Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
.... not to mention the difficulty of convincing the civilian populations of the (western) Allied countries that piling onto the Soviets (who for the last 4 years had been 'plucky Ivan taking horrific losses while valiantly resisting the barbaric Fascist hordes'.....) was a good idea.........Operation Unthinkable wasn't a plan. It wasn't even the sketch of a plan.
It was a British General Staff assessment of the relative strengths of the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. Along with some wishful thinking about rearming Germany.
It was prepared at the request of Churchill to see if it was feasible to impose the "will" of the Western allies on "Russia" and possibly free Poland.
It makes for pretty sobering reading. The conclusion of the planning staff is that without massive initial surprise, any conflict would likely end up in a protracted bloody war.
As i recall Patton wanted just the keep driving East. Just change enemyPatton was right. And the plan was ready.
Actually, it was what a Japanese anticipated. Unless the Imperial Japanese government was more like the current Russian government, nod your head, keep your head down or lose your head, they thought the U.S. would cave.Sure it was, exactly as the Japanese anticipated. At least based on what Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbour attack told the Japanese to anticipate. Something along the lines of Japan will awakened a giant, we'll get six months of the initiative before we start to get our asses kicked. Yamamoto was spot on.
There was considerable disagreement within the Japanese government as far as a war with the US was concerned. The Army was pushing for it but the IJN was reticent and took a much more pragmatic view of its likely outcome. The hope was that a sudden attack on Pearl Harbor would so seriously cripple the USN Pacific Fleet that we would not have the capability to resist Japanese expansion in the Far East. Our aircraft carriers being at sea at the time of the attack was crucial. Our battleships were hit but the day of the battleship as the principal naval force was waning, if not over by them.Actually, it was what a Japanese anticipated. Unless the Imperial Japanese government was more like the current Russian government, nod your head, keep your head down or lose your head, they thought the U.S. would cave.
There was considerable disagreement within the Japanese government as far as a war with the US was concerned. The Army was pushing for it but the IJN was reticent and took a much more pragmatic view of its likely outcome. The hope was that a sudden attack on Pearl Harbor would so seriously cripple the USN Pacific Fleet that we would not have the capability to resist Japanese expansion in the Far East. Our aircraft carriers being at sea at the time of the attack was crucial. Our battleships were hit but the day of the battleship as the principal naval force was waning, if not over by them.
There was considerable disagreement within the Japanese government as far as a war with the US was concerned. The Army was pushing for it but the IJN was reticent and took a much more pragmatic view of its likely outcome. The hope was that a sudden attack on Pearl Harbor would so seriously cripple the USN Pacific Fleet that we would not have the capability to resist Japanese expansion in the Far East. Our aircraft carriers being at sea at the time of the attack was crucial. Our battleships were hit but the day of the battleship as the principal naval force was waning, if not over by them.
I don't think the absence of carriers from PH made an ounce of difference. Even if all the USN's Pacific Fleet carriers were sunk on 7 Dec 1941, it still wouldn't have resulted in an American capitulation. Yes, it would have delayed opportunities for the Allies to go on the offensive but it wouldn't have changed the final outcome.
Without the American carriers, the isolation of Australia and its neutralization as the major Allied base in the South and Southwest Pacific would have been much easier -- greatly prolonging the war, imo.
Yes...it would have made it longer. However, Japan could never isolate Australia because, again, they lacked resources. They absolutely could have made life much more difficult in the Northern Territory (Darwin etc.) but they couldn't isolate the other Australian ports, particularly those in the east and south of the land mass (Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne etc.).
Japan itself did not have the necessary resources but their conquests in the Western Pacific gave them access to those rescources.Yes...it would have made it longer. However, Japan could never isolate Australia because, again, they lacked resources. They absolutely could have made life much more difficult in the Northern Territory (Darwin etc.) but they couldn't isolate the other Australian ports, particularly those in the east and south of the land mass (Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne etc.).
Had Japan been able to sink all the USA carriers, I believe that there was one critical decision which was made, which wouldn't have been made. That was the decision to treat Germany as the first priority.
That almost certainly would have impacted the Lend Lease to the UK and Russia. I think the UK would have been reasonably OK but Russia would have been left to fend for itself to a much greater extent. The war in Russia was a lot closer than a lot of people realise and this could have made the difference.
Japan itself did not have the necessary resources but their conquests in the Western Pacific gave them access to those rescources.
We'll ditch the Alaskas.Adding another 3 carriers to the build list to replace them won't result in a seismic shift in production priorities.
I was thinking that myself but let's face it, we're hanging around here shooting the breeze while waiting for news updates.All that said, we should probably get back to the Ukraine situation.
The shops seem to be doing okay under the sanctions.Some interesting behind the scenes international sanctions legal stuff: