Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

[Takao]

Those Angry Days by Lynne Olson is a good read on this, and isolationism/interventionism in general for the US pre-war.

Thanks for the recommendation, I hadn't heard of this one.

[OpanaPointer]

Those Angry Days by Lynne Olson is a good read on this, and isolationism/interventionism in general for the US pre-war.

Thanks for the recommendation, I hadn't heard of this one.

If you have someone who is certain that the US was solidly isolationist prior to Dec. 7th you can beat them to death with this book.

[Takao]

If you have someone who is certain that the US was solidly isolationist prior to Dec. 7th you can beat them to death with this book.

Now that is the best recommendation for a book I have heard in a long time. That should be posted on Amazon.

[OpanaPointer]

If you have someone who is certain that the US was solidly isolationist prior to Dec. 7th you can beat them to death with this book.

Now that is the best recommendation for a book I have heard in a long time. That should be posted on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R25050N60K6638

[Zart Arn]

Also, since we are already knee deep into carrier discussions, I'd like to know how Britain or the UK or the Commonwealth as such could hope to outbuild the USA. Even more so when the Commonwealth was already at war with the European Axis nations. For two years (we're still in late '41, right?). Considering that the only Allied successes at this time had been in Egypt and the Med, I wonder if anybody in Downingstreet 10 or elswhere in the afore mentioned Commonwealth of nations did have the spare brain cells to consider what would happen if, by some apparent miracle, the Axis had been defeated and the Allies. The Allies in this case not including the USA, of course.
Worse still, if the Axis had been defeated, the new enemy on the continent would be the Communists, who may stretch as far as the British Channel, in a worst case. Given that potential threat right on their doorstep, I do have some doubts that the British would have had much intention of even thinking about trying to alienate the USA.

1. I'm not sure, that they were going to outbuild the US. I do not think, that they even had such plans. The question is, what you have on the table as it comes to the final peace settlement. Being outnumbered by the US 1,5 to 1 would result in a certain world order (not totally unfavorable for the UK) after the end of the war. Being outnumbered 3 to 1 would lead to the formation of a totally different political reality. If we discard baby carriers, the situation was not totally bad for the British: 8 heavy fleet carriers, 24 "light" carriers and 1 maintenance carrier versus 24 fleet carriers and 10 light carriers on the US side. One can, naturally, add older ships or argue about the time of completion, but in general the situation is clear.
As to escort carriers, Britain did not need that much, since (unlike the US) it operated a vast network of airbases around the world.

2. If you question the logic of building the armada at the face of a prospect of an Axis victory, I should answer, that we do have the fact on the ground: the majority of Colossus class carriers were laid down in 1942.

3. Finally, I believe, that "The Soviet threat" was an anachronism in 1945. The Soviet Union of that time was a wounded man. A nation, that had lost some 15 percent of its citizens and a good share of its national wealth. The extent of devastation was comparable to the outcome of a hypothetic nuclear war. Yes, the USSR was powerful, but not so powerful as under Brezhnev. For the first two decades after the war the press was talking of 3 superpowers (and not of two), the third being Britain, of course.
The Soviets would really become the rival power of the US by the end of 1950th. By that time their economy would be rebuilt, the new generation of recruits grown, the new breed of "mass-produced" college graduates prepared. The later factor would make it possible to run a relatively high tech military.

P.S. I'll answer to other posters later.

[Baltasar]

1: I was aiming at the question whether the Commonwealth leadership thought they would be able to do so (outbuild the USA). While the Commonwealth was facing an enemy who was that much more threatening in land operations in Europe. The point I was trying to make was that it does seem extremely outworldish to assume that the Commonwealth, especially the UK, would waste any thoughts on the matter of who'd be the prime dominant power after the war just when the UK were in such a bad position (remember, you said that USSR was looking like they'd be beaten within short time etc).

2: Colossus were classified as light carriers with about 50 planes... You're trying to make a point here?

3: Since we are arguing within a late '41 timeframe, I can not see how your '45 reference could be relevant here.

[Zart Arn]

1. You are reading my thoughts. No, even better: you are reading my posts. It's exactly as I said: late in 1941 the UK was concerned with its own survival. That is why it did not start building new carriers that year. That is why Churchill was so submissive at the Atlantic Conference. As it became clear, that the USSR would hold on, Britain came to be concerned with other matters. That's why in 1942 we see new carriers laid down en masse.

2. Only, that it was a big light carrier. Probably 2 ships of this type were a trade off for one Essex.

3. Within late 1941 timeframe the USSR is a bankrupt power. It's either about to collapse, so it was no a concern for the post war scenario.

[Takao]

1. I'm not sure, that they were going to outbuild the US. I do not think, that they even had such plans. The question is, what you have on the table as it comes to the final peace settlement. Being outnumbered by the US 1,5 to 1 would result in a certain world order (not totally unfavorable for the UK) after the end of the war. Being outnumbered 3 to 1 would lead to the formation of a totally different political reality. If we discard baby carriers, the situation was not totally bad for the British: 8 heavy fleet carriers, 24 "light" carriers and 1 maintenance carrier versus 24 fleet carriers and 10 light carriers on the US side. One can, naturally, add older ships or argue about the time of completion, but in general the situation is clear.
As to escort carriers, Britain did not need that much, since (unlike the US) it operated a vast network of airbases around the world.

Since we are talking about "fantasy" aircraft carriers, American numbers for 1943 should be: 6 large aircraft carriers(Midways), 32 aircraft carriers(Essex), and 10 light aircraft carriers(Independence). Yes, the situation is clear, England is "boned." Of course, we could argue about the inclusion of the one Midway class carrier that was cancelled in January, 1943.

As to the off hand dismissal of the CVEs, you clearly have no grasp on the tenets of carrier warfare.

2. If you question the logic of building the armada at the face of a prospect of an Axis victory, I should answer, that we do have the fact on the ground: the majority of Colossus class carriers were laid down in 1942.

Still ignoring the Japanese I see...It is not about an Axis victory, it is about an Allied victory, and how well the British do to bring that about. Without carriers, the British will be hard-pressed to regain lost territory in the Pacific.

3. Finally, I believe, that "The Soviet threat" was an anachronism in 1945. The Soviet Union of that time was a wounded man. A nation, that had lost some 15 percent of its citizens and a good share of its national wealth. The extent of devastation was comparable to the outcome of a hypothetic nuclear war. Yes, the USSR was powerful, but not so powerful as under Brezhnev. For the first two decades after the war the press was talking of 3 superpowers (and not of two), the third being Britain, of course.
The Soviets would really become the rival power of the US by the end of 1950th. By that time their economy would be rebuilt, the new generation of recruits grown, the new breed of "mass-produced" college graduates prepared. The later factor would make it possible to run a relatively high tech military.

Actually, the Soviets were a "rival" power during World War II. Outside of Lend-Lease, there was very little cooperation between the two governments, and what little cooperation went on, failed most miserably. Indeed several scholars postulate that the dropping of the Atomic Bombs, was done to cower the Soviets.

Not sure how Brezhnev entered the picture? Are we doing the time warp again? Lets do the time warp again!...Sorry, I digress.

[Takao]

1. You are reading my thoughts. No, even better: you are reading my posts. It's exactly as I said: late in 1941 the UK was concerned with its own survival. That is why it did not start building new carriers that year. That is why Churchill was so submissive at the Atlantic Conference. As it became clear, that the USSR would hold on, Britain came to be concerned with other matters. That's why in 1942 we see new carriers laid down en masse.

Hardly surprising considering the carriers were still being designed in 1941, not to mention that , at the time, British shipbuilders were busy with other projects, namely DDs, DEs, and other escort vessels. Hence we see the stagnation of all British large warship construction across the board. The idea being to produced the needed vessels in a hurry. We see this in the design of the Colossus class. Smaller than the usual fleet carrier, slower than the usual fleet carrier, built mostly to merchant ship specs. They are the British equivalent to the Japanese Hiyo class.

