Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
User avatar
Baltasar
Member
Posts: 4614
Joined: 21 Feb 2003, 16:56
Location: Germany

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#226

Post by Baltasar » 17 Jul 2014, 05:37

Zart Arn wrote: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.
Which has nothing at all to do with the massive submarine threat the UK is facing or the new war in the Pacific where the UK is also involved? Especially as the Colossus carriers were designed with ASW and convoy protection in mind?
2. Only, that it was a big light carrier. Probably 2 ships of this type were a trade off for one Essex.
See above, the Colossus was not designed as what we might call a strike carrier.
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.
Are you that sure that Russia was completely discarded in late '41? She wasn't beaten yet and as we know, she in fact was not. The British in particular did what they could to keep Russia alive, so the European Axis would have an opponent to face on the continent.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#227

Post by RichTO90 » 17 Jul 2014, 13:48

Baltasar wrote:
Zart Arn wrote: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.
Which has nothing at all to do with the massive submarine threat the UK is facing or the new war in the Pacific where the UK is also involved? Especially as the Colossus carriers were designed with ASW and convoy protection in mind?
2. Only, that it was a big light carrier. Probably 2 ships of this type were a trade off for one Essex.
See above, the Colossus was not designed as what we might call a strike carrier.
Very true, the real - as opposed to the Fantasyland™ reasons for the way the British carrier construction program went is very well expressed by Postan in British War Production (pp. 63-64, 289-291, & 294).

"The decision represented a compromise with the emergency programmes, but one of the results of the compromise was to jettison important new extensions of long-term plans. There was in Admiralty circles a growing body of opinion which favoured the construction of more fleet aircraft carriers and was prepared to conceded them a priority second only to destroyers. It had been suggested that two should be laid down in 1941 and two more in 1942 to make up the deficiency as soon as possible, since the course of the war in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean had conclusively demonstrated the effectiveness of aircraft with the fleet both for defence and offence. But during discussions of the 1941 programme and of the supplementary proposals in the autumn, it was concluded that the building of more cruisers and the completion of the Vanguard were of more fundamental importance than the construction of fleet aircraft carriers. Not only were not more of the latter ordered, but the laying down of the carrier in the supplementary programme was postponed. The fleet aircraft carrier was the only class of naval vessel in which no new ships at all were laid down between the spring of 1939 and that of 1942.

...

The emphasis on battleships was not, however, destined to last. At the beginning of 1943 the battleship position no longer appeared disturbing. The danger of French battleships falling into German hands had gone; the Anson and the Howe had been completed during 1942; and with the British capital ship strength at fifteen the Naval Staff were better prepared to agree again to the postponement of the Lion and of the other battleships on order for the sake of new demands which were becoming urgent.

Some of the urgency had passed to the aircraft carriers. If the construction of carriers had hitherto been somewhat neglected, the neglect was due not so much to lingering doubts about the importance of ship-borne aircraft as to the Admiralty's reluctance to lay down new aircraft carriers until their designs could embody the lessons of the loss of the Ark Royal. By mid-1942 the new design was available, and above all the strategic and tactical value of the aircraft carrier had been strikingly demonstrated in the six months of war in the eastern oceans. Not only had carriers proved a most powerful weapon of naval warfare, but they were also proving very effective in convoy service. Naval opinion was therefore running very strongly in their favour—so strongly that the Naval Staff was now prepared to set its aims as high as an eventual force of fifty-five to sixty-two carriers of all types and sizes.

In the new conception of the Fleet Air Arm large fleet carriers were, to begin with, to play a predominant part, and the mid-1942 plans envisaged a force of some thirteen to twenty fleet carriers, or seven to fourteen more than were at that time in service or under construction.26 Industrial conditions however made it impossible to contemplate an immediate addition of very large ships, while military considerations were against undue concentration on ships that might take five to six years to build and would not be ready in time for operations in the war. So in the end, of the 1942 programme only one large carrier, the Audacious, was laid down, to be completed in April 1946. Two other aircraft carriers, the Implacable and the Indefatigable due to be completed in 1943 and 1944 respectively, were not to be given high priority, while the two remaining fleet carriers of the 1942 programme, the Eagle and the Ark Royal, though ordered, were not laid down. Four more were included in the 1943 programme, but the Naval Staff took it more or less for granted that they would not be laid down in 1943 or the following year.

The need for aircraft carriers was to be mainly satisfied by auxiliary and, above all, by light fleet carriers. The former—essentially escort vessels—were little more than fast merchantmen converted to carry a small number of aircraft. Their provision therefore depended very largely on the supplies of fast merchantmen, and they were mostly to come from the United States. In so far as they were to be provided from British sources their story is closely interwoven with that of the repair and conversion of merchant ships, and will be mentioned again later. On the other hand, the light fleet carriers were specially designed and fully-equipped aircraft carriers suitable both for escort duty and service with the fleet. They were sometimes described as 'intermediate' in that they were less slow and helpless in combat then the auxiliary carriers but small than the large fleet carriers and therefore enjoyed the advantage of easier and speedier construction. The minimum period they took to build was two years compared with the minimum of three years for a large fleet carrier. They were therefore to form a large and ever-increasing part of naval programmes for the rest of the war and were to be given priority over cruiser, battleships and even over large carriers. Four light fleet carriers were ordered in the spring of 1942, and twelve more by the end of the year. Of these sixteen, ten were actually laid down by January 1943 and were expected to come into service in late 1944 and 1945.

