tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19773100985290848912024-03-15T18:10:29.283-07:00rethinking history"History is a tangled skein that one may take up at any point, and break when one has unravelled enough." Henry AdamsNigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.comBlogger122125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-79923264006509084292021-06-14T03:48:00.001-07:002021-06-14T05:18:08.705-07:00What if Japan's attempt at a decisive June 1942 'Midway' battle, had been at Ceylon instead?<p>Another amusing 'what if' that came out of the current series of 'what if' articles. Enjoy.</p><p><b>What if Japan had made a serious effort to finish off the USN first? Rather than shifting most of their attention back to Malaya, the East Indies, Darwin, and the Indian Ocean for 5 or 6 months, and allowing the USN so much time to recover?</b></p><p>And by that, I mean what if Japan had at least followed through with at least a third strike on Pearl Harbour, or, better, with an actual invasion of Hawaii. </p><p>(See my previous post on the debate over <a href="http://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.com/2021/06/pearl-harbour-follow-up-invasion-plan.html" target="_blank">Japanese plans for such an invasion</a> of Hawaii. Yamamoto and Nimitz both stated categorically that not following through was the greatest mistake the Japanese ever made.)</p><p>What if the Japanese had pro-actively concentrated on a 'USN first' strategy, and left the 'clean up' against their other flank until they were completely sure the USN threat was properly undermined?</p><p>What if they had concentrated most of their resources from December 1941 until May 1942 on completing the destruction of the USN – rather than wandering backwards and forwards to raid Darwin and the Indian Ocean – before trying to force a Midway style conclusive battle? </p><p>If they had substantially reduced the USN in that way, then the Midway style 'decisive battle' plan would have been aimed at the British Eastern Fleet at Ceylon instead.</p><p><b>The two front trap...</b></p><p>Trying to solve the two front trap was the defining issue for aggressors in both World War's. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan" target="_blank">Schlieffen Plan </a>of WW1, and the Pearl Harbour/Indian Ocean raids of WWII: were both samples of how failing to solve this issue guaranteed losing the war.</p><p>Japan's problem was that they couldn't risk seizing British and Dutch possessions without dealing with their vulnerable flank against the US.</p><p>Equally, they couldn't risk dealing with the US without opening their vulnerable flank against potential British/Dutch counter operations. (It's not just the 'possible', 'eventual', threat of a British fleet strong enough to mount an actual offensive they had to fear. Don't underestimate the immediate threat of those dozens of Dutch submarines based in Java against vital Japanese communications in the South China Sea between their homeland and their forces in China and Indochina.)</p><p>However it is interesting to speculate on whether it would have been more sensible for the Japanese to concentrate their first few months on the Americans, just assuming the British would not be in any position to mount a major counter threat for many months? (A pretty realistic assumption in early 1942.)</p><p>Could that have been more effective than splitting Japanese forces between operations against everyone simultaneously?</p><p>In reality of course, we know that the impressive looking efforts careening all over 1/3 of the globe trying to take out the USN at one end and the RN at the other end: just meant that neither was really defeated badly enough to be driven from the field more than temporarily. Despite the Allies slower battleship units sometimes being pushed back as far as the African or US West Coasts, worryingly strong Allied mobile forces always remained hovered around the Indian Ocean and Central and South Pacific. Forces quite capable of mounting Doolittle raids; invasions of Madagascar; spoiling attacks on the Andaman's; or around New Guinea; or at Guadalcanal. </p><p>But instead of concentrating on finishing off one opponent or the other, the IJN just rushed backwards and forwards to more and more frantic attempts to achieve 'decisive' results here or there, usually with ever decreasing numbers of planes operating from less and less carriers each time.</p><p>What could they have achieved by concentrating on one opponent at a time?</p><p><b>Properly taking out one ally at a time?</b></p><p>I think we have to accept that the IJN simply couldn't take its whole navy to deal with the RN in the Indian Ocean in December 1941with an undamaged USN 'at peace' on its flank. Their logic in thinking they had to reduce the threat from the USN even just temporarily if they were going to attack the British Commonwealth, is pretty unassailable.</p><p>But should we write off the idea that they might have concentrated practically their whole navy on the USN for the first 4 or 5 months, before worrying about cleaning up Malaya and the Netherlands East Indies? Decisive victory on one front should automatically allow for a much better attempt at decisive victory on the other front. Particularly as the RN needed at least 5 or 6 months to gather a reasonable force for even defensive operations, let alone for offensive ones.</p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">But in this scenario, it would be far easier to completely finish off the threat from the USN (at least for several years), while reversing the 'final battle' strategy for use against the RN instead!</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">With the USN reduced to impotence, and the main Japanese fleet based at Singapore (which it actually was sometimes, even under the two front threat), then the IJN had a real chance of enticing the British into a decisive 'Battle of Tsushima' in mid to late 1942. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Consider a Midway style operation, but aimed at Ceylon, and with no effective USN to threaten its flank? If the Japanese had garrisoned Hawaii and Midway already, and done a couple of Darwin/Indian Ocean style raids on the US West Coast (hopefully reducing the USN to only one active carrier the way they actually did in late 1942 anyway): then such a Midway style operation might not even lack Shokaku and Zuikaku? (Admittedly the attrition rates of such a series of attacks would still see much reduced squadron numbers, and a lot of less skilled pilots, in the Japanese carriers. But it is still a sobering thought.)</span></p><p>Should the IJN have had its own 'Germany First' policy, on the same logic basis of knocking out the greatest threat, and dealing with the less immediately capable foe later? </p><p>Should Japan have gone full 'USN first'?</p><p>Most sensible strategists would probably say yes. If you are going to throw the dice in taking on too many enemies, then concentrating on a decisive blow against one of them before spreading your forces against several is pretty much Strategy 101.</p><p><b>But would it have made a difference?</b></p><p>In reality all the wandering back and forth for 6 months prevented the IJN from concentrating a strong enough strike to win at Midway. (Though there was still a lot of luck involved in the US victory.)</p><p>But frankly their situation might have been in no way improved had they spent those 3 or 4 months decisively defeating the USN, and given the RN the breather it needed to get a proper force in place in time to face whatever the much reduced IJN could throw at them after occupying Hawaii and bombing US West Coast bases.</p><p>In fact it might come down to whether they IJN could get the USN out of the way and re-concentrate against the RN by April 1 (when the Indian Ocean raid actually happened... probably the last time they had a really good chance), or if it still would have had to wait until at least May (Coral Sea), or June (Midway itself).</p><p>The delay until at least May, and very probably until June, might have been enough to change everything...</p><p><b style="font-family: inherit;">A June 1942 'decisive battle'... of Ceylon?</b></p><div>The actual Indian Ocean Raid in April 1942 saw 5 IJN carriers and the 4 Kongo class battlecruisers deployed; while the Kaga went home for service and repair, and the main IJN battle-fleet stayed defensively 'closer to home'. The Japanese faced a hastily gathered and still incomplete force of 3 British carriers – the modern armoured carriers Formidable and Indomitable, and the smaller, slower Hermes – and 5 battleships – the modernised Warspite, and 4 older and slower Revenge class.</div><div><br /></div><div>But what if the IJN didn't arrive until the time of real Midway? What would they have faced then?</div><div><br /></div><div>In this scenario lets assume the actual forces Japan used at Midway. </div><div><br /></div><div>7 Japanese carriers and 7 battleships, in 3 separate forces, against the ships Britain would have available by then, 5 carriers and 9 battleships.</div><div><br /></div><div>For Japan, the carriers - Kaga, Akagi, Horyu and Siryu - plus the battlecruisers Haruna and Kirishima in the Striking Force; and the 3 battleships from Yamamoto's Main Body - Yamato, Nagato and Mutsu - plus their escort carrier Hosho. Plus the battlecruisers Kongo and Hiei and carrier Zuiho with the invasion force, and a couple of seaplane carriers, up to a dozen cruisers and 30 odd destroyers split between the 3 forces. Operating perhaps 240 carrier aircraft.</div><div><br /></div><div>[Another 4 slower Japanese battleships and 2 light carriers were feinting against the Aleutians, but even though Yamamoto's immediate response to the loss of 3 carriers was to call those two south at speed, there was no way that they would have got there in time to be of use. So we will discount that force, and assume that in a major Indian Ocean operation, those units at least would have stayed 'closer to home', defending Japan an its vital communications in the South China Sea.]</div><div><br /></div><div>For Britain the armoured carriers Illustrious, Formidable and Indomitable, the older fleet carrier Eagle, and the light carrier Hermes (the equivalent of the Hosho). With about 160 carrier borne aircraft, plus a similar number in land based support on Ceylon, meaning perhaps 340+ aircraft.</div><div><br /></div><div>[Roughly similar to US numbers at real Midway, but with 5 flight decks rather than 3 for the Japanese to have to find and sink... 3 of them the sort of armoured decks that easily shrugged off Japanese bombs and kamikaze strikes later in the war and continued operating! As one US observer noted in 1945, "A hit that would put an American carrier in dry-dock for six months, in the RN is just 'sweepers man your brooms'."]</div><div><br /></div><div>Also 9 battleships: Nelson, Rodney, Warspite, Valiant, Malaya, Revenge, Resolution, Ramillies and Royal Sovereign. (Compared to <i>NO</i> US battleships available for the USN at Midway...) </div><div><br /></div><div>And as a bonus the RN would have considerably more cruisers, destroyers, and possibly even submarines than the USN had available for Midway. Midway 8 cruisers, 15 or so destroyers. Ceylon a bit harder to say, but back in March they had had 7 cruisers, 15 destroyers, and the numbers planned for redeployment should have at least doubled that by June. Only in submarines did the 19 the USN had at Midway probably outnumber the total the RN would have had at Ceylon. 7 were available in March, and the number would have more than doubled by June, but perhaps not tripled...</div><div><br /></div><div>[Note - for the curious and for pedants – the deployment dates of RN capital ships are from <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Principal_War_Telegrams_and_Memoranda_19.html?id=3EEgAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y" target="_blank">British Cabinets Principal War Telegrams</a> (B). 9. no 189; and (E). 1. no.334.]</div><div><br /></div><div>In reality of course, at Midway the Japan didn't have their 7 carriers and 7 battleships close enough to support each other. The strike force of 4 carriers and 2 battlecruisers was defeated long before the Main Body or the Invasion Force could add their 5 extra battleships/battlecruisers and 2 light carriers to the mix. And way way before any call the other 2 light carriers and 4 battleships 'trailing their coats' in the Aleutians would have helped. (The IJN's fabulously overcomplicated plans, and constant dispersion of forces that would have done better concentrated repeatedly saved the Allied cause. Imagine if the IJN Strike Group had actually included all 9 available carriers supported by even just the 7 27+knot – of the 11 available – battleships! Game over.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Frankly it would be a far more even fight between the RN and IJN at Ceylon, than the fight between the USN and IJN at Midway actually was. With the RN actually having superior numbers in both carriers and battleships (as well as aircraft) by the time of Midway, and able to slug it out in a way that the 3 US carriers with no battleship and very little cruiser support simply could not have risked. The USN could only 'ambush and run'. The RN would have been able to stand and fight, and perhaps even pursue.</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>Some qualifications on the dangers to the worldwide strategic situation</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Just to note the effects of such a concentration of British ships, and the probable effects on other theatres...</div><div><br /></div><div>Present in the Indian Ocean by April 1 were the carriers Formidable, Indomitable and Hermes, and battleships Warspite, Revenge Resolution, Royal Sovereign and Ramillies. This was already the biggest concentration of allied capital ships anywhere in the world at the time.</div><div><br /></div><div>Reinforcements targeted for arrival during April and May were the carriers Illustrious and Eagle, and battleships Valiant, Malaya, Nelson and Rodney. The planned total of 5 carriers and 9 battleships in one fleet being by far the largest concentration of capital ships that any nation could field so far from home prior to the USN's 'luxury of new and rebuilt shipping' available much later in the war. </div><div><br /></div><div>[In fact, at that point, the only way any other navy on earth could field a bigger fleet in one place, was if Japan could take the risk of moving practically her entire navy 10,000km – that's a quarter of the globe – away from home waters... That's between 4 and 5 times the distance from home of even the furthest Japanese deployments for the Midway operation... Frankly taking that sort of risk is fantasy stuff, even if the entire USN has been practically eliminated as a threat. Imagine what fun the USN could have with some 'Doolittle raids' if they were absolutely certain that the nearest IJN battleship or carrier was 10,000k away!]</div><div><br /></div><div>But, to be honest, I think that if the RN had had to concentrate this much in the Indian Ocean for most of 1942, then Malta would have fallen, and the North African campaign would have dragged on for even more years. So we can't pretend there would not be problems in the RN making such deployments. (And Churchill queried Roosevelt about adding the two US ships currently assisting the RN in the Atlantic - the brand new battleship Washington and the light carrier Ranger - to that total, which would have made the Mediterranean situation even worse... But King was, unsurprisingly, totally opposed.)</div><div><br /></div><div>However too many people overlook the fact that Rommels last great surge forward in North Africa, that lead to the battles of Al-Alamein, were <i>precisely</i> because the RN did re-deploy most of these ships to the Indian Ocean when needed in early 1942. Effectively reducing their Eastern Mediterranean deployments to only a half dozen cruisers and a couple of dozen destroyers, thus allowing Rommel the supplies and freedom of action he had previously lacked. </div><div><br /></div><div>(Thus also keeping the interwar 'main fleet to Far East' promise to effectively abandon the Mediterranean if Australia or India were actually under threat. Too many people – particularly British and Australian 'historians' – fail to notice that minor detail...) </div><div><br /></div><div>Most of the RN ships named above were either already already deployed, or still on their way, when the USN's Coral Sea victory in May reduced the pressure. The Midway victory reduced pressure even further, and actually allowed more than half the Eastern Fleet deployments to turn back to the Mediterranean and spend the middle of 1942 saving Malta instead. (The vital Pedestal Convoy in August 1942 - escorted by 4 carriers, 2 battleships, 7 cruisers, 32 destroyers and 7 submarines – was only possible because the remaining Mediterranean carriers – Victorious an Argus – could be reinforced by elements withdrawn from the Eastern Fleet after Midway. Specifically the battleships Nelson and Rodney, and the carriers Indomitable and Eagle.) </div><div><br /></div><div>However there is no doubt that had the USN continued to suffer defeats at Coral Sea and Midway, the RN's increased deployments to the Indian Ocean would have had to go ahead. As it would have anyway had Pearl Harbour been occupied, or had the remnants of the USN been pushed back to California bases. So saving the situation in Asia would have been at dreadful cost in the Mediterranean. The war in Europe might have been extended by another year or more.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Tactical Perspectives of a 'Battle of Ceylon' (on 4-7 June 1942, time of Midway battle)</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>1. Surprise</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>Much is made of the fact that intelligence intercepts meant that the USN knew the Japs were coming at Midway on June 4. Most people don't remember that the British Eastern Fleet also had intelligence intercepts for the April 4 Indian Ocean Raid. Admiral Somerville had positioned his fleet perfectly for a night ambush on the day intelligence expected them, April 1... (Only for the Japanese to be delayed by 3 days by oiling issues). If the IJN had turned up at Ceylon in June, you can bet the farm that the RN would have had adequate intelligence to mount another ambush.</div><div><br /></div><div>But instead of Nagumo's 4 carriers and 2 battlecruisers facing only the 3 USN carriers and no battleships they faced at Midway; or facing the 3 RN carriers and 5 battleships they would have faced in April; by June the IJN would face 5 RN carriers and 9 battleships... the 4 RN carriers and 5 battleships of the Fast Force, with the other 4 battleships and their support carrier of the Slow Force perhaps 50/50 chances of being close enough to support. </div><div><br /></div><div>Given it's intelligence and radar superiority, the element of surprise - both strategic and tactical – would almost certainly go to the RN. </div><div><br /></div><div>[As it did in April, but unfortunately only after Somerville had spent 3 fruitless nights in ambush position for the expected April 1 arrival, and then returned to his secret base at Addu Atoll to refuel... Catalina recce planes spotted the Japanese fleet just as his slow force was entering harbour, which meant his fast force could sail again within a few hours to reposition for ambush, but the slow support force not until much later. See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_raid#First_moves" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a> and <a href="https://www.armouredcarriers.com/battle-for-ceylon-hms-indomitable-formidable" target="_blank">Armoured Carrier.</a> Nonetheless by the evening of the 5th Somerville was again in position to ambush, and as darkness approached on April 5 – when his scouts found Nagumo's fleet late afternoon only 180 odd miles away – and he positioned for a night strike... only to have Nagumo serendipitously reverse course just in time.]</div><div><br /></div><div><b>2. Air strikes</b></div><div><br /></div><div>The IJN would still have a considerable advantage in purely carrier versus carrier planes... in daylight. At least 50% more carrier borne aircraft, and the RN's strike aircraft were far more effective at night, and far too vulnerable to use during the day. (They would almost certainly have been as easy to swat out of the sky had they been risked in a daylight attack, as the Devastators were at Midway.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Though probably this number advantage would not be enough of to overcome the radar guided fighter intercepts that had seen British multi-carrier forces hold off literally hundreds of combined German and Italian fighters and bombers in the Mediterranean. (See the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta_convoys" target="_blank">Malta Convoys</a> in general, and the particularly good descriptions of the aircraft carriers fighting off <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pedestal#Axis_plans" target="_blank">456 German and 358 Italian land based aircraft</a> on August 12 in Operation Pedestal... An operation that simply would not have happened unless the IJN had been smashed at Midway or Ceylon). </div><div><br /></div><div>On the Pedestal convoy, Victorious, Indomitable and Eagle, used only 72 fighters on rotating patrols to fight off 714 enemy aircraft. Assuming Indomitable and Eagle had slightly smaller loads at Ceylon in June, and Victorious' sisters Illustrious and Formidable also had a slightly smaller loads: that would give the RN about 80-85 fighters for this 'Midway' battle. But instead of facing 714 land based planes that knew exactly where the convoy was all day long, (and didn't have to protect their airfields in the process); they would only face 240 Japanese aircraft, (some of which had to stay and protect their own carriers). And the Japanese would have no accurate intelligence about where the British fleet might be, and would have to mount Coral Sea/Midway type sweeps to find them... (Note, at Midway the 3 USN carriers also had about 80 fighters, but unfortunately lacked the experience with radar intercepts to use them anywhere near as effectively.)</div><div><br /></div><div>The IJN's best bet obviously remained a surprise day attack by this experienced and skilled air strike arm. But whether they would get it is very doubtful. They still had to find the enemy, and then co-ordinate strikes; and then not get lost en-route; and then fight past the radar guided CAP; and the vast RN AA. (Again, while the USN still followed interwar doctrine and separated it's carrier task groups, the IJN and RN concentrated them for maximum AA and AS protection. See more on AA below.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Frankly by this stage the RN had so much experience with radar interception and holding off much larger German and Italian air strikes with relatively small CAP's, that it seems highly unlikely that the sorts of attacks the Japanese succeeded with at Midway would have had much chance getting similar results against the British fleet. </div><div><br /></div><div>[In fact even the IJN having 6 carriers rather than 4 probably wouldn't be enough to balance the technical odds. Even if we reversed the starting premise of the same forces as were used at Midway, and said Shokaku and Zuikaku were still undamaged after finishing off the USN; and still had enough functional air group to be able to support the other 4 carriers: the technical odds against the Japanese would still require considerable luck to overcome RN technology and experience. 2 Extra flight decks and a 50% increase of 100 to 120 extra planes would certainly help the odds a bit, but the IJN would still need the series of multiple lucky breaks the USN had at real Midway to gain a victory.]</div><div><br /></div><div>Nor would any RN strikes led by radar equipped torpedo bombers suffer from the hopeless/helpless wandering around and getting lost that both the IJN and USN air strikes suffered from at Coral Sea and Midway. (That saw dozens of planes run out of fuel before finding anything, or simply fail to get back before getting lost in the dark, or even trying to land on each others carriers!) Day or night, RN strikes could find their targets, and usually had a very good percentage of hits if they did get through. (Plus, their torpedoes actually worked... unlike those of the poor Devastator pilots who survived the slaughter at Midway long enough to actually launch against Japanese carriers!)</div><div><br /></div><div>But note that Somerville definitely didn't want to risk his slow and vulnerable torpedo bombers by day... He wanted to be in position to do an ambush strike at night. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>3. AA defenses...</b></div><div><br /></div><div>The combined AA of the 4 Jap carriers and the 2 escorting battlecruisers was probably less powerful, and certainly less effective, than that of a single Illustrious class carrier, or of the modernised battleship Valiant. To be blunt, Jap AA sucked. (In fact the main IJN 25mm AA gun was a practically useless waste of space compared to the far superior 40mm and 20mm medium and short range weapons of the Allies, and certainly couldn't defend either ranges adequately, let alone try and manage both ranges. Only the equivalent USN 1.1" – which still made up the majority of USN capital ship and cruiser weight AA at Midway – was a worse AA gun than the 25mm.)</div><div><br /></div><div>By contrast for the RN the modern AA batteries of the 3 British carriers, and the Valiant, amounted to 68 4.5" guns and there were more than 50 odd almost as effective 4" guns (both models having approximately equivalent rate of fire, and considerably better range, than the quite excellent 5"/38 on the newer USN ships). Let alone over 100 less effective 4.7" and over 300 2 pounder pom-poms and hundreds more 20mm and .50 MG's on the other RN ships in the fleet. (Particularly note the specialist Dutch AA cruiser <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Jacob_van_Heemskerck_(1939)" target="_blank">Jacob van Heemskerk</a>). 2 years of quite painful war experience had paid off for the RN. There was much more, much better, and much better directed, AA firepower on just the capital ships and cruisers of the Eastern Fleet, than in the entire Japanese navy put together at that time. </div><div><br /></div><div>But keep in mind, Somerville – with superior intel and the advantage of radar – was trying to avoid this sort of day action... His AA capabilities were really only a safeguard part of the backup plan, and preferably not even relevant to his ambush plan. However, given the – still unrecognised – range advantage of Japanese carrier aircraft, it was a very useful backup. Even if his night attack had taken 3 carriers as happened at Midway, that would still leave Hiryu's counter attack to deal with in the morning. And if the night attack hadn't managed to damage all 3 carriers, perhaps only getting one or two of them: then even if he fell back on the support force in daylight, they very probably wouldn't be out of range of some sort of counter-attack.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Eastern Fleets AA firepower would have been an excellent security blanket.</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>4. Night Fighting</b></div></div><div><br /></div><div>Although the IJN surface fleet had trained extensively for night fighting, the IJN's carrier arm was not capable of night operations. And of course, the IJN had virtually no radar (though Kaga for one had received a very simple set during her April refit that caused her to miss the Indian Ocean raid, not that it helped at Midway). The IJN also had absolutely no practical experience of using radar in combat. </div><div><br /></div><div>[The USN, still amateurs at radar in combat, weren't really trained to fight at night full stop at the time of Midway. See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Savo_Island" target="_blank">Savo Island</a> for a good discussion of that issue...]</div><div><br /></div><div>The RN of course, had extensive combat experience day or night, and lots of that combat experience had involved radar directed operations of all sorts. From night ambushes by surface units like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cunningham,_1st_Viscount_Cunningham_of_Hyndhope#Battle_of_Cape_Matapan_(March_1941)" target="_blank">Cape Matapan </a>and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_K#Force_K_(1941)" target="_blank">Force K</a> (particularly the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Duisburg_Convoy#Duisburg_(BETA)_Convoy_operation" target="_blank">Duisburg convoy battle</a>); and night strikes by aircraft like at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cunningham,_1st_Viscount_Cunningham_of_Hyndhope#Battle_of_Taranto_(November_1940)" target="_blank">Taranto</a> and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck#Chase" target="_blank">Bismarck</a>. And the Japanese had no answer at all to the British radar guided torpedo bombers at night. (They might be old fashioned looking biplanes, but if they can find and sink you when you can't even see them coming, you are at a considerable disadvantage.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Which is why Somerville planned his April ambush around his fast force making a night strike, and retiring on the slow force in daylight.</div><div><br /></div><div>The difference is that by June he would probably not even need to retire on his Slow Force. The Fast Force alone could handle anything Nagumo's Strike Force could offer, and only the arrival of Yamamoto's Main Force might require support from the Slow Force to deal with.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>5. Surface Action?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Well it did happen quite a bit during the war, from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Narvik" target="_blank">Narvik</a> to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck#Operation_Rhein%C3%BCbung" target="_blank">Bismarck action</a> to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_North_Cape" target="_blank">North Cape</a>: from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Calabria" target="_blank">Calabria</a> to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Matapan" target="_blank">Cape Matapan</a>; and from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Battle_of_Guadalcanal" target="_blank">Guadalcanal</a> to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf#Battle_of_Surigao_Strait_(25_October_1944)" target="_blank">Surigao Strait</a> to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Malacca_Strait" target="_blank">Malacca Strait</a>. So let's assume it could happen here.</div><div><br /></div><div>If the IJN Strike Force had only the 2 Kongo class battlecruisers they actually had at Midway, then they simply could not take on either the British Fast Force or Slow Force separately with any real chance of winning. Certainly not if they happened to be in company.</div><div><br /></div><div>Frankly I would like to think that Japanese dispositions would be more sensible for an attack on Ceylon than the 3 (or 4 if you include the Aleutians group),widely dispersed forces at Midway. Given that at Midway the Strike and Main forces both come roughy from Japan, whereas the invasion force comes from much further south, it is quite reasonable that two of the Japanese battlecruisers and 2 light carriers were diverted for protecting and supporting the invasion force. But for a Ceylon battle all the forces would all be coming pretty much from the same direction, so why not a bit more concentration?</div><div><br /></div><div>Let's say the 27 knot Yamato, Nagato and Mutsu with their 2 covering/invasion supporting light carriers cover the actual invasion force (if there is one... maybe they are out of resources for land ops if they have occupied Hawaii etc). Or at least form the traditional Japanese Support Force/covering force/ Main body/whatever coming along behind the Strike Force. That allows all 4 of the 30+ knot Kongo class battlecruisers to be with Nagumo's fast carrier strike fleet, the way they actually were in the April Raid. In theory those 4 working together might be willing to take on one of the RN forces. (And their speed would give them the option to run from superior numbers anyway.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Unfortunately the IJN's extremely vulnerable Kongo class battlecruisers (with only 8" belts - inferior to even the WW1 battlecruisers lost at Jutland) could simply not risk facing real battleships in slugging matches. Re-naming them 'fast battleships' during the 1930's could not disguise their lack of armour. And even the IJN's vaunted night fighting training probably couldn't have saved if they came anywhere near the radar guided British battleship guns. (Frankly it would take Kamikaze runs by IJN destroyers armed with the lethal Long Lance torpedoes to try and even the odds... and too many of the British cruisers and destroyers tasked with stopping such attacks had radar too...)</div><div><br /></div><div>A surface action between the 4 Kongo's and the 2 Nelsons supported by 3 Queen Elizabeths could only have one outcome... even without the 4 Revenge class being close enough to be in support.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Fantasy Stuff, for the fun of it...</b></div><div><br /></div><div>But what if the Japanese had actually really concentrated for once? If they abandoned the 'multiple forces converging from multiple directions' approach they used at Coral Sea, Midway, Philippines Sea, Leyte Gulf, and almost every battle in between: and actually sent Yamamoto's main body in as a close support force for Nagumo's strike fleet? Then you would have both sides using fast forces supported by slow forces, both of which contained both carriers and battleships/battlecruisers.</div><div><br /></div><div>The result of that would effectively be the Battle of the Leyte Gulf, but in June 1942. What fun!</div><div><br /></div><div>It is amusing, if unrealistic, to imagine a fleet action with the IJN's 7 battleships and battlecruisers in line against the RN's 9 battleships. The Japanese would have a clear speed advantage, but, even allowing for Yamato's 18" guns, the RN would have a substantial advantage in firepower and in weight of armour protection across the board. Only Yamato had armour at the levels of the British ships (<a href="http://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.com/2021/01/real-battleships-for-wwii-part-i.html" target="_blank">see my pretty detailed discussion of armour quality versus quantity here</a>), with even the Nagato's quite lightly protected by British standards. And the Kongo's were practically defenceless against heavy shells of any sort. </div><div><br /></div><div>Let alone the RN's considerable accuracy advantage based on their radar and superior gunnery in general. A post war USN report noted that the RN's 15" guns were the most reliable and accurate big guns of the war. Warspite for instance had achieved the longest range hits against another battleship in history - 25 miles - at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Calabria#Battleship_engagement" target="_blank">Calabria</a>, (and the Scharnhost got hits from a similar range against the carrier Glorious the same year.. with 11" guns!).. The longest range Japanese 'hits' ever recorded were some near misses in perfect daylight conditions, by the Yamato at 19 miles in 1944, that nevertheless sunk an escort carrier. (Though I'd be interested if someone can quote a longer range hit?)</div><div><br /></div><div>Even in clear weather, and in daylight, the RN would have a significant advantage in a pounding match. In poor visibility conditions, or at night, with radar direction, the RN's advantage would be completely overwhelming. That would probably still be the case even if the 4 Revenge's were not within range, and the 5 British battleships of the Fast Force engaged the 3 IJN battleships and their 4 battlecruiser supporters simultaneously. </div><div><br /></div><div>But that is vanishingly unlikely.