2. Only, that it was a big light carrier. Probably 2 ships of this type were a trade off for one Essex.

It is a slow light carrier, capable of 24-25 knots.

3. Within late 1941 timeframe the USSR is a bankrupt power. It's either about to collapse, so it was no a concern for the post war scenario.

How so? If the USSR is a non-entity, then why did Lend-Lease tp the USSR "officially" begin in October, 1941. Not to mention, that the US had been given the "highest" assurances that the Soviet Union would continue to fight on, and early US war plans took this fact into consideration.

[Zart Arn]

And now to Takao.
First of all, we'll talk about Chinese and Indian economies. I am afraid, we observe a case of a doublethink here. On one hand, Takao quotes pages from Roosevelt the Younger, which state, that the Indian economy was being artificially held in a disadvantage (systematically plundered - in politically incorrect English). On the other hand my opponent does not believe, that if the exploitation was discontinued, the Indian economy would have performed better. To reach the level of the Philippines it needed to double its per capita income. OK, a bit more than to double.
Even stranger things are observed, as it comes to China. Yes, the Chinese GDP in 1950 was comparable to the German and the French. It is being stated, that Germany had been bombed into ashes and makes a bad reference group for 1950. It is being ignored, however, that France had not been bombed into ruins by anyone...
What else is being ignored? The state of China of course! The country was the stage of the civil war. Before that it had been a Second World war battleground. From 10 to 20 million lives (estimates vary) had been claimed by the Japanese aggression. Was it not supposed to have any effect on the economy? Were not the events like Rape of Nanking or the Battle of Wuhan expected to influence the Chinese GDP? For years the nation was being ploughed across by conflicting armies, and we should believe, that half thousand dollars per capita was the peak of its economic performance?
Simply stopping the hostilities and ending the foreign occupation (and not imposing any communist regime instead) could have immensely increased the economy in a matter of years.

Now, to the heavy ships. I should remind the readers of this post, that the entire heavy ship issue surfaced as a part of the discussion regarding the state of Britain in the course of WW2. My opponent claims, that Britain was overstretched. My counterclaim was, that an overstretched nation traditionally tried to cut any unnecessary expenses. As an example I've cited the ill-fated Plan Z, which would be cancelled following the outbreak of the war. The scrapping of one incomplete German aircraft carrier has been mentioned in this context. Now I mention the scrapping of 2 battleships, that had been laid in line with this plan.
Additionally, I've made a reference to the Soviet heavy ship program, evoking the suspension of battleship and heavy cruiser construction in the USSR following the German invasion. As Takao stated, that the Soviet construction efforts had been brought to an end by the blockade of Leningrad, I reminded him, that the work would not be started anew following the end of the blockade. To this point my opponent replied, that "Stalin kept trying to restart the Soviet Union's battleship program, but he never quite succeeded". Well, I'll be forced to correct myself, once the prove is presented, that Stalin was trying to do so before May 1945. It's obvious, that after that date the Soviet Union was no longer overstretched.
In his zest to attack every statement of mine (without paying any attention to whether his counterattack would actually weaken my position or not) Takao cites the list of 20 (yes, twenty) British carriers, that had been ordered before the Italian naval threat was brought to an end. I humbly call upon the readers of this post to consider the German case and to say, how many of these carriers were to be suspended if Britain were indeed "overstretched" (we hear this magic word again and again). Perhaps, 10?

It is being stated, that Japan should be kept in mind. Well, to begin with, we are expected to believe, that overstretched Britain of 1942 (or of 1943) had no other concerns, than to start planning a campaign to regain a couple of godforsaken colonies. Yes, as Italy was still intact , as Rommel was still on the African soil, the British were laying ships, that would help them reconquer Malaysia and Burma. Fine, I'm going to agree with that. The British were really prudent planners. However, there is a little trouble: this is not the behavior of an overstretched nation. That's the behavior of a nation, that has enough resources to plan its movements several years ahead.
So, whom was the Armada intended against? We have several options.
- A. The British believed, that by the beginning of 1945 or later the Japanese carrier fleet would defeat the US Navy, so that Britain would have to fight the Empire of the Rising Sun alone.
- B. The British believed, that the US would pull out of the war, leaving Britain to fight Japan without any assistance.
- C. The carriers were built for a possible clash with the US.

