Tobruk, 1941 - Help!

[Aaron2]

I understand. One of the reasons I chose the ETO for my game was the proliferation of good references for that arena.

I used to be exclusively interested in the ETO myself, but two books, primarily Touch With Fire by Eric Bergerud and Campaign for Guadalcanal by Jack Coggins, got me interested in the PTO.

Of course, that last part I'm not stating as 'truth', but as a definite impression represented by several in power in the years preceding WWII, whether out of actual belief or as fuel for imperialism expansionism.

In the October 1997 issue of Command Magazine, there is a great article called The Author and the Admiral. It talks about a book written in 1925 called The Great Pacific War about a war between Japan and America. In the book, Japan launches a simultaneous attack on the Philippines and the US Pacific fleet (based at the time in San Pedro CA). The Japanese also seized Truk, Guam, Yap and all the Marshall and Mariana Islands. At this point in the book, the Japanese try to negotiate a peace with the badly beaten US. However the US refuses, and decides instead to build of their fleet and counter attack. The US uses her superior industrial might to launch a two prong attack, one from Hawaii to Midway to Wake to Guam. The other is from Samoa to Truk to Anguar to the Philippines and finally Japan itself. The book ends with carrier borne US aircraft dropping leaflets over Tokyo advising Japan to surrender (which, it the book, it does). Yamamoto was such a fan of the book that in 1927, he gave started giving lectures about it to other in the IJN academies. It’s weird how close the book is to the actual war. The invasion of the Philippines is almost exactly as IRL except the landing on Mindinao was in Sindangan Bay instead of the Davao Gulf.

The author talks about other things the Japanese could have done instead of attacking the US. One example was to quickly seize just the Dutch East Indies in 1940 while Britain was threatened with invasion and the US was mostly neutral. The US didn't have the power to stop them and probably wouldn't have declared war at the time. One of the reasons for Japans action (at least according to the article) is the Japanese concept of Wa (harmony). At the time, decisions were made by consensus and it was bad form to rock the boat. So, even though it might have made sense for Japan to drop the notion of the US as being their #1 enemy, no one, Yamamoto included, wanted to challenge the prevailing thought. I probably don't do this idea justice. The article spends several pages just on this point.


Aaron

 

[ledded]

I used to be exclusively interested in the ETO myself, but two books, primarily Touch With Fire by Eric Bergerud and Campaign for Guadalcanal by Jack Coggins, got me interested in the PTO.

You're the third person who has mentioned that Coggins book in a good light, so on the 'to read' list it goes. I've recently gotten a lot more interested in the Mediterranean part of the war, which seems to be the most ignored sector of the whole war as a whole.

In the October 1997 issue of Command Magazine, there is a great article called The Author and the Admiral. It talks about a book written in 1925 called The Great Pacific War about a war between Japan and America. <snip>

Hmmm... that is VERY intruiging. I'm very tempted to attempt to find that book, or at least that magazine article.

One of the reasons for Japans action (at least according to the article) is the Japanese concept of Wa (harmony). At the time, decisions were made by consensus and it was bad form to rock the boat. So, even though it might have made sense for Japan to drop the notion of the US as being their #1 enemy, no one, Yamamoto included, wanted to challenge the prevailing thought. I probably don't do this idea justice. The article spends several pages just on this point.
Aaron

Yes, it was not only bad form to rock the boat but could also lead to a one-way trip to seppuku . It may make sense in hindsight for the Japanese to have taken actions to dissuade or lull the US, but I still personally feel that the U.S. was destined to get into the war, one way or the other; there was just too much going on and the US had taken a very allied-supportive, pro-active "neutral" position to have been kept out for much longer than they were, barring the Pearl attack. And the Japanese knew it, they had been too closely watching American imperial 'creep' for too many years to ignore it for long. So IMO while the US may have stayed out of the war in europe, I still think they would have been drawn to the Pacific sooner or later even without the Japanese preemptive attack.

 

[Arrgh! Mark!]

Ahh, warlike discussion is fun

(Snippy)
And don't forget that there was a small provision that the Japanese requested be made to the Treaty of Versailles to endorse the principle of the equality of all races, which was flatly scratched by the US and Britain, and is thought by many to have been that slap in the face that further pushed feelings of racial japanese superiority. Plus, there were several factions with power in Japanese government that saw the US as a direct threat; an imperialist nation creeping ever closer to Japan's imperial ambitions while using treaty to limit Japan's expansion (while similarly expanding nearly unabated into areas that Japan coveted).

Ledded: An interesting and probably quite valid point - as I said, Japan really did get the shaft from our more paternalistic nations. I'd be unsure if this slap in the face was any marking point though. I think the denial of territory claims probably hurt a fair bit more - to a growing imperial presence.



I had a very large post detailing lots of interesting facts and then I realised most of it was speculative nonsense anyway. So I spare you reading it.


Ledded - I've read your story hour - good work too - but I'd like to ask how much history makes it into the actual game itself? Realistic battles or political events I mean. Also, is there a possibility of changing history in your games?

 

[ledded]

Ahh, warlike discussion is fun
Ledded: An interesting and probably quite valid point - as I said, Japan really did get the shaft from our more paternalistic nations. I'd be unsure if this slap in the face was any marking point though. I think the denial of territory claims probably hurt a fair bit more - to a growing imperial presence.

Oh, I agree, I was just adding that bit to the pile. The number one reasons would be denial of territorial claims while the other Allies of WWI continued with their own unabated expansionism.

I had a very large post detailing lots of interesting facts and then I realised most of it was speculative nonsense anyway. So I spare you reading it.

Oh, post away man, I'd love to read it. I love to speculate myself, based on whatever facts I have gathered, though I am only an armchair historican and not an actual one.

Ledded - I've read your story hour - good work too - but I'd like to ask how much history makes it into the actual game itself? Realistic battles or political events I mean. Also, is there a possibility of changing history in your games?

Thanks, I appreciate the compliment. I actually strive for a very realistic/historical type feel, but it's quite hard with the fact that the heros are superheros . But at the same time, I will often toss in historical figures (whether the PC's recognize them or not) and events. The timeframe and locations that they face are as close to a real one as I can put them, and I tried very hard to give them the overwhelming feel of the German opposition at Arnhem when we played (they actually caught a glimpse of Colonel Frost and his men being trucked away right as they arrived, which I forgot to write into the story). I actually handed out pictures of the bridge, observation photos, photos of the city, and maps that I had downloaded with their objective marked on it. They most certainly can change history (and have, but haven't realized it yet), and actually know that somewhere they have to... the one character who has some flashback/flashahead knowledge of the future knows how dark it will become, but at the same time they know if they mess with things *too* much that other bad things can happen.

For instance, they could have arrived in Arnhem early, supported Frost, said to heck with their assigned mission, and tried to hold the bridge until the Shermans arrived. It would have been an interesting twist to say the least.

So I give them the same real events/history, but with "alternate" events that aren't common knowledge that involve supers, and I keep an updated outline so I don't get too lost.

Most of that is because I actually wanted to do a straight, gritty, Airborne or commando type campaign and some folks wanted to do supers, so I jammed 'em together to make everyone happy.