</div><div><br /></div><div>In reality the two sides fast and slow squadrons would be manoeuvring around each other more like the various squadrons at Jutland, than the crashing lines at Trafalgar. And the problem with that is that even if the Japanese Strike Force's Kongo's accidentally got through to attack the Revenge's in the Slow Force, they would probably lose; and if they more realistically met the British Fast Force head on, they would definitely lose. Their only chance was to try and lure the Fast Force back into range of the Yamato and the Nagato's... where, excepting a striking bit of luck, they would still probably lose.</div><div><br /></div><div>Even the vaunted Yamato supported by a couple of Nagato's, doesn't stand much of a chance against a pair of radar equipped Nelson's supported by 3 radar equipped Queen Elizabeths.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Re-emphasising that 'two front' dilemma</b></div><div><br /></div><div>In reality the IJN tried to win just enough against the USN at Pearl Harbour to keep them unable to respond for a while; then rush over to try and beat the RN badly enough in the Indian Ocean to clear the threat to that flank; in time to rush back and finally defeat the USN at Midway. In reality all 3 attempts failed to achieve their goals.</div><div><br /></div><div>To use a baseball term, "Three strikes and you're out"...</div><div><br /></div><div>The alternative solution suggested here is that they should have just left a minimal screen against the RN for a few months; spent the time to properly eliminate any immediate threat from the USN; and then been able to turn their full resources to properly defeating the RN on the other flank.</div><div><br /></div><div>Problem is, as the above makes clear, that probably wouldn't have worked either.</div><div><br /></div><div>There can't be much doubt that by the time the USN had been comprehensively defeated, and the somewhat weakened IJN finally turned to face the RN, the British buildup would have been too great for the Japanese to have much chance of victory.</div><div><br /></div><div>In other words, regardless of which allies absorbed the damage during the crucial 6 months in the process of preventing the Japanese claiming a decisive victory, the end result was always going to be allowing the other ally to build adequate strength to face the Japanese.</div><div><br /></div><div>In reality it seems that the IJN's best result was what they actually did. Disabling the USN temporarily; then disrupting the British buildup before it was complete (with at least a chance of a decisive victory there); and then getting a better than even chance shot at the USN at Midway, (where a proper concentration of forces might still have given them a victory.)</div><div><br /></div><div>By contrast if they had taken that few extra months to occupy Hawaii, attack the US West Coast, and seek and destroy any remaining USN in the Pacific: the RN would have been given the time it needed to build practically unassailable strength in the Indian Ocean.</div><div><br /></div><div>Frankly, it seems likely that if the IJN had concentrated on the USN for months and left the RN relatively untroubled, it would actually have worked out worse for the IJN in the long run.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-26727143277779137252021-06-11T21:28:00.000-07:002021-06-11T21:28:01.039-07:00Pearl Harbour - the follow up invasion plan <p><b>In the afternoon of December 7, 1941, Admiral Nagumo's staff <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Possible_third_wave" target="_blank">debated whether a third strike should be made on Pearl Harbour</a>?</b></p><p><b>The answer should have been, "Yes, we must completely control the air before Admiral Yamamoto arrives with the main body and the invasion fleet..."</b></p><p><b>That after all, had been the original plan supported by Fuchida and Genda and many others...</b></p><p>This fun little conception started from my previous post, which looked at how the Battle of Midway might have turned out if Japan had not been attacking Britain, Thailand, the Netherlands and Australia as well as the US, and had actually concentrated her forces on a proper defeat of the US.</p><p>In that article I started with Midway at the time of Midway, but without the distraction and attrition of fighting Britain, the Netherlands and Australia over the prior six months.</p><p>Obviously, the results would not have been good for the USN.</p><p>Then I considered the likelihood's of having to fight the 'decisive battle' earlier, say at the time of Coral Sea (May); or of the Indian Ocean Raid (April); or of the Darwin Raid (March); or of the Java Sea (February); or of the Makassar Strait (January).</p><p>But when I actually looked at alternative Japanese plans, it became clear that the real challenge would have been if the Japanese had followed through on their proposed invasion of Hawaii in the first attacks.</p><p>Here is the summary of that option from my last article:</p><p><b><i>Pearl Harbour, but no allies</i></b></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>If Japan wasn't trying to attack everywhere at once, and could concentrate the forces allocated against the British, Thais, Burmese and Dutch against the US, why not follow through? Even Nagumo would have been willing to take a third strike against Pearl in these circumstances. Particularly with his boss Yamamoto and his main body (with more support tankers) were following close behind, and carrying the 3 crack divisions no longer needed to invade for Malaya for an invasion of Hawaii! </b></span></p><p>It is worth quoting the entire <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Concept_of_a_Japanese_invasion_of_Hawaii" target="_blank">Wikipedi entry on the planned Japanese invasion </a>(referenced 11 May, 2021):</p><h3 style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0.5em;"><i><span class="mw-headline" id="Concept_of_a_Japanese_invasion_of_Hawaii">Concept of a Japanese invasion of Hawaii</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1em; margin-left: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; user-select: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color: #54595d; margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor&action=edit&section=6" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none; white-space: nowrap;" title="Edit section: Concept of a Japanese invasion of Hawaii">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color: #54595d; margin-left: 0.25em;">]</span></span></i></h3><p style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0.5em 0px;"><i>At several stages during 1941, Japan's military leaders discussed the possibility of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_United_States" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Invasion of the United States">launching an invasion</a> to seize the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_Islands" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Hawaiian Islands">Hawaiian Islands</a>; this would provide Japan with a strategic base to shield its new empire, deny the United States any bases beyond the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_of_the_United_States" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="West Coast of the United States">West Coast</a> and further isolate Australia and New Zealand.</i></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0.5em 0px;"><i>Genda, who saw Hawaii as vital for American operations against Japan after war began, believed Japan must follow any attack on Pearl Harbor with an invasion of Hawaii or risk losing the war. He viewed Hawaii as a base to threaten the west coast of North America, and perhaps as a negotiating tool for ending the war. He believed, following a successful air attack, 10,000-15,000 men could capture Hawaii, and saw the operation as a precursor or alternative to a <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasion_of_the_Philippines" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Japanese invasion of the Philippines">Japanese invasion of the Philippines</a>. In September 1941, Commander Yasuji Watanabe of the Combined Fleet staff estimated two divisions (30,000 men) and 80 ships, in addition to the carrier strike force, could capture the islands. He identified two possible landing sites, near <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haleiwa" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Haleiwa">Haleiwa</a> and <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaneohe_Bay" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Kaneohe Bay">Kaneohe Bay</a>, and proposed both be used in an operation that would require up to four weeks with Japanese air superiority.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-caravaggio2014_46-0" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-caravaggio2014-46" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[40]</a></sup></i></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0.5em 0px;"><i>Although this idea gained some support, it was soon dismissed for several reasons:</i></p><ul style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; list-style-image: url("/w/skins/Vector/resources/common/images/bullet-icon.svg?d4515"); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><i>Japan's ground forces, logistics, and resources were already fully committed, not only to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Second Sino-Japanese War">Second Sino-Japanese War</a> but also for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War#Japanese_offensives.2C_1941.E2.80.9342" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="">offensives in Southeast Asia</a> that were planned to occur almost simultaneously with the Pearl Harbor attack.</i></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><i>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Army" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Imperial Japanese Army">Imperial Japanese Army</a> (IJA) insisted it needed to focus on operations in China and Southeast Asia, and refused to provide substantial support elsewhere. Because of a lack of cooperation between the services, the IJN never discussed the Hawaiian invasion proposal with the IJA.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-caravaggio2014_46-1" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-caravaggio2014-46" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[40]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-47" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-47" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[g]</a></sup></i></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><i>Most of the senior officers of the Combined Fleet, in particular Admiral Nagano, believed an invasion of Hawaii was too risky.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-48" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-48" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[h]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-caravaggio2014_46-2" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-caravaggio2014-46" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[40]</a></sup></i></li></ul><p style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0.5em 0px;"><i>With an invasion ruled out, it was agreed a massive carrier-based three wave airstrike against Pearl Harbor to destroy the Pacific Fleet would be sufficient. Japanese planners knew that Hawaii, with its strategic location in the Central Pacific, would serve as a critical base from which the United States could extend its military power against Japan. However, the confidence of Japan's leaders that the conflict would be over quickly and that the United States would choose to negotiate a compromise, rather than fight a long, bloody war, overrode this concern.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-49" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-49" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[i]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-50" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-50" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[41]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-51" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-51" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[42]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-52" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-52" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[43]</a></sup></i></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0.5em 0px;"><i>Watanabe's superior, Captain Kameto Kuroshima, who believed the invasion plan unrealistic, after the war called his rejection of it the "biggest mistake" of his life.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-caravaggio2014_46-3" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-caravaggio2014-46" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[40]</a></sup></i></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>What if the invasion had gone ahead?</b></span></p><p>My previous article assumes that Japan didn't attack Britain and the Netherlands and concentrated on the US instead.</p><p>But in fact the plan outlined above just diverted some of the resources from the Philippines invasion, while leaving the other operations in place. </p><p>(This would be a version of 'Island Hopping' in reverse... leaving the isolated Philippino garrison to 'wither on the vine', and for easy clean up later... In fact a slightly larger scale version of what actually happened anyway. Where, after the surprisingly easy conquest of Luzon, and the rapid retreat of MacArthur's forces to Bataan: the Japanese pulled most of their best units for other operations against Malaya, Burma and the East Indies for several months. Only returning to finish off the isolated Bataan/Corregidor garrison at a convenient time five months later. So this 'Hawaii first' option would just be a slightly larger version of the same strategy.)</p><p><b>So what was the actual goal of the Pearl Harbour operation? </b></p><p>Piss off the Americans? Tick.</p><p>Win a tactical advantage to prevent interference in expansion operations? Tick.</p><p>Inflict a comprehensive defeat on the USN? Half a tick.</p><p>Destroy Pearl Harbour as an operational base? Fail.</p><p>Inflict enough damage to prevent counterattack for years? Fail.</p><p>Drive the entire USN out of the central Pacific and back to the US West Coast? Fail.</p><p>Allow a genuine threat of air and bombardment raids on the US West Coast? Fail</p><p>Win a strategic victory that would give a chance of negotiated peace? Fail.</p><p>Frankly, if you are going to kick a sleeping giant awake, best to kick it hard enough to put it out of action for years, and give you a chance of genuine negotiation. </p><p>Not just enough to temporarily inconvenience it, and annoy it enough to invite massive retaliation.</p><p>In other words, either go full out, or don't do it at all!</p><p><b>"If you insist on doing this damn silly thing, don't do it in this damn silly way". (Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.) </b></p><div>The plan to weaken, and temporarily incapacitate the main USN fleet, was sensible enough. It may have looked risky, but it was a proven tactic.</div><p>Again, we can quote the Wikipedia article on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Planning" target="_blank">Japanese Planning for the Pearl Harbour attack</a>:</p><p><i><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">Several Japanese naval officers had been impressed by the British action in the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Battle of Taranto">Battle of Taranto</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">, in which 21 obsolete </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Fairey Swordfish">Fairey Swordfish</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"> disabled half the </span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regia_Marina" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Regia Marina">Regia Marina</a></span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"> (Italian Navy). Admiral Yamamoto even dispatched a delegation to Italy, which concluded a larger and better-supported version of Cunningham's strike could force the U.S. Pacific Fleet to retreat to bases in California, thus giving Japan the time necessary to establish a "barrier" defense to protect Japanese control of the Dutch East Indies. The delegation returned to Japan with information about the shallow-running torpedoes Cunningham's engineers had devised.</span><sup class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; white-space: nowrap;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed"><span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources. (August 2007)">citation needed</span></a>]</sup></i></p><p>The technical aspects of the plan were perfectly sensible, and in fact it worked.</p><p>However the more sensible advocates of the plan had expected it to at least involve the third strike against the oil supplies and dockyard facilities that would have put the base out of operation... (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Possible_third_wave" target="_blank">Wikipedia - Attack on Pearl Harbour - referenced May 18, 2021.</a>)</p><p style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0.5em 0px;"><i>If they had been wiped out, "serious [American] operations in the Pacific would have been postponed for more than a year";<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Gailey1997pp97-98_135-0" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-Gailey1997pp97-98-135" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[117]</a></sup> according to Admiral <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_W._Nimitz" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Chester W. Nimitz">Chester W. Nimitz</a>, later Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, "it would have prolonged the war another two years".<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-yergin327_136-0" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-yergin327-136" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[118]</a></sup> </i></p><ul style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; list-style-image: url("/w/skins/Vector/resources/common/images/bullet-icon.svg?d4515"); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><i><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-142" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"></sup></i></li></ul><p style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0.5em 0px;"><i>At a conference aboard his flagship the following morning, Yamamoto supported Nagumo's withdrawal without launching a third wave.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Gailey1997p97_141-1" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-Gailey1997p97-141" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[123]</a></sup> In retrospect, sparing the vital dockyards, maintenance shops, and the oil tank farm meant the U.S. could respond relatively quickly to Japanese activities in the Pacific. Yamamoto later regretted Nagumo's decision to withdraw and categorically stated it had been a great mistake not to order a third strike.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Gailey1997p98_143-0" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-Gailey1997p98-143" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[125]</a></sup></i></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">That decision in itself made the entire operation of dubious value. Temporary advantage gained at immense cost (in pissing of the US): when real advantage could have been gained with just a little more effort.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">There are justifications for Nagumo's decision:</span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0.5em 0px;"><i>Nagumo, however, decided to withdraw for several reasons:</i></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></p><ul style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; list-style-image: url("/w/skins/Vector/resources/common/images/bullet-icon.svg?d4515"); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><i>American anti-aircraft performance had improved considerably during the second strike, and two-thirds of Japan's losses were incurred during the second wave.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Hoyt190_137-0" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-Hoyt190-137" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[119]</a></sup></i></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><i>Nagumo felt if he launched a third strike, he would be risking three-quarters of the Combined Fleet's strength to wipe out the remaining targets (which included the facilities) while suffering higher aircraft losses.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Hoyt190_137-1" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-Hoyt190-137" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[119]</a></sup></i></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><i>The location of the American carriers remained unknown. In addition, the admiral was concerned his force was now within range of American land-based bombers.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Hoyt190_137-2" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-Hoyt190-137" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[119]</a></sup> Nagumo was uncertain whether the U.S. had enough surviving planes remaining on Hawaii to launch an attack against his carriers.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-138" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-138" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[120]</a></sup></i></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><i>A third wave would have required substantial preparation and turnaround time, and would have meant returning planes would have had to land at night. At the time, only the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Royal Navy">Royal Navy</a> had developed night carrier techniques, so this was a substantial risk.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-steven_139-0" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-steven-139" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[121]</a></sup></i></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><i>The task force's fuel situation did not permit him to remain in waters north of Pearl Harbor much longer since he was at the very limit of logistical support. To do so risked running unacceptably low on fuel, perhaps even having to abandon destroyers en route home.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-140" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-140" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[122]</a></sup></i></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><i>He believed the second strike had essentially satisfied the main objective of his mission—the neutralization of the Pacific Fleet—and did not wish to risk further losses.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Gailey1997p97_141-0" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-Gailey1997p97-141" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[123]</a></sup> Moreover, it was Japanese Navy practice to prefer the conservation of strength over the total destruction of the enemy.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-142" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-142" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[124]</a></sup></i></li></ul><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">But some of these look remarkably like retrospective excuses. In practice losing even half the IJN's carrier plane fleet to completely destroy Pearl Harbour as an operational base would have been infinitely more valuable than this half arsed effort that invited swift and sustained counter attack.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">I realise Nagumo's decision could, at least theoretically, be seen as part of a clever long term plan for weakening the USN by attrition as you reeled it in for the final battle where the IJN battle fleet would be able to deliver a <i>coup de gras, </i>but frankly that is fantastically unrealistic thinking. If you can't capitalise on the overwhelming success of actual surprise attack, then you certainly won't be able to make your enemy follow your beautiful little theories to the letter to enjoy their inevitable defeat!</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">I have said it before, and will say it again. Nagumo was a terrible Admiral, and repeatedly managed to snatch slow agonising long term defeat from the jaws of astonishing short term victories.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>A real victory - invasion of Hawaii</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">After a third wave on December 7 that concentrated on reducing active resistance, the job of the fourth and fifth waves on December 8 would have been purely air superiority over the island, as there would have been no need for further air-strikes against Pearl Harbour itself.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">There would have been no need, because half a dozen IJN battleships – most likely the two 27 knot Nagato's and the four 30+ knot Kongo's, (escorted by the 7th aircraft carrier Hosho), that actually did provide distant cover for the operation – would be giving an object lesson as to what <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir" target="_blank">Mers-el-Kebir</a> could have looked like if <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Somerville#European_operations,_1939%E2%80%931942" target="_blank">Somerville</a> hadn't consciously decided to do as little damage as possible. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">There is not much doubt that the 48 14" and 16" guns of those 6 capital ships could finish the operational destruction of both the US Pacific fleet and the Pearl Harbour base in pretty short order if the IJN controlled the air. (If they wanted to... perhaps leaving the dockyards an oil tanks intact for the invasion force to gather in would have been preferable? In fact it is amusingly possible to re-imagine the Doolittle Raid actually taking place as a USN strike against the captured ships and facilities of an occupied Pearl Harbour!)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">In fact the only real threat to a Japanese invasion fleet was potentially any USN submarines that might a) survive, b) manage to get to sea, and c) manage to get past a massive IJN air and surface screen to attack fast moving targets... (Let's be optimistic and suggest that one of them did actually hit one of the Japanese capital ships, and by some miracle the torpedo functioned... unlikely at that time... and damaged, but did not sink it... that is what actually happened later in the war... once the torpedo's were fixed anyway... so let's say it happened almost accidentally here... big deal... Particularly if the damaged ship could sail straight into an occupied Pearl harbour for repairs?)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">But the key element of the bombardment of Hawaii by the IJN would not actually have been doing further damage to the port facilities or the disabled ships, which by this point would actually be targets for capture. It would really be counter battery work (along with a dozen cruisers and two dozen destroyers), for suppressing any guns that might try to interfere with the invasion fleet landing two divisions on the morning of December 9 1941.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">But by that time the IJN aircraft and surface fleet would have almost completely suppressed much useful resistance, leaving the elite battle hardened Japanese divisions to sweep aside the poorly equipped and badly trained defenders, who might be determined, but whose devastated morale and complete lack of combat experience would quickly tell.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">You can fantasise as much as you like about iron jawed John Wayne types mounting a furious resistance, but, to use a phrase, it doesn't amount to a 'hill of beans' when it comes to battered amateurs against experienced professionals with full air and sea dominance and massive fire-power support. If something as strong and well garrisoned as Fort Eben-Emauel can fall to such a shockingly fast and powerful attack, then certainly an unprepared Hawaii can! Singapore was much better prepared, and much more heavily garrisoned 2 months later, but, stuck in a civilian disaster zone, they had no real chance against crack troops with complete dominance of air and sea.</span></p><p>If Japan had made any serious attempt to follow up with an invasion of Hawaii, then it is almost inconceivable that Hawaii would not have fallen.</p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Could the Lexington and Enterprise have intervened?</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">If the Japanese Strike Force had hung around instead of leaving, and the Japanese main body and invasion fleet were about to arrive and start further operations: it is hard to imagine the nearby American carriers not trying to intervene? (Though it would probably be more sensible for them to run for the US West coast instead.) </span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">[Saratoga was actually entering San Diego harbour when the attack started, while Lexington was near Midway and Enterprise had just sent 18 of her Dauntless's to Pearl that morning - and had most of them shot down either by a combination of the Japanese fighters and US AA!]</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>But even had the two carriers actually available been able to link up and co-ordinate somewhat</span><span>, they could hardly be in organised position to strike back much before the main body (with 6 capital ships, a seventh carrier, a dozen cruisers, and 2 or 3 dozen destroyers) arrived. It is also worth noting that Lexington for instance was still equipped with just 17 Buffalo fighters at this stage! Buffalo's!!! </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>The USN </span></span>, could still only really fight in daylight<span style="font-family: inherit;">, unlike the </span>IJN, which could also fight at night. (Or the<span style="font-family: inherit;"> RN, which could fight at night by both surface and air attack... The USN and IJN still lacked the radar guided torpedo bombers the RN had to make air attacks at night possible.) </span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Both US carriers together, fielding less than 40 fighters, half of them Buffalo's... against 147 Zero's... in daylight... And their Devastator torpedo bombers lacked a functional torpedo! It would be entirely down to perhaps a couple of dozen Dauntless dive bombers against 7 </span><span>Japanese</span><span> carriers and probably 6 battleships and God knows how many cruisers, destroyers and submarines as well.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">In reality we get this (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CV-6)#Pearl_Harbor" target="_blank">Wikipedia article on Enterprise sourced 30.4.2021</a>):</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122;">Enterprise</span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122;"> received radio messages from Pearl Harbor reporting that the base was under attack, and she was later directed to launch an </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airstrike" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Airstrike">airstrike</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122;"> based on an inaccurate report of a Japanese carrier southwest of her location. The strike was launched around 17:00, consisting of six </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F4F_Wildcat" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Grumman F4F Wildcat">Grumman F4F Wildcat</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122;"> </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Fighter aircraft">fighters</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122;"> of Fighting Squadron Six (VF-6), 18 </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_TBD_Devastator" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Douglas TBD Devastator">Douglas TBD Devastator</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122;"> </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_bomber" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Torpedo bomber">torpedo bombers</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122;"> of Torpedo Squadron Six (VT-6), and six SBDs of VB-6.</span><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-VF-6_12-0" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CV-6)#cite_note-VF-6-12" style="background-image: none; background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[12]</a></sup></i></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Six dive bombers against 6 Japanese carriers! The Devastators without functional torpedos are mere distractions. Even had Lexington rendezvoused next day for a joint strike, her 58 total bombers and torpedo bombers also come down to less than a couple of dozen extra dive bombers. Say 30 dive bombers and 40 fighters in total together against practically the entire Japanese navy? That's not even the size of a single strike from either Coral Sea or Midway, and with less advanced planes and way less experienced crews against the Japanese at peak numbers and efficiency!</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">It is very hard to see any combination of fantastic flukes that might make this a winning proposition for the USN.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Frankly it doesn't bear thinking about.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>What else might the Japanese have done, if truly committed.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Occupying the Hawaii islands and bases would be a good start. Particularly if the Americans were in such chaos that they didn't manage to destroy all the oil tanks, dockyards and their supplies, and finish the sinking (or flat blow up) their disabled ships. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">It is actually amusing to imagine the Japanese salvaging and returning to service half a dozen of the less damaged US battleships.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">The result would definitely have driven the remnants of the US navy back to the West Coast of the US, and thus allowed the occupation of Midway and the Philippines at leisure. In fact places like Guadalcanal could be swept up later with no opposition worth mentioning. The Australians or New Zealanders might have tried to send a battalion or so, but with US naval support cut off, it would be many months before any substantial reinforcements from Britain or the Eastern Fleet would interfere with the IJN doing what it liked in the South Pacific. Port Moresby would probably have fallen for instance.</span></p><p>What about the America's themselves?</p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">The I-400 class submarines, specifically designed to allow submarine born bombers to attack places like the Panama canal, were not even designed yet... but they certainly reveal Yamamoto's thinking.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">At the very least, a couple of Japanese submarines could have made an effort to shell the Panama Canal at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbour. With the objective of sinking a ship in a vital place.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">More dramatically, an actual block-ship might have been sacrificed. It would have been easy enough to position an old freighter - possibly flagged as if from China or Thailand</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> - during peacetime, at a place where it might have caused considerable damage. Whether it might have been possible to have it actually transiting the canal during the vital point (admittedly the middle of the day peak time for transit), so that it might take out a lock and do serious damage... well that might be optimistic. But it comes pretty close to what the Germans did with pre-positioning ships in their surprise attack on Norway during peacetime, so not necessarily unfeasible.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">The question is, how much follow up could the IJN put into strikes against the US West Coast itself?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Obviously no invasion could be contemplated. But arguably the efforts put into at least some of the Darwin Raid, Indian Ocean Raid, Coral Sea and Midway operations: would have been better put into smashing the USN's remaining Pacific reserves (particularly if Panama had been closed). And into attacking both </span>Californian <span style="font-family: inherit;">port facilities and industry. Specifically, Californian naval shipyards and aircraft factories.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">The argument against this is that the IJN had to remember it was facing a two front war, and be constantly prepared to face the British Eastern Fleet. In fact the whole point of the Darwin and Indian Ocean raids was to try and destroy, or at least limit, that threat.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">But in this scenario, it would be far easier to completely finish off the threat from the USN (at least for several years), while reversing the 'final battle' strategy for use against the RN instead. With the USN reduced to impotence, and the main Japanese fleet based at Singapore (which it actually was sometimes, even under the two front threat), then the IJN had a chance of enticing the British into a decisive 'Battle of Tsushima' in mid to late 1942. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Consider a Midway style operation aimed at forcing the British Eastern Fleet to fight at Ceylon, but with no effective USN to threaten its flank? If the Japanese have garrisoned Hawaii and Midway already, and done a couple of Darwin/Indian Ocean style raids on the US West Coast (hopefully reducing the USN to one active carrier the way they actually did in late 1942 anyway), then such a Midway style operation might not even lack Shokaku and Zuikaku? Admittedly the attrition rates of such a series of attacks would still see much reduced squadron numbers, and a lot of less skilled pilots, in the Japanese carriers. But it is still a sobering thought.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Success in negotiating peace?</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">This is a fun thought. If the USN has been neutralised, then obviously Japan would have to attempt to knock out the Eastern Fleet and make the Allies admit that a negotiated peace is the only alternative.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Frankly part of the plan to occupy Hawaii was the assumption that trading it back in return for peace would be a major attraction to the US. So peace in return for safety for US, New Zealand, Australia, India and Ceylon. With the bonus of the return of Hawaii and Burma, and possibly a neutralised zone Singapore under joint management. All offered when the IJN has achieved total victory, and there is nothing the US or Britain can do about it.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Given that Britain and Russia are still in a desperate struggle against Germany and Italy, it is hard to see what Britain could do about it if the US can't provide any useful support.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">But that requires the IJN to defeat the British Eastern Fleet as well as the US Pacific Fleet. and the longer operations continued against the USN, the less chance the IJN would have to catch the Eastern Fleet vulnerably incomplete.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">(I think my next article will have to be on 'would a US first strategy have worked any better? for Japan'...)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Let's just re-emphasise the concept of 'allies' here.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Frankly, had the Japanese felt safe to attack the British and Dutch without risking US entry to the war, they would have probably won well enough to force a negotiated peace. But of course they couldn't safely assume that Roosevelt couldn't overcome US isolationism. The USN, particularly based in the Philippines, could simply have cut Japan's supply lines to China and the new operational zones further south any time they felt like it.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Likewise, had the Japanese felt safe to attack the US without fearing British entry to the war, they would probably have won </span>well enough to force a negotiated peace. But of course they knew the British would know who was next in line if the USN collapsed, and that the British would understood absolutely the need to do everything possible to keep their allies in action. (Even Stalin...)</p><p>Japan's problem was that they couldn't risk seizing British and Dutch possessions without dealing with their vulnerable flank against the US.</p><p>Equally, they couldn't risk dealing with the US without opening their vulnerable flank against the potential British counter operations.</p><p>However it is interesting to speculate on whether it would have been more sensible for the Japanese to concentrate their first few months on the Americans, simply assuming the British would not be in any position to mount a counter threat for many months? A pretty realistic assumption in early 1942.</p><p>Could that have been more effective than splitting Japanese forces between simultaneous operations against everyone simultaneously?</p><p>In reality of course, we know that the impressive looking efforts careening all over 1/3 of the globe trying to take out the USN at one end and the RN at the other end: just meant that neither was really defeated badly enough to be driven from the field. Worryingly strong forces remained to mount Doolittle raids, invasions of Madagascar, and attacks on the Andaman's, or around New Guinea or Guadalcanal. This just lead the IJN rushing backwards and forwards to more and more frantic attempts to achieve 'decisive' results here or there, usually be ever decreasing numbers of planes operating from less and less carriers each time.</p><p><b>The Great Mistake...</b></p><p>In reality, I don't think there can be much doubt that the Japanese screwed up in not following through at Pearl Harbour.</p><p>Both Yamamoto and Nimitz stated categorically that a third strike to finish off the dockyards and oil storage at Pearl Harbour would have greatly improved the Japanese position, and slowed US efforts at striking back by at least 2 years.</p><p>But the real missed opportunity might have been the invasion of Hawaii. </p><p>Let's have that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Concept_of_a_Japanese_invasion_of_Hawaii" target="_blank">Wikipedia quote</a> again...</p><p><i style="color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Watanabe's superior, Captain Kameto Kuroshima, who believed the invasion plan unrealistic, after the war called his rejection of it the "biggest mistake" of his life.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-caravaggio2014_46-3" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#cite_note-caravaggio2014-46" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[40]</a></sup></i></p>Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-40746398060792900102021-05-08T20:23:00.009-07:002021-05-10T13:24:42.054-07:00If Japan had attacked the US, but not Britain – An earlier Midway?<p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> <b>If Japan had attacked the US, but not Britain - An earlier Midway?</b></span></p><p class="p2" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b></b>This fun little concept comes from my previous articles about what would have happened if Britain and France had not gone to war with Germany in September 1939, and instead a war had started about December 1941. This needed so much back story analysis that there are 6 articles in the series so far, but here is some of the summary from the last one, which led to me considering this little question in a bit more detail.</span></p><p class="p2" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">A weird and wonderful bag of possibilities. Enjoy.</span></p><p class="p2" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p2" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">We will start with a recap of my previous article...</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>So is there any chance of a <a href="http://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.com/2021/05/if-war-hadnt-started-until-december.html" target="_blank">World War starting in December 1941 instead.</a></i></span></b></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>No, not in the form we know it.</i></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>But yes, definitely in the form of a German and Japanese alliance against Russia.</i></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>After all, that would be both more possible, and more attractive, given the changing balance of naval power.</i></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>But does that become a world war? Could such a simple war start have led to 'complications'.</i></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Would Britain or France have gone to war to save Stalin's Communist dictatorship in such circumstances? It seems unlikely. (Nor would the Dominions have been keen to go to war for Stalin.)</i></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>More interestingly, would the US have eventually decided to try and intervene on China's behalf? Unlikely given US isolationism, but I suppose it is possible to conceive of the US going to war with Japan over China. After all, it was ever increasing US pressure and sanctions over China that effectively convinced Japan it had to take on the US (and almost incidentally the British and Dutch) in 1941.</i></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>This then provides the amusing picture of the US deciding to fight Japan over China while Britain and France are still neutral. (It may be hard to imagine the US actually taking the lead in anything given their domestic politics, but it parallels what they actually did in 1941.)</i></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>In which case, perhaps it would even exceed the same disastrous results that the US managed to achieve in reality? Without any allies to distract the vast majority of the Japanese military into land and sea operations in Malaya, the East indies, Burma, Rabaul, New Guinea and the Indian Ocean, there would be no need to divert most of the best Japanese units in other directions. Leaving only the barest screen against the British/French/Dutch navies (which in this situation might actually outnumber the IJN anyway), the Japanese could have concentrated their battle hardened forces on the inadequately prepared Americans instead.</i></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Stupidly risky thing for Japan to do, but again, reflecting the unrealistic risks that Japan really took anyway... </i></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So lets start playing with a few options...</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">A 'Battle of Midway' without any allies to delay and run interference?</span></b></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Given how completely the US position in Asia collapsed in early 1942 – even with Britain, Australia, India and the Netherlands taking their side and fighting long and hard against the cream of the Japanese forces for 6 months – it is scary to imagine what the Japanese could have achieved without all that distraction. </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Instead of just complete disaster at Pearl Harbour; the retreat of their surviving battleships to the West Coast; and the loss of the Philippines and most of their Pacific Islands; the US may have also suffered the equivalent of the combined British and Dutch losses in the first six months of the real war as well... (Add 2 more battleships, 1 aircraft carrier, several cruisers and dozens of destroyers, plus half a dozen British, Indian or Australian divisions and another 10 Dutch East Indies divisions, and several hundred more fighters and bombers... to the US's already impressive losses - particularly the dozen divisions and hundreds of aircraft in the Philippines, and the various island bases. Now try and imagine what the US would have left to defend Hawaii?)</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Fascinating.</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And that is only if Hawaii hadn't been invaded in the first round using the 3 crack divisions that in reality attacked Malaya. </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Japanese had actually completed plans for such an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Concept_of_a_Japanese_invasion_of_Hawaii" target="_blank">invasion of Hawaii</a>, and only actually needed 2 divisions to make it work! (In reality the Japanese Army said it couldn't spare the resources given the other operations needed against the British, Dutch and Australians... but if those operations weren't needed? Indeed, even if they were still needed, the effects of a successful invasion in December 1941 would have been mind boggling. IJN Captain Kurishimo of the Japanese planning staff, who accepted the recommendation of his junior, Commander Watanabe, that invasion was too risky in these circumstances, later called that decision, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Concept_of_a_Japanese_invasion_of_Hawaii" target="_blank">the 'biggest mistake' of my life</a>.)</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">But even if they hadn't committed to that up front, Midway Island almost certainly would have been captured at the same time as Wake and Guam, changing the entire strategic perspective way in advance of the actual battle of Midway.. </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Certainly the USN would have faced a complete and un-exhausted Japanese fleet at any final 'Battle of Midway', which presumably would have been fought either about the time of the battles of Rabual (23 January 1942); of Java Sea (28 February 1942), of Darwin ; or of the Indian Ocean Raid (5 April 1942): not months later (4 June 1942) after the Japanese had suffered long months of constant effort and attrition, and the US had had many extra months to prepare... </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Let's consider IJN carrier aircraft attrition over those 6 months for instance.</b></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">(I start with taking starting figures from Navweapons, apologies for mistakes, but it is generally a good rough guide (if I added correctly!) - http://www.navweaps.com/index_oob/OOB_WWII_Pacific/index_OOB_WWII_Pacific.php</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">However I note that there are endless suggestions to how many planes were really on any given operation, with much disagreement in the documents. It is noticeable that the theoretical figures in Navweapons for the Indian Ocean raid assume full December 1941 squadrons, which is unlikely after 5 months of constant operations, and doesn't reflect some suggestions that squadrons had already been downsized a bit by the time of the Indian Ocean Raid. The figures certainly don't remotely fit with what Shokaku and Zuikaku were really carrying at Coral Sea, a few weeks later, after 6 months of operations. (After the Indian Ocean Raid the Japanese claim to have only lost 5 aircraft on the entire operation... British estimates are Zero 4 kill & 3 damaged, Val 6 kills & 7 damaged, Kates 2 kill & 12 damaged, for 34 kills or badly damaged... and some of damaged never made it back to a carrier to be repaired... let alone any operational losses... I have seen all sorts of weird numbers claimed, but again, estimates of substantial losses from already reduced squadrons seem to come a bit closer to reflecting how many planes the Japanese took into action at Coral Sea and Midway than the Japanese claim of only 5 losses from full squadrons...)</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Pearl Harbour</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Akagi – 27 Zero, 27 Kate, 18 Val = 72</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Kaga – 27 Zero, 27 Kate, 24 Val = 78</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Soryu – 27 Zero, 18 Kate, 15 Val = 60</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Hiryu – 27 Zero, 18 Kate, 15 Val = 60</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Shokaku – 15 Zero, 27 Kate, 27 Val = 69</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Zuikaku – 24 Zero, 18 Kate, 15 Val = 69</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Total – 147 Zero, 135 Kate, 114 Val = 396 (Theoretically, many sources say higher numbers – up to 423 in some cases; or lower – 359 in others. Almost 20% variation before we even start? This lack of clarity even before the IJN has had a single operational or combat loss, makes some of the later quoted variations of numbers highly suspect.)</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Raid on Darwin (19 February, 1942)</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">(Navweapons doesn't cover it! Not really a battle? But Wikipedia suggests 188 carrier aircraft involved from Akagi, Kaga, Soryu and Hiryu – 36 Zero, 81 Kate, 71 Val – and suggests up to 32 were lost or damaged. This doesn't seem to work very well with Navweapon suggestion that all Japanese carriers were fully equipped with war start loads a few weeks later in the Indian Ocean Raid.)</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Indian Ocean Raid (5 April, 1942)</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">(You can read a comprehensive summary of this series of skirmishes, but almost battle, here -<a href="https://www.armouredcarriers.com/battle-for-ceylon-hms-indomitable-formidable">https://www.armouredcarriers.com/battle-for-ceylon-hms-indomitable-formidable</a> - Interestingly, in the 'Order of Battle' section it lists the full theoretical numbers carried by each Japanese carrier - matching what Navweapons says, but this doesn't seem to relate well with the Darwin numbers or losses. But it also says "Some sources argue that due to losses due to combat (40 aircraft), deck landing and mechanical attrition since Pearl Harbour, the Japanese carrier force had standardised their squadrons at 18 operational aircraft each to allow for spares. therefore Akagi at this time was operating 18 fighters, 18 dive bombers and 18 torpedo bombers for a total of 54".)</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Navweapons totals (Armouredcarrier totals)</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Akagi – 27 Zero, 27 Kate, 18 Val = 72 (Or 18 Zero, 18 Kate, 18 Val = 54)</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Soryu – 21 Zero, 21 Kate, 21 Val = 63 </span><span>(Or 18 Zero, 18 Kate, 18 Val = 54)</span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Hiryu – 21 Zero, 21 Kate, 21 Val = 63 </span><span>(Or 18 Zero, 18 Kate, 18 Val = 54)</span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Shokaku – 18 Zero, 27 Kate, 27 Val = 72 </span><span>(Or 18 Zero, 19 Kate, 19 Val = 56)</span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Zuikaku – 18 Zero, 27 Kate, 27 Val = 72 </span><span>(Or 18 Zero, 19 Kate, 19 Val = 56)</span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Total – 97 Zero, 123 Kate, 114 Val = 342 </span><span>(Or 90 Zero, 92 Kate, 92 Val = 274)</span></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">As usual, both options are little more than best guesses, though Navweapons suggestion of 100% squadron load after 5 months of constant operations, and the Pearl Harbour and Darwin losses, let alone normal operational or deck landing accidents, seems highly unlikely.</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Coral Sea (4 May 1942)</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Shokaku – 18 Zero, 21 Kate, 19 Val = 58 </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Zuikaku – 20 Zero, 23 Kate, 22 Val = 65</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Total – 38 Zero, 44 Kate, 41 Val = 123</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">(Note one month earlier these two ships had taken somewhere between 112 and 144 aircraft to Indian Ocean. If they took 144 to the Indian Ocean, and all 5 losses there were from just these 2 carriers, why are there only 123 left? If they took more like 112 (or somewhere in between) to the Indian Ocean, and there were 30 odd losses or write offs amongst the 5 carriers involved, then even allowing for replacements or transfers from other carriers returning to Japan for refit, 123 aircraft still seems optomistic? After this battle – and the Wikipedia article suggests that these two carriers (and Shoho and 2 some tenders), managed to lose 139 'carrier planes' in that battle! – they were too depleted/damaged to participate in Midway.)</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Midway</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Akagi – 24 Zero, 18 Kate, 18 Val = 60</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Akagi – 27 Zero, 27 Kate, 18 Val = 72</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Soryu – 21 Zero, 18 Kate, 16 Val = 55</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Hiryu – 21 Zero, 18 Kate, 18 Val = 57</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Total – 93 Zero, 81 Kate, 70 Val = 244</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">(Note - Akagi, after Indian Ocean Raid, is down to 60, whereas Akagi, which didn't go, is still at 72? Soryu and Hiryu, which both took 63 to Indian Ocean, or perhaps 54, are now on 55 and 57 respectively? These 4 ships, which had 270 expert pilots at Pearl Harbour, had 244 - including less experienced replacements - at Midway, and Shokaku and Zuikaku were too depleted to join them. 10% less numbers in those 4 ships alone – despite replacements, and almost 40% less overall aircraft/aircrews than their strike force had used at Pearl Harbour. Regardless of what numbers you finally accept, 40% reduction for the crucial battle compared to 6 months earlier is a clear case of attrition in action.)</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">For a little comparison of reality, Admiral Fletcher started the Guadalcanal campaign on 7 August 1942 with 99 Wildcats on 3 carriers - Saratoga, Enterprise and Wasp. It must be said that their first couple of days of operations were almost as successful as any other surprise attack by any other navy had been – say the British at Taranto or the Japanese at Pearl or Darwin. Nonetheless Admiral Fletcher notes he was down to 78 active fighters within 36 hours when he withdrew to refuel. That's about 21.5% casualties in a little over a day of <i>successful </i> operations. Very successful. Admittedly the USN was still possibly a bit less skilled at carrier ops than the Japanese, but frankly, they were also a bit more honest about losses and real attrition rates. (The IJN actually declared Midway a victory in the Japanese press, and didn't admit their carrier losses to the Imperial General Staff for months. Leaving the army with the impression that the IJN strike force was still intact!)</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Claims that the IJN entered the Indian Ocean operations with the equivalent full start of war numbers (despite all the casualties from Pearly Harbour to Darwin); and </span>came away with<span style="font-family: inherit;"> only 5 losses from the </span>entire<span style="font-family: inherit;"> operation: seem extremely unlikely.</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I am sure many people can quote endless variations to these numbers (and I am happy to get suggestions of better sources), but let's just accept that on active operations you suffer steady attrition through combat and accident. And, perhaps more significantly, also accept that replacement pilots are often less experienced.</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Consider the real Midway</span></b></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In real life 1942, the USN would almost certainly have lost had the Japanese not been so reduced by attrition and distracted by other operations. Even at the real Midway, Yamamoto made a mistake in not keeping the main body advancing. He probably still would have won. The USN had practically nothing left to face his force, and the Wikipedia article (referenced 30.4.21) on Midway makes the following point:</span></p><p class="p3" style="color: #202122; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Historian </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Eliot_Morison%22%20%5Co%20%22Samuel%20Eliot%20Morison"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>Samuel E. Morison</i></span></a><i> noted in 1949 that Spruance was subjected to much criticism for not pursuing the retreating Japanese, thus allowing their surface fleet to escape.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-161"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[156]</sup></i></span></a><i> </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Blair%22%20%5Co%20%22Clay%20Blair"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>Clay Blair</i></span></a><i> argued in 1975 that had Spruance pressed on, he would have been unable to launch his aircraft after nightfall, and his cruisers would have been overwhelmed by Yamamoto's powerful surface units, including Yamato.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-Blair247-159"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[154]</sup></i></span></a><i> Furthermore, the American air groups had suffered considerable losses, including most of their torpedo bombers. This made it unlikely that they would be effective in an airstrike against the Japanese battleships, even if they had managed to catch them during the daytime.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-162"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[157]</sup></i></span></a><i> Also, by this time Spruance's destroyers were critically low on fuel.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-163"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[158]</sup></i></span></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-Toll-164"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[159]</sup></i></span></a></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>As an aside: Consider the effects of allies actually cooperating.</b></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It is also worth noting that the allies had genuinely tried to run interference for each other for months. When Churchill heard the Indian Ocean Raid was coming, he asked Roosevelt for a diversion in the Pacific, and was told the Doolittle raid would be hastened. It was too late to effect the actual Indian Ocean Raid, but it certainly convinced the Japanese they couldn't take the time to have another go at finishing off the Eastern Fleet before turning back to face the USN. The IJN had failed at their only chance of avoiding a two front war, and would have to keep major forces bouncing back and forth between the Truk/Rabaul and Singapore bases for most of the war to try and deal with this failure.</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Likewise, when Midway was coming, Roosevelt requested the British Eastern Fleet try a diversion in the Indian Ocean. </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The RN had just <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Madagascar" target="_blank">invaded Madagascar</a> (May 5), to prevent the expected Vichy follow through to the handover to Japan of Indo-China, with the handover to Japan of Madagascar. (Which would have almost certainly cut British supplies to the Middle East, and Allied supplies to Russia via Iran, and possibly have meant a combined German and Japanese Atlantic/Indian Ocean attack on merchant shipping might have won the war for them in a single move...)</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Japan hadn't actually been planning to occupy Madagascar, but nonetheless responded with a redeployment of naval forces – particularly submarines. (They actually managed to torpedo one of the Revenge class battleships off Madagascar – the <i>tenth</i> allied battleship sunk or put into dry dock by the IJN in 6 months – but she sailed to South Africa under her own steam and was quickly repaired.)</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">When Midway was happening Admiral Somerville tried another diversionary attack against the Andaman Islands, threatening the Burmese coast. Again, simply too late to effect Midway, but again, considering the Burma campaign was still in full swing, drawing the Japanese attention in two directions, rather than being able to focus on one. Similar efforts later in the war meant that Eastern Fleet (sometimes supported by the USS Saratoga) attacks on the oil fields in the East Indies were more or less co-ordinated with USN offensive operations in the Pacific.</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>[And later, after the USN was reduced to one operational carrier at Santa Cruz, the RN loaned an armoured carrier to assist. See Wikipedia article on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victorious_(R38)#Service_with_the_US_Navy" target="_blank">HMS Victorious' service with the USN </a></span></span>(referenced 30.4.21) <span style="font-family: inherit;">: </span><i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hornet_(CV-8)" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;" title="USS Hornet (CV-8)">USS Hornet</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;"> was sunk and </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CV-6)" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;" title="USS Enterprise (CV-6)">USS Enterprise</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;"> was badly damaged at the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Santa_Cruz_Islands" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands">Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">, leaving the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;" title="United States Navy">United States Navy</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;"> with only one fleet carrier, </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Saratoga_(CV-3)" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;" title="USS Saratoga (CV-3)">USS Saratoga</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">, operational in the Pacific. In late December 1942, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">Victorious</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;"> was loaned to the US Navy after an American plea for carrier reinforcement.</span><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-6" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victorious_(R38)#cite_note-6" style="background-image: none; background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[6]</a></sup><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;"> ... </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">Rear Admiral </span><a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeWitt_Ramsey" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;" title="DeWitt Ramsey">DeWitt Ramsey</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">, commanding the division, carried out evaluation exercises and patrol sweeps in June and determined that </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">Victorious</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;"> had superior fighter control but handled Avenger aircraft poorly because of their weight. Accordingly, he transferred 832 Squadron FAA on to the </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">Saratoga</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;"> and US Carrier Air Group 3 on to the </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">Victorious</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">. Thereafter, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">Victorious</span><span class="nowrap" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit; padding-left: 0.1em; white-space: nowrap;">'</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">s primary role was fighter cover and </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">Saratoga</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;"> mainly handled strikes. ... </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">On 27 June, TF14 was redesignated Task Group 36.3 and sailed to provide cover for the invasion of </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Georgia" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;" title="New Georgia">New Georgia</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;"> (part of </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cartwheel" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Operation Cartwheel">Operation Cartwheel</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">). </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">Victorious</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;"> spent the next 28 days continuously in combat operations at sea, ...</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;"> launching 614 sorties. Returning to Nouméa on 25 July, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">Victorious</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;"> was recalled home. ... </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">Though the Japanese had four carriers to Ramsey's two, it seemed clear that they were not intending to press their advantage and the first two carriers of the new </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Essex-class aircraft carrier">Essex-class</a></i><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;"><i> had arrived at Pearl Harbor well ahead of schedule...</i> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Again, and despite most history books ignoring or misinterpreting it, the allies genuinely tried to work as allies.]</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Any good tactical guide from Sun Tzu onwards will note that keeping your enemy unbalanced with flurries of light jabs, often has a significant effect on the development of the total fight: and it is usually when they are unbalanced that you get to deliver the actual knockout blows.</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Consider a Midway without allied assistance or at least distraction</span></b></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Now imagine the same battle being fought in February, March or April, with all 6 or the IJN's main carriers still operational at a bit closer to peak strength, and the USN much less prepared. Frankly it wouldn't have mattered if it was fought off Midway, or off Hawaii itself... (though if Midway or even Hawaii had fallen in December 1941, it may have been fought off San Francisco instead...)</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Most importantly, the actual USN success at Midway was based on 7 distinct 'lucky breaks', that all needed to happen for success...</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> A) partially breaking Japanese codes; B) having the time to work out the 'water shortage' ruse to confirm the information; and C) having the time to reinforce both Midway and the Pacific Fleet - particularly with enough new aircraft to make the defences at least competitive; and D) combat experience from Coral Sea that meant Yorktown – but still only Yorktown – had the capability of launching a full strike effectively. </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Even then it was pure luck kicked that a combination of E) the vital Japanese scout plane failing in its job; F) the slaughter of the USN's torpedo bombers allowing a crucial brief gap in Japanese fighter cover; and G) a small force of 18 dive bombers that had actually got lost, and was almost out of fuel, but took the risk to follow an errant destroyer just long enough to attack at a critical moment...) </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Had any one of those 7 critical factors not gone the USN's way, they would probably have lost at Midway.</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Had Yamamoto pushed on with his main force, they would probably still have lost at Midway.