Finally, the US plans for China and India.

Essentially proves, and Churchill admits as much, that Great Britain, is no longer the "leading nation", but now one among many. Thus, it is nigh impossible for the US, in your timeframes 2, 3, & 4, to return to "square one," as, what you state as their "goal"(bumping Britain out of the top spot, has already come to pass, and this is before the events of timeframes 3 & 4). Thus, this utterly and irrecoverably wrecks your supposed hypothesis.

If we speak in terms of my chart from page 7, Arcadia Conference (to which the dialogue refers) is in the time frame 3. I claimed, that option B had been selected in the reality. This option reads like that: Attack/pressurize Japan in order to bring its war in China to an end and gain access to the Chinese market. Send the British a minimum of supplies to keep them afloat in exchange for concessions. The return to "square one" occurs once Germany is defeated (while Japan survives) and the perspective of seeing Europe united or British colonies threatened by a land invasion is eliminated. During the Atlantic Conference Churchill was no longer seeing Britain as the leading power exactly, because it was believed, that the USSR would soon die. At Arcadia he would change his mood, since the Soviets had managed to hold the ground.

By the time of Casablanca Churchill was again in a better state, than at the Atlantic Conference (since the Soviets were alive). That's why at Casablanca Roosevelt was saying exactly, what he was saying. Appealing to altruistic reason and being unable to negotiate from the position of strength as he had done in August 1941.

P.S. The rest will come tomorrow or in a couple of days.

[LWD]

.. however, that France had not been bombed into ruins by anyone...

Do you have any understanding at all of what happened to France during the war years?

[RichTO90]

It is being stated, that Japan should be kept in mind. Well, to begin with, we are expected to believe, that overstretched Britain of 1942 (or of 1943) had no other concerns, than to start planning a campaign to regain a couple of godforsaken colonies.

You appear to have a problem comprehending what "overstretch" means in this context and keep devolving to the financial/construction sense of "overstretch". In that sense, yes, the British remained "overstretched"...are you not curious why it took so long for Britain to complete the carriers that they planned for in 1941-1942? Why only 16 of the 20 approved under the 1942 War Emergency planning were completed? Why only four were completed in time to serve in the war?

However, more importantly, you are missing the concept of military "overstretch", which is rather more relevant to this narrative. Recall...

The British had eighth operational carriers at the end of 1941...Argus with Force H at Gibraltar and Victorious with the Home Fleet. Ooops! Wait that's only two?

Well, Indomitable was in passage around the Horn to the Indian Ocean until 27 January 1942...the rest?

Hermes - refitting at Durban from late 1941 until January 1942...
Eagle - refitting in the UK from late 1941 until January 1942...
Furious - refitting in the U.S. from late 1941 until January 1942...
Illustrious and Formidable collided mid-Atlantic in December while returning to the UK after repairs in the U.S. and were out of action for additional repairs until late and early January 1942 respectively...

Then, in 1942, Argus continues in service with the Home Fleet and Force H, but is getting rather elderly and in January 1943 is withdrawn from service and regulated to training.
Victorious serves mostly with the Home Fleet until she is loaded to the USN in December until September 1943.
Indomitable serves in the Indian Ocean until return to the Med in July...when she gets bombed again on the Malta run and goes to the U.S. for repair.
Hermes is sunk by the Japanese in April.
Eagle operates mostly in the Med until she is sunk in August.
Furious operates with the Home Fleet.
Illustrious joins the Far East Fleet.
Formidable joins the Far East Fleet until returning to the Med in September.

