9 in the territorial reserve. In 1892, this was altered to 3, 10, 6 and 6, respectively. The "Two Years Law" altered this allotment to 2 years active, 11 years reserve, and 6 years for the territorial and territorial reserve each.

[...]

Additionally, each soldier now had to serve a total of 28 years, including three in the active army (hence, "Three Years Law"). The lengthened term of service that was brought about by the Three-Years Law was retrograded. Thus, the 1887 and younger classes would be required to serve 28 years as well. This broke down into the following terms:

Active army..............................3 years
Active reserve army.................11 years
Territorial army........................7 years
Territorial reserve army...........7 years
Total service............................28 years



151st Line Infantry Regiment

A living-history orginization dedicated to the remembrance of the Great War (1914-1918).
www.151ril.com

The Germans ran a similar system. A reserve obligation almost always followed a conscript's active duty in both nations. Thus it is that most reservists were conscripts and most conscripts became reservists at the end of their active-duty term. Most if not all reservists had been trained and serving in the active-duty army for at least two years.
 
A reservist yes would have served as a younger man. Probably as a conscript.

But again a reservist is not a professional soldier. Not a serving soldier.

Germany and France had massive armies opposed to each other but it couldn't keep massive standing armies. So reservist was a way of having a huge army without having a huge army.

I myself was classed as a reserve for a few years. Don't mean jack.
 
Admiral Beez said:
How about the best attack on the US is a DoW delivered after the IJA invades Malaya and DEI followed by the IJN attacking the Philippines, but not Hawaii?
Click to expand...
Best chance at a negotiated peace, methinks. Might not be enough to inflame the isolationists to war fever mode. If it were only Dutch and the Brits that were stabbed in the back, they're at war with Japan's allies. I ain't getting my sons killed so they can keep their colonies.
 
And Britain (and Empire), France and the Dutch have a lot more territory than Malaya, DEI and Burma for Japan to take. For starters, the Solomons and PNG. See maps below.

The British Empire in the Pacific and Australasia

The British Empire in the Pacific and Australasia
www.britishempire.co.uk

The British Empire in the Pacific and Australasia

The British Empire in the Pacific and Australasia
www.britishempire.co.uk

Would the US sit idly by as Japan took possession of British and French territory as far east as Clipperton Island?
 
The Americans didn't do Bo Diddley when Warsaw or Copenhagen or Paris were invaded. Didn't do Bo Diddley when China was over run.

Could have invaded Singapore without an issue. Just don't invade Philippines and all is well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

1937-45: Doubling down on the 2-engined 'day fighters'
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
8K
Admiral Beez
A
A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
4K
Admiral Beez
A
"Super" A-36 for CAS/ground attack and tactical recon.
Replies
14
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
A
Dec 7, 1941. The USN is at sea. What does IJN do now?
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
5K
Thumpalumpacus
Italian air force is indifferent on on the air-cooled engines?
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register