The shipyard capacity for larger ships thus came to be mainly engaged on aircraft carriers. There was however no question now of enlarging it at the expense of smaller ships as had seemed possible at the turn of 1941 and 1942. In the course of 1942 the need for escort and anti-submarine ships of every kind was becoming more and not less urgent than before. In June the enemy attacks on shipping in the Atlantic reached their highest point, and losses of merchant shipping and of escort vessels were exceptionally and alarmingly large. Moreover the expectations of American supplies had to be drastically lowered. Now that the United States were at war and their shipping routes were everywhere under direct attack ,they proceeded to divert to their own use most of the escort ships they were building for Britain. The War Cabinet and the Admiralty were thus compelled to revive and to reinforce the earlier emphasis on Britain's own output of small vessels. Towards the end of the summer of 1942 the Naval Staff estimated the minimum requirements of ocean-going escort vessels at 1,050, but in October of that year only 445 such vessels were available and of these about 100 were old destroyers of 1914–15 vintage. The deficiency was great, and at current rates of production and losses it threatened to be persistent as well as high; it was estimated at 352 by the end of 1944 even if American assignments were honoured in full. Additions therefore had to be made to British production programmes for every type of small vessel capable of escorting merchant ships or of fighting the submarine—minesweepers, sloops, corvettes, frigates, and, above all, destroyers.

...

Equally trouble some, though in a different way, were the landing ships (L.S.T.s) which, contrary to an earlier understanding with the United States, had now to be introduced into the British programme. There was not enough space in the shipyards to allow boats as large as the L.S.T. to be laid down, and in order to make space, the Admiralty was compelled to remove the keels of naval vessels which had already been laid down. This was done with one of the battle-class destroyers, with the aircraft carrier Eagle, and with two submarines."

Isn't it amazing what you can learn if you rely on some basic research instead of imagination? BTW, while the Colossus-class were intended to be completed in 22 months each, the average completion time was 27 months...yet another sign of the "overstretch" that our interlocutor cannot understand.


User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#228

Post by LWD » 17 Jul 2014, 14:09

Takao wrote: ... 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......
Not to mention some rather systematic looting by the Germans during the occupation.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#229

Post by Takao » 17 Jul 2014, 20:51

Yes, France's GDP in 1942 was just under 60% of it's 1939 GDP, in 1943, it was at about 55% of the 1939 level, and in 1944 it was just under 47%, before rising slightly to 51% of the 1939 GDP in 1945.

alltoes
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 29 May 2011, 00:07

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#230

Post by alltoes » 17 Jul 2014, 21:13

Hello,
I am curious. Are the numbers of GDP for ALL of France, Vichy, or occupied France? The reduction in GDP does make sense since there were over 1.5 million French POW, etc. in Germany.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#231

Post by Takao » 17 Jul 2014, 21:38

Your guess is as good as mine, there is really no data for the colonies until 1950. However, when the colony nations start having their own data, France's GDP does not drop, but continues it's rise. So, I would have to say that, no, the colonies are not included in France's GDP.

Link: Historical Statistics of the World Economy: 1-2008 AD http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical ... 2-2010.xls

In the spreadsheet, there are tabs for Population, GDP, Per Capita GDP, Population Growth, GDP growth, and Per Capita GDP Growth.

Edit: If you do not have the Microsoft Excel. Apache's "OpenOffice" works just fine, and it is a free download.
https://www.openoffice.org/

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#232

Post by Takao » 17 Jul 2014, 22:02

Baltasar wrote:Are you that sure that Russia was completely discarded in late '41? She wasn't beaten yet and as we know, she in fact was not. The British in particular did what they could to keep Russia alive, so the European Axis would have an opponent to face on the continent.
Mr Arn just does not want to research this topic, because he knows what he will find. For instance...
AUGUST 20, 1941.

Memorandum for the Chief of Staff:

Subject: Chinese Resistance.

1. General Chu, Chinese Military Attaché, called on me today at his request to discuss the general situation. He was evidently worried because China was not specifically mentioned in all the discussion with regard to the conference between The President and the British Prime Minister. He seemed to feel that China is being forgotten for the moment. I told him of course that China is and will remain a pivotal point in the war, and that although not specifically mentioned in regard to the conference, the situation in the Far East, including China, was undoubtedly carefully considered.