So by mid 1942, there are six carriers left, one - Argus - considered worn out, one - Victorious - being the British donation to help the U.S. Navy, which is overstretched, one - Indomitable - under repair and out of action, leaving essentially just elderly Furious in the Atlantic, one - Formidable - in the Med, and one - Illustrious - in the Far East.

That is military overstretch.

Never mind the lack of a fleet train necessary for extended operations in the Pacific.

[Takao]

First of all, we'll talk about Chinese and Indian economies. I am afraid, we observe a case of a doublethink here.

No, there is no "doublethink" here.

First of all, we'll talk about Chinese and Indian economies. I am afraid, we observe a case of a doublethink here. On one hand, Takao quotes pages from Roosevelt the Younger, which state, that the Indian economy was being artificially held in a disadvantage (systematically plundered - in politically incorrect English).

Yes, it was a direct response to your quote from the same book to support your hypothesis that FDR was waging war specifically to open trade markets around the globe. However, I have sufficiently proved your silly hypothesis to be grossly flawed.

On the other hand my opponent does not believe, that if the exploitation was discontinued, the Indian economy would have performed better. To reach the level of the Philippines it needed to double its per capita income. OK, a bit more than to double.

What I "do not believe" is your magic wand waving, to immediately boost "poor" economies to what you perceive as "good" ones. Did we see this sudden "doubling" of per capita income? Nope, it actually dropped following Indian independence, before recovering in 1953.

Even stranger things are observed, as it comes to China. Yes, the Chinese GDP in 1950 was comparable to the German and the French. It is being stated, that Germany had been bombed into ashes and makes a bad reference group for 1950. It is being ignored, however, that France had not been bombed into ruins by anyone...

Yet looking at the per capita GDP(in 1946) France(3,855) has roughly double Germany's(2,217) per capita GDP, and China is left way behind with - this data is from 1950 - 4 years later - with 448.(all figures are in 1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars). Now, if we move every one up to 1950, France is at 5,186, Germany is at 3,881, and China is in the basement with 448.

Actually, France was bombed by both countries, and had just had a major land campaign fought across her. As such, her 1944 GDP was less than half of her 1940 GDP...

Keep fantasizing Mr. Arn.

What else is being ignored? The state of China of course! The country was the stage of the civil war. Before that it had been a Second World war battleground. From 10 to 20 million lives (estimates vary) had been claimed by the Japanese aggression. Was it not supposed to have any effect on the economy? Were not the events like Rape of Nanking or the Battle of Wuhan expected to influence the Chinese GDP? For years the nation was being ploughed across by conflicting armies, and we should believe, that half thousand dollars per capita was the peak of its economic performance?
Simply stopping the hostilities and ending the foreign occupation (and not imposing any communist regime instead) could have immensely increased the economy in a matter of years.

Stop! Stop! The Stupid it hurts!

But seriously, Mr. Arn...in 1929 China's per capita GDP was 562, it would fluctuate throughout the 1930s, reaching a high of 597 in 1936. Following this math every 7 years it should gain 35 dollars, so in 1957 China's per capita GDP would be 702. Except, where was the Philippines per capita GDP...1,442(and this is not even back to the Philippines pre-war per capita GDP of 1,507 in 1940)


Looks like Mr. Arn's fantasy of "Simply stopping the hostilities and ending the foreign occupation (and not imposing any communist regime instead) could have immensely increased the economy in a matter of years." is another grossly flawed hypothesis.

I'd better post this awhile and continue...

[Takao]

Now, to the heavy ships. I should remind the readers of this post, that the entire heavy ship issue surfaced as a part of the discussion regarding the state of Britain in the course of WW2. My opponent claims, that Britain was overstretched. My counterclaim was, that an overstretched nation traditionally tried to cut any unnecessary expenses.

The stupid continues...

At the beginning of the war the Royal Navy is overstretched in terms of active ships to cover such a vast are as the entire globe.