</span></p><p class="p4" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It is worth quoting the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway" target="_blank">Wikipedia commentary on Midway</a> (referenced 30.4.2021) in some detail to reinforce the 'luck' point, and to emphasise the fact that even after 6 months of war, the USN was terribly inexperienced in carrier ops.</span></p><p class="p5" style="color: #202122; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Fletcher, along with Yorktown's commanding officer, Captain </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Buckmaster%22%20%5Co%20%22Elliott%20Buckmaster"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>Elliott Buckmaster</i></span></a><i>, and their staffs, had acquired the first-hand experience needed in organizing and launching a full strike against an enemy force in the Coral Sea, but there was no time to pass these lessons on to Enterprise and Hornet which were tasked with launching the first strike.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-cv6.org_p2-97"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[95]</sup></i></span></a><i> Spruance ordered the striking aircraft to proceed to target immediately, rather than waste time waiting for the strike force to assemble, since neutralizing enemy carriers was the key to the survival of his own task force.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-Cressman;Parshall,Tully;Buell-96"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[94]</sup></i></span></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-cv6.org_p2-97"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[95]</sup></i></span></a></span></p><p class="p5" style="color: #202122; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>While the Japanese were able to launch 108 aircraft in just seven minutes, it took Enterprise and Hornet over an hour to launch 117.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-98"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[96]</sup></i></span></a><i> Spruance judged that the need to throw something at the enemy as soon as possible was greater than the need to coordinate the attack by aircraft of different types and speeds (fighters, bombers, and torpedo bombers). Accordingly, American squadrons were launched piecemeal and proceeded to the target in several different groups. It was accepted that the lack of coordination would diminish the impact of the American attacks and increase their casualties, but Spruance calculated that this was worthwhile, since keeping the Japanese under aerial attack impaired their ability to launch a counterstrike (Japanese tactics preferred fully constituted attacks), and he gambled that he would find Nagumo with his flight decks at their most vulnerable.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-Cressman;Parshall,Tully;Buell-96"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[94]</sup></i></span></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-cv6.org_p2-97"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[95]</sup></i></span></a></span></p><p class="p5" style="color: #202122; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>American carrier aircraft had difficulty locating the target, despite the positions they had been given. The strike from Hornet, led by Commander Stanhope C. Ring, followed an incorrect heading of 265 degrees rather than the 240 degrees indicated by the contact report. As a result, Air Group Eight's dive bombers missed the Japanese carriers.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-99"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[97]</sup></i></span></a><i> </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_Squadron_8%22%20%5Co%20%22Torpedo%20Squadron%208"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>Torpedo Squadron 8</i></span></a><i> (VT-8, from Hornet), led by Lieutenant Commander </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Waldron%22%20%5Co%20%22John%20C.%20Waldron"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>John C. Waldron</i></span></a><i>, broke formation from Ring and followed the correct heading. The 10 </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F4F_Wildcat%22%20%5Co%20%22Grumman%20F4F%20Wildcat"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>F4Fs</i></span></a><i> from Hornet ran out of fuel and had to </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing%22%20%5Co%20%22Water%20landing"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>ditch</i></span></a><i>.</i><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-FOOTNOTEEwing200471,_85,_86,_307-100">[98]</a></sup></i></span></span></p><p class="p5" style="color: #202122; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Waldron's squadron sighted the enemy carriers and began attacking at 09:20, followed at 09:40</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-101"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[99]</sup></i></span></a><i> by </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VF-6%22%20%5Co%20%22VF-6"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>VF-6</i></span></a><i> from Enterprise, whose Wildcat fighter escorts lost contact, ran low on fuel, and had to turn back.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-FOOTNOTEEwing200471,_85,_86,_307-100"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[98]</sup></i></span></a><i> Without fighter escort, all 15 </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_TBD_Devastator%22%20%5Co%20%22Douglas%20TBD%20Devastator"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>TBD Devastators</i></span></a><i> of VT-8 were shot down without being able to inflict any damage. Ensign </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._Gay,_Jr.%22%20%5Co%20%22George%20H.%20Gay,%20Jr."><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>George H. Gay, Jr.</i></span></a><i> was the only survivor of the 30 aircrew of VT-8. He completed his </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo%22%20%5Co%20%22Torpedo"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>torpedo</i></span></a><i> attack on the aircraft carrier Sōryū before he was shot down, but Sōryū evaded his torpedo.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-nhcgay-102"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[100]</sup></i></span></a><i> Meanwhile, VT-6, led by LCDR </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_E._Lindsey%22%20%5Co%20%22Eugene%20E.%20Lindsey"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>Eugene E. Lindsey</i></span></a><i> lost nine of its 14 Devastators (one ditched later), and 10 of 12 Devastators from Yorktown's </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-35_(U.S._Navy)%22%20%5Co%20%22VA-35%20(U.S.%20Navy)"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>VT-3</i></span></a><i> (who attacked at 10:10) were shot down with no hits to show for their effort, thanks in part to the abysmal performance of their unimproved </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_13_torpedo%22%20%5Co%20%22Mark%2013%20torpedo"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>Mark 13 torpedoes</i></span></a><i>.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-103"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[101]</sup></i></span></a><i> Midway was the last time the TBD Devastator was used in combat.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-Military_Factory-104"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[102]</sup></i></span></a></span></p><p class="p5" style="color: #202122; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>The Japanese combat air patrol, flying Mitsubishi A6M2 Zeros,</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-105"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[103]</sup></i></span></a><i> made short work of the unescorted, slow, under-armed TBDs. A few TBDs managed to get within a few ship-lengths range of their targets before dropping their torpedoes—close enough to be able to strafe the enemy ships and force the Japanese carriers to make sharp evasive maneuvers—but all of their torpedoes either missed or failed to explode.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-cv6.org_p3-106"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[104]</sup></i></span></a><i> Remarkably, senior Navy and Bureau of Ordnance officers never questioned why half a dozen torpedoes, released so close to the Japanese carriers, produced no results.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-107"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[105]</sup></i></span></a><i> The performance of American torpedoes in the early months of the war was scandalous, as shot after shot missed by running directly under the target (deeper than intended), prematurely exploded, or hit targets (sometimes with an audible clang) and failed to explode at all.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-Morison_IV-108"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[106]</sup></i></span></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-109"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[107]</sup></i></span></a></span></p><p class="p5" style="color: #202122; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Despite their failure to score any hits, the American torpedo attacks achieved three important results. First, they kept the Japanese carriers off balance and unable to prepare and launch their own counterstrike. Second, the poor control of the Japanese combat air patrol (CAP) meant they were out of position for subsequent attacks. Third, many of the Zeros ran low on ammunition and fuel.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-110"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[108]</sup></i></span></a><i> The appearance of a third torpedo plane attack from the southeast by VT-3 from Yorktown, led by LCDR </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Edward_Massey%22%20%5Co%20%22Lance%20Edward%20Massey"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>Lance Edward Massey</i></span></a><i> at 10:00 very quickly drew the majority of the Japanese CAP to the southeast quadrant of the fleet.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-111"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[109]</sup></i></span></a><i> Better discipline and the employment of a greater number of Zeroes for the CAP might have enabled Nagumo to prevent (or at least mitigate) the damage caused by the coming American attacks.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-112"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[110]</sup></i></span></a></span></p><p class="p5" style="color: #202122; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>By chance, at the same time VT-3 was sighted by the Japanese, three squadrons of </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_SBD_Dauntless%22%20%5Co%20%22Douglas%20SBD%20Dauntless"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>SBDs</i></span></a><i> from Enterprise and Yorktown were approaching from the southwest and northeast. The Yorktown squadron (VB-3) had flown just behind VT-3, but elected to attack from a different course. The two squadrons from Enterprise (VB-6 and VS-6) were running low on fuel because of the time spent looking for the enemy. Air Group Commander </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Wade_McClusky,_Jr.%22%20%5Co%20%22C.%20Wade%20McClusky,%20Jr."><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>C. Wade McClusky, Jr.</i></span></a><i> decided to continue the search, and by good fortune spotted the wake of the Japanese destroyer </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Arashi%22%20%5Co%20%22Japanese%20destroyer%20Arashi"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>Arashi</i></span></a><i>, steaming at full speed to rejoin Nagumo's carriers after having unsuccessfully </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth-charge%22%20%5Co%20%22Depth-charge"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>depth-charged</i></span></a><i> U.S. submarine </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nautilus_(SS-168)%22%20%5Co%20%22USS%20Nautilus%20(SS-168)"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>Nautilus</i></span></a><i>, which had unsuccessfully attacked the battleship </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Kirishima%22%20%5Co%20%22Japanese%20battleship%20Kirishima"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>Kirishima</i></span></a><i>.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-kirishimamove-113"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[111]</sup></i></span></a><i> Some bombers were lost from fuel exhaustion before the attack commenced.</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-114"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[112]</sup></i></span></a></span></p><p class="p5" style="color: #202122; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>McClusky's decision to continue the search and his judgment, in the opinion of Admiral </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_Nimitz%22%20%5Co%20%22Chester%20Nimitz"><span class="s1" style="color: #0745ad;"><i>Chester Nimitz</i></span></a><i>, "decided the fate of our carrier task force and our forces at Midway ..."</i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway%22%20%5Cl%20%22cite_note-115"><span class="s2" style="color: #0745ad; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>[113]</sup></i></span></a><i> </i></span></p><p class="p2" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p2" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Now personally, I feel that Midway was one of the greatest naval victories of all time. But I feel that particularly strongly because it is impressive how many pieces of pure luck came together to allow an inferior and vastly less experienced force to win. Operating mainly withe obsolete equipment and tactics, and losing as many aircraft to getting lost and running out of fuel as to enemy action, the USN none the less managed to fluke a victory. And if those 18 lost dive bombers had not turned up at precisely the right moment, that would simply not have happened.</span></p><p class="p2" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Luck is always important in battle. In this particular case, even with all the other 6 vital factors accidentally coming together, it was this 7th, a lucky late arrival from the wrong direction by lost planes... that actually won the battle.</span></p><p class="p2" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p2" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px; min-height: 14px;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Midway fought same time, but no allies</span></b></p><p class="p2" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Had Japanese been able to concentrate on this operation, without the distractions of armies and air fleets and naval support fighting simultaneously in Burma and New Guinea and other places. It is hard to see how they could have failed to win.</span></p><p class="p2" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">For a start, even if Coral Sea had sort of happened; and even if the Japanese had only sent 2 carriers to Coral Sea instead of the 5 they used for the Indian Ocean Raid (which might have meant Coral Sea became a decisive loss for the USN, with Yorktown being sunk as well – and thus being unavailable for Midway – even if the USN did still manage to take out Shoho); and even if Shokaku and Zuikaku missed Midway as a result of aircraft attrition: the IJN just would have had way more resources to throw at this operation.</span></p><p class="p2" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">But more importantly, even if the first 3 Japanese carrier losses still amazingly happened at this version of Midway, WITHOUT the threat of the Eastern Fleet in active operations attacking Madagascar and moving on the Andamans and the Burmese coast to consider: Yamamoto would have had much more incentive to simply keep advancing his main body for a killing blow.</span></p><p class="p2" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It was the reality of still facing an active two front war that, more than anything else, that made Yamamoto reluctant to commit to the Kantai-Kessen (final battle) strategy right then and there.</span></p><p class="p2" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p2" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 5px; min-height: 14px;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Midway fought at the time of Coral Sea, but no allies</span></b></p><p class="p8" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Not good. All 6 major Japanese carriers – with much less aircraft attrition over previous months – supported by the entire Japanese battle fleet: against the 3 or 4 available US carriers - still with no battle experience between them - and a few cruisers (actually less cruisers without the Australian ones present). At the real Midway many of the American flight crews were hopelessly untrained, and Fletcher was very grateful for Yorktown's limited battle experience. According to some of the pilots, many of the Devastator pilots had never taken off a carrier with a torpedo attached before. </span></p><p class="p8" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p8" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">At the real Midway 18 US aircraft fluked a breakthrough to hit 3 carriers, and won the battle. Even if the same thing accidentally happened in this case, the 3 surviving Japanese carriers would still have been more than capable of smashing the slaughtered US air groups and potentially all 3 or 4 US carriers, even before the IJN's main body arrived to chase any survivors from the field. </span></p><p class="p8" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p8" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Knocking out 3 carriers with just 18 aircraft was an amazing fluke by such an inexperienced and poorly equipped force. (No working torpedoes for God's sake! The only functional role of the Devastators at this battle was as sacrificial decoys! Unsurprisingly, </span>Midway was the last time the Devastator was used in carrier combat...)