2. General Chu then pointed out that much has recently been said about halting Japanese aggression both to the south and to the north, but nothing specific on stopping Japanese aggression in China proper. He went on to point out the possibility of Japan concentrating all of her efforts on crushing Chinese resistance. If she considers herself stopped by the Anglo-American front from further aggression to the south and to the north. He said, rather pointedly, "You know we cannot hold out indefinitely." I pointed out to him that the present emphasis on aid to Russia was probably due to Anglo-American belief that the Russian crisis was an immediate one, a question of holding her in the war for the next six weeks until winter comes to her relief. Chinese resistance on the other hand would not appear to present so pressing a time factor, considering the long period of four years in which they have successfully withstood Japanese pressure. General Chu admitted this, and in answer to my questions as to the duration of Chinese resistance he said that undoubtedly the situation would hold throughout this calendar year. I pointed out to him that Japanese's present extension of her forces both in the north and in the south precluded the possibility of her concentrating her efforts against the Chinese at this time. He admitted this, but stated that he believed Japan must continue her aggressive policy, and that it was possible for her to regroup her forces against China if she were barred from the north and the south. He said that he feared that the Anglo-American policy of holding Japan in the north and the south might force her into a last desperate effort to overcome Chinese resistance. In his opinion Japan cannot stop, and in all questions of major policy the Japanese Government must bow to the decision of its military forces. He cited the Chinese proverb, "He who rides on the tiger must go where the tiger goes."

3. General Chu professed to have little information on the Russian situation, but said that what he had was encouraging. He thought the outstanding thing was that Russia had successfully taken the first shock of war. He remarked that the first few months of the Sino-Japanese war were by far the hardest, and after that the Chinese had settled down to a long resistance.

4. General Chu's visit undoubtedly indicates what we have had from other sources-that the Chinese here, and presumably also in Chungking, fear that they are being left out of the big picture, that we may not be firm in our present stand vis-a-vis Japan, and that aid to China may become more difficult in the future.

5. This Division believes that considerable morale aid might be given to China in the form of public statements emanating from high officials of the Government on our deep interest in Chinese resistance and our policy of aiding it. An official announcement of the forthcoming dispatch of a military mission to China is suggested. It is realized however that such morale aid would have to be considered in the light of its effect on the critical relations now existing between Japan and the United States.



/s/ Sherman Miles
SHERMAN MILES
Brigadier General, U. S. Army
Acting Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2.

Copies to:

Secretary of War ONI
Assistant Secretary of War Mr. Currie
Chief of Staff General Magruder
War Plans Division



(EXHIBITS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE, PHA, PT. 14, EXHIBIT NO. 33 MILITARY INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATES PREPARED BY G-2, WAR DEPARTMENT)
Bold Type is Mine - Takao

Edit - Ooops! Link: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/410820amie.html


But, this "fantasy" has so many Points of Departure, it has long ceased to be plausible...If it ever was.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#233

Post by RichTO90 » 17 Jul 2014, 23:05

Takao wrote:Mr Arn just does not want to research this topic, because he knows what he will find.
Actually, I believe Mr. Arn doesn't want to research the topic because he is both unaware of the sources on the topic and also because he already knows the evidence doesn't support his fantasy about Roosevelt provoking a war with Japan in order to corner the immense developing market in China and thereby ensure the collapse of the British Empire. :roll:

Those damned Machiavellian New York Democrats! You just gotta watch out for them all the time... :roll:

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5659
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#234

Post by OpanaPointer » 18 Jul 2014, 00:31

I always learn something new from these threads. One thing I learned from this one was to keep a pillow on the floor below my chin.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#235

Post by RichTO90 » 18 Jul 2014, 22:12

OpanaPointer wrote:I always learn something new from these threads. One thing I learned from this one was to keep a pillow on the floor below my chin.
:thumbsup: :lol:

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#236

Post by Takao » 18 Jul 2014, 22:52

OpanaPointer wrote:I always learn something new from these threads. One thing I learned from this one was to keep a pillow on the floor below my chin.
I thought you had learned that one from robdab years ago.

After him, very little surprises me anymore...

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#237

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 19 Jul 2014, 07:24

RichTO90 wrote:
Those damned Machiavellian New York Democrats! You just gotta watch out for them all the time... :roll:
Especially when this NY-Dem was blood related to the ASTOR Family , owners of the original Empress of China(1783). :wink:

But hey , I guess the whole "Great Game" was just a conspiracy theory too and did not occur, and that today, everything at most American stores is Made in China is the result of a 200+ year fluke and not a long term business plan.:lol:

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#238

Post by Takao » 19 Jul 2014, 10:14

ChristopherPerrien wrote: Especially when this NY-Dem was blood related to the ASTOR Family , owners of the original Empress of China(1783). :wink:
Wrong "rich" family...

The "Empress of China" was owned by Robert Morris and Daniel Parker & Co. I'm sure you have heard of Morris, as he signed the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the US Constitution. Morris later went bankrupt after several land speculation ventures.

John Jacob Astor didn't enter the China trade until 1796.

So, yes, since you cannot get even the basic facts straight, it would be a "conspiracy theory."

Square facts, round holes.

Or, is this another "Point of Departure."

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5659
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#239

Post by OpanaPointer » 19 Jul 2014, 18:46

NVM
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#240

Post by Takao » 19 Jul 2014, 22:26

i would also add that FDR was not related to the Astors through blood, but through marriage.

FDR's paternal half-brother, James Roosevelt Roosevelt married Helen Schermerhorn Astor in 1878, and FDR's maternal great uncle, Franklin Hughes Delano, married Laura Astor in 1844.

More square facts and round holes.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”