The solution to this is, of course, to build more warships...And not to stop warship production, as you seem to imply. Please note - That with more warships you can adequately cover more territory

As an example I've cited the ill-fated Plan Z, which would be cancelled following the outbreak of the war. The scrapping of one incomplete German aircraft carrier has been mentioned in this context. Now I mention the scrapping of 2 battleships, that had been laid in line with this plan.

Germany scrapped 3 battleships, not two...You forgot about Battleship K - granted her keel had not been laid, but 12.921 tons of steel were on order, 2,980 tons had been delivered, and 1,503 tons were machined.

The salient point is not what Germany scrapped, but what warships she had. From 1940 onwards, the threat that Germany will take over the French fleet remain a real one until the scuttling of the French fleet in late 1942. In late 1940-early 1941, the British Home Fleet proves incapable of stopping the German battleships Scharnhorst & Gneisenau as they go romping around the Atlantic sinking some 110,000 tons of merchant shipping. In 1941,The battleship Bismarck and heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen break out into the Atlantic, and the entire British Home Fleet is hard-pressed to stop them. Even with the Home Fleet's numbers, the Bismarck almost made good her escape, and the Prinz Eugen did make good her escape. From 1941-43 the Mediterranean Sea will claim a fair share of Royal Navy losses, mainly through air attack, because the Royal Navy lacks aircraft carriers to provide adequate air cover. From 1941 until 1944, the lone German battleship Tirpitz tied down an incredible amount of RN & USN warships that had to be kept on hand in case the Tirpitz made a break for the Atlantic.

I could go on, but the point has been made, and rightly so, that the Royal Navy lacked an adequate number of warships to provide cover for all the theaters she had to cover.

Additionally, I've made a reference to the Soviet heavy ship program, evoking the suspension of battleship and heavy cruiser construction in the USSR following the German invasion. As Takao stated, that the Soviet construction efforts had been brought to an end by the blockade of Leningrad, I reminded him, that the work would not be started anew following the end of the blockade. To this point my opponent replied, that "Stalin kept trying to restart the Soviet Union's battleship program, but he never quite succeeded".

Actually, you made no reference to the Soviet heavy ship program, only reference to the 4 Soviet Sovetsky Soyuz class battleships. The initial Soviet naval plan was for a force of Soviet Fleet would have had 15 battleships, 15 heavy and 28 light cruisers, 144 destroyers, 336 submarines.

The Leningrad Siege only halted the construction of the Sovetsky Soyuz, at roughly 20% completion. Work on the Sovetskaya Ukraina with the capture of the shipyard where she was being built. Construction on the Sovetskaya Belorussiya was stopped in in mid-1940, and cancelled in October, 1940. Constuction on the Sovetskaya Rossiya was halted before the battleship was even 1% complete.

The proof is that the battleships, which the Soviets did not necessarily need - before the war or after, were not scrapped until 1947-48.

Well, I'll be forced to correct myself, once the prove is presented, that Stalin was trying to do so before May 1945. It's obvious, that after that date the Soviet Union was no longer overstretched.

Considering that Eastern Front was primarily 99% a land-war, the Soviets had no need for a "traditional" blue-water navy. And the Soviet shipbuilding program was essentially for prestige purposes only - It would only be well into the late 1960's that the Soviets began work on creating a traditional blue water navy...Certainly if the need was there since World War II, they would have had one by then. Therefore, it is obvious that the Soviet Union did not need a blue water navy before May, 1945(or well after).

Need, my friend, need. The Soviets have no pressing need for a vast fleet.

As you can see, the Soviet Navy of pre-war 1940 http://www.navypedia.org/retro_view/194 ... a_1940.htm
was hardly increased by 1945: http://www.navypedia.org/retro_view/194 ... a_1945.htm

In his zest to attack every statement of mine (without paying any attention to whether his counterattack would actually weaken my position or not) Takao cites the list of 20 (yes, twenty) British carriers, that had been ordered before the Italian naval threat was brought to an end. I humbly call upon the readers of this post to consider the German case and to say, how many of these carriers were to be suspended if Britain were indeed "overstretched" (we hear this magic word again and again). Perhaps, 10?

I can't see points of yours where you have proven you hypothesis, and you have yet to successfully reply to my rebuttals(Well, without resorting to waving your "magic wand")

And their you again, conveniently leaving out Japan...and focusing only on Germany, but only on her big ships, convieiently forgetting about those hundreds of U-boats.

Now, if your hypothesis is correct, and the British were "not overstretched" because of the fact that they did not cancel 20 British carriers. Then, what do you have to say about the Americans, which cancelled 3 Midway Class, and 8 Essex class carriers? Because the Americans cancelled 11 carriers, does this mean that they were "overstretched". You know, the Americans who were supplying all the Allies with war material...

It is being stated, that Japan should be kept in mind. Well, to begin with, we are expected to believe, that overstretched Britain of 1942 (or of 1943) had no other concerns, than to start planning a campaign to regain a couple of godforsaken colonies. Yes, as Italy was still intact , as Rommel was still on the African soil, the British were laying ships, that would help them reconquer Malaysia and Burma. Fine, I'm going to agree with that.

Well, let's see, Britain lacks the warships to reclaim her Far East colonies, fight Germany, and fight Italy, so she builds more warships. If Britain had the warships that she needed on hand, she would not have to build more.

Seems to be that this is common sense stuff...I don't see where your disconnect is?

So, whom was the Armada intended against? We have several options.
- A. The British believed, that by the beginning of 1945 or later the Japanese carrier fleet would defeat the US Navy, so that Britain would have to fight the Empire of the Rising Sun alone.
- B. The British believed, that the US would pull out of the war, leaving Britain to fight Japan without any assistance.
- C. The carriers were built for a possible clash with the US.

You forgot -D.) The British believed, that the Americans would leave retaking British Colonies to the British, and focus on fighting the Japanese back to their Home Islands.

I would add that the United States Navy voted for D.)

If we speak in terms of my chart from page 7, Arcadia Conference (to which the dialogue refers) is in the time frame 3. I claimed, that option B had been selected in the reality. This option reads like that: Attack/pressurize Japan in order to bring its war in China to an end and gain access to the Chinese market. Send the British a minimum of supplies to keep them afloat in exchange for concessions. The return to "square one" occurs once Germany is defeated (while Japan survives) and the perspective of seeing Europe united or British colonies threatened by a land invasion is eliminated. During the Atlantic Conference Churchill was no longer seeing Britain as the leading power exactly, because it was believed, that the USSR would soon die. At Arcadia he would change his mood, since the Soviets had managed to hold the ground.

The only one thinking that the USSR would still die is you and Adolf Hitler. OK, just you, since Hitler is long dead and has done any thinking for sometime.

By the time of Casablanca Churchill was again in a better state, than at the Atlantic Conference (since the Soviets were alive). That's why at Casablanca Roosevelt was saying exactly, what he was saying. Appealing to altruistic reason and being unable to negotiate from the position of strength as he had done in August 1941.

So...Let me see if I read you right...FDR goes to war for completely selfish reasons, then has some kind of epiphany, and by the Casablanca Conference, and is now fighting the war for altruistic reason.

Do I have that correct.

FYI, FDR can always negotiate from a position of strength, I thought that was the whole point of this exercise - What if the US packed up all it's toys and went to play in the Pacific.

[RichTO90]

If we speak in terms of my chart from page 7, Arcadia Conference (to which the dialogue refers) is in the time frame 3. I claimed, that option B had been selected in the reality. This option reads like that: Attack/pressurize Japan in order to bring its war in China to an end and gain access to the Chinese market. Send the British a minimum of supplies to keep them afloat in exchange for concessions.

You seriously believe that "in the reality" the U.S. elected to "Attack/pressurize Japan in order to bring its war in China to an end and gain access to the Chinese market. Send the British a minimum of supplies to keep them afloat in exchange for concessions."?

How curious - even what you perceive to be "reality" is a fantasy. So how long have you been off your meds?