</p><p class="p8" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p8" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Knocking out 6 closer to full strength IJN carriers with these resources and tactics? Not likely.</span></p><p class="p8" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p8" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It gets even worse if the night combat trained Japanese surface fleet gets anywhere near the largely daylight operations only US ships.</span></p><p class="p8" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p class="p8" style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Midway fought at the time of the Indian Ocean Raid, but no allies</span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">A more interesting comparison.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Let's say the 5 IJN carriers from the Indian Ocean Operation against the 3 the USN had available just then. (Which assumes Kaga had still been withdrawn for repairs and upgrades... which is much less likely in this case.)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Actually this is possibly the best chance the USN might have had out of these scenarios. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Admittedly they still didn't have the option of the radar guided night strikes that Admiral Somerville was counting on to balance his inferior numbers, if he could get an engagement in the Indian Ocean: but they would at least have all received Wildcat's instead of Buffalo's, and had a few months of operational experience. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">All right, Coral Sea (and even real Midway) showed the USN were still far behind the IJN in launching good strikes. But the success of the 9 land based Blenheim bombers from Ceylon to get past the IJN CAP in the Indian Ocean and straddle Akagi with bombs, showed that catching the IJN off guard was possible even without sacrificing dozens of Devastator crews in Kamikaze runs. Not learning from the experience of that shocking vulnerability, or at least not being able to find an effective solution to it, is actually the main reason that the IJN lost so many battles for the rest of the war.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">I still think that the IJN's superior resources would make this battle very hard for the USN to win. But never underestimate the incompetence of Nagumo in his ability to snatch defeat – or at least inadequate results for the efforts outlayed – from the jaws of victory.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>[But frankly even Somerville's risk – and risk it was – of attempting a night ambush with radar planes against the 2 carriers he thought were coming, was a gamble. Even the much greater RN combat experience with radar guided CAP's and fighting off waves of hundreds of German and Italian bombers in the Mediterranean, very probably wasn't enough to overcome 5 still efficient IJN carriers in daylight. A night attack was their only real chance. The idea that even 3 of the USN's still combat inexperienced carriers could do better in daylight is not convincing, particularly as they had no functional torpedo's! </span><span>And if they did fluke knocking out 3 carriers at similar cost to their own aircraft as at the real Midway, the other two or three IJN carriers – backed by the main force with it's extra support carrier (or two or three extra support carriers if the Aleutians distraction had been dismissed) – were still almost certainly going to win.]</span></span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Midway fought at the time of Darwin, but no allies</span></b></p><p>Even if you believe that the Japanese only lost 5 aircraft on the Indian Ocean Raid, you have to accept that the 4 carriers the attacked Darwin had far bigger and more efficient aircraft loads <i>before </i>taking 34 losses/serious damages at Darwin. The same force would have had more than double the carriers, planes, and chance of winning: as at Coral Sea.</p><p><b><span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Midway fought at the time of Battle of Java Sea</span></span></b></p><p>Frankly I only mention it to point out that the IJN mounted several substantial attacks, and won several major sea battles, while the USN was still frantically trying to recover from Pearl Harbour. Consider the same efforts concentrated on preventing that recovery.</p><p><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Midway fought at the time of Pearl Harbour, but no allies</span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">If Japan wasn't trying to attack everywhere at once, and could concentrate the forces allocated against the British, Thais, Burmese and Dutch against the US, why not follow through? Even Nagumo would have been willing to take a third strike against Pearl in these circumstances. Particularly with his boss Yamamoto and his main body following close behind, and carrying the 3 crack divisions no longer needed to invade for Malaya for an invasion of Hawaii! <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Concept_of_a_Japanese_invasion_of_Hawaii" target="_blank">(See Japanese discussions of just such an invasion here.)</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">It is hard to imagine the American carriers not trying to intervene? (Though it would probably be more sensible for them to run for the US West coast instead.) </span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">[Saratoga was actually entering San Diego harbour when the attack started, while Lexington was near Midway and Enterprise had just sent 18 of her Dauntless's to Pearl that morning - and had most of them shot down either by a combination of the Japanese fighters and US AA!]</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>But even had the two carriers actually available been able to link up and co-ordinate somewhat</span><span>, they could hardly be in organised position to strike back much before the main body arrived. It is also worth noting that Lexington for instance was still equipped with just 17 Buffalo fighters at this stage! Buffalo's!!! The USN, unlike the RN or IJN, could still only really fight in daylight. (It certainly lacked the radar guided bombers the RN has to make air attacks at night possible.) </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Both US carriers together, fielding less than 40 fighters, against 147 Zero's... in daylight... And their Devastator torpedo bombers lacked a functional torpedo! It would be entirely down to perhaps a couple of dozen Dauntless dive bombers against 7 </span><span>Japanese</span><span> carriers and probably 7 battleships and God knows how many cruisers, destroyers and submarines as well.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">In reality we get this (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CV-6)#Pearl_Harbor" target="_blank">Wikipedia article on Enterprise sourced 30.4.2021</a>):</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122;">Enterprise</span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122;"> received radio messages from Pearl Harbor reporting that the base was under attack, and she was later directed to launch an </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airstrike" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Airstrike">airstrike</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122;"> based on an inaccurate report of a Japanese carrier southwest of her location. The strike was launched around 17:00, consisting of six </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F4F_Wildcat" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Grumman F4F Wildcat">Grumman F4F Wildcat</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122;"> </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Fighter aircraft">fighters</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122;"> of Fighting Squadron Six (VF-6), 18 </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_TBD_Devastator" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Douglas TBD Devastator">Douglas TBD Devastator</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122;"> </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_bomber" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Torpedo bomber">torpedo bombers</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122;"> of Torpedo Squadron Six (VT-6), and six SBDs of VB-6.</span><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-VF-6_12-0" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CV-6)#cite_note-VF-6-12" style="background-image: none; background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[12]</a></sup></i></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Six dive bombers against 6 Japanese carriers! The Devastators without functional torpedos are mere distractions. Even had Lexington rendezvoused next day for a joint strike, her 58 total bombers and torpedo bombers also come down to less than 20 extra dive bombers. The two of them together against practically the entire Japanese navy?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">It is very hard to see any combination of fantastic flukes that might make this a winning proposition for the USN.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Frankly it doesn't bear thinking about.</span></p><p><b>Some possible USN reinforcements?</b></p><p>To be fair, if Britain and France had not gone to war against Germany, and there was no Atlantic Ocean battle going on, then the USN would have had marginally more resources available to face the Japanese. The 'Neutrality Patrol' in particular would have been a little less important, and the US could have relied on what Kissinger referred to as the 'sure shield' of the RN to denude East Coast defences even further. </p><p><b>Battleship Reinforcements?</b></p><p>In reality that would probably only amount to another 2 or 3 of the oldest and most vulnerable USN battleships - say Arkansas, New York and Texas. I am sure they would have made nice additional targets at Pearl Harbour.</p><p>There is the outside chance that the brand new North Carolina or Washington might have been working up in the Pacific rather than the Atlantic. In <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Washington_(BB-56)#Service_history" target="_blank">reality of course, Washington</a> was still in trials in the Atlantic, and still having propellor trouble and failing to reach designed speeds. But in the extremely unlikely event that the North Carolina's trials been done in the Pacific instead of the Caribbean, is it possible she might have added actual value? </p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_North_Carolina_(BB-55)#Service_history" target="_blank">North Carolina's</a> new 20 x 5" heavy AA battery alone would have almost doubled the heavy AA firepower of Battleships Row... If it could be manned and used effectively. (Her extra 16 of the dreadful 1.1" AA, and 18 .50 Cal machine-guns would be considerably less significant.) But even if she was there, she would still be only starting her work up, and as such would probably be trapped in one of the inside positions on Battleship Row. Limited arc AA from there was much harder, even if the crews were actually available, experienced enough to cope with limited arcs, and competent? Frankly a relatively untrained crew might be just as likely to hit any adjacent battleships as Japanese bombers... </p><p>But what about North Carolina surviving in Battleship Row?</p><p>Ryan Szimanski does a very entertaining <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWuFeA3K17U" target="_blank">Youtube analysis of whether damage to ships sunk at Pearl Harbour would have sunk an Iowa</a>, which suggests North Carolina would <i>probably</i> have survived those first two strikes, even if damaged. (Though note the case where he says 'that would probably have sunk an Iowa too'...) But presumably any of those battleships survive only if the Japanese don't get in a third or fourth strike... Which they definitely would under this scenario. Still, an amusing reflection.</p><p><b>Aircraft Carrier Reinforcements?</b></p><p>More significant would bc the location of the USN's other carriers: USS Yorktown, USS Hornet, USS Wasp and USS Ranger. </p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hornet_(CV-8)#Service_history" target="_blank">Hornet</a> had only been in commission for a little over a month, and was still doing basic training out of her port of construction Norfolk. She didn't head off for operational duties until March 1942, so I think we can safely assume she could not have been at Pearl Harbour in December 1941, or indeed available at the time of battles like Darwin, Java Sea, or Rabual. Her first actual appearance was the Doolittle raid, contemporary with Coral Sea, and hopefully I have pretty well covered her likely value from there on. She simply could not have been available at Pearl Harbour.</p><p>Wikipedia notes: <i><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;">Yorktown</span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;"> was at port in </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Station_Norfolk" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; color: #0645ad; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none; widows: 2;" title="Naval Station Norfolk">Norfolk</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;"> during the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; color: #0645ad; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none; widows: 2;" title="Attack on Pearl Harbor">attack on Pearl Harbor</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;">, having just completed a patrol of the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Ocean" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; color: #0645ad; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none; widows: 2;" title="Atlantic Ocean">Atlantic Ocean</a></i><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;"><i>.</i> </span></p><p>If <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CV-5)#World_War_II" target="_blank">Yorktown</a> had been Pacific based instead of Atlantic at this time, her being in port after a patrol would imply either in Port on the US West Coast – no real difference – or, much worse, in port at Pearl Harbour! </p><p>One of the saving graces of Pearl Harbour, and one of the great disappointments to the Japanese, was that there were no carriers in port. If there were, then the Japanese strike force would have prioritised them. Doesn't sound good for Yorktown, or the USN.</p><p>I suppose we could argue that she might have also been off doing a delivery to some US island base... but even that remote possibility would have put her in no better position for a counter-attack than Lexington or Enterprise. It might have potentially offered 3 carriers to counter-attack, and lifted the total number of Dauntless's available to almost half those available at real Midway. Giving a better possibility of doing similar fluke and damaging 3 of the 6 Japanese carriers, but it is still hard to see any possible fluke taking out all 6? </p><p>Frankly I suspect if Yorktown had been wandering around with the other two, it might have encouraged them to try something silly. Particularly if third and fourth waves were coming in. But that implies that Yamamato's main body and his invasion fleet are also closing in...</p><p>Perhaps it would have been better for the USN, if such an incredibly unlikely set of chances didn't put Yorktown in any of these positions?</p><p>The only other aircraft carrier reinforcement possible in December 1941 was the undersized and extremely vulnerable USS Wasp. </p><p>[Still armed with Vindicator dive bombers, the USN's first experiment with monoplane bombers. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_SB2U_Vindicator" target="_blank">Wikipedia comments:</a> <i><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;">Airmen with experience in more modern aircraft spoke disparagingly of SB2Us as "vibrators" or "wind indicators" in their later combat assignments.</span><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Proceedings_11-0" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 11.2px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 1; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap; widows: 2;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_SB2U_Vindicator#cite_note-Proceedings-11" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;">[11]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-P2_12-0" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 11.2px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 1; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap; widows: 2;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_SB2U_Vindicator#cite_note-P2-12" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;">[12]</a></sup></i><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;"> </span> The RN inherited 50 from a French navy order, and tried to upgrade them adequately to fit them for escort carriers, but found them so unsuitable for operations that it was decided to re-equip those squadrons with the similar vintage but far more reliable Swordfish biplanes...]</p><p>As <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_(CV-7)#Pacific_Fleet" target="_blank">Wasp's Wikipedia article</a> (referenced 9.5.2021) notes:</p><p style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; margin: 0.5em 0px; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;"><i>The Navy sought to squeeze a large air group onto a ship with nearly 25% less displacement than the Yorktown-class. To save weight and space, Wasp was constructed with low-power propulsion machinery (compare Wasp<span class="nowrap" style="padding-left: 0.1em; white-space: nowrap;">'</span>s 75,000 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Shaft_horsepower" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;" title="Horsepower">shp</a> (56,000 <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;" title="Kilowatt">kW</a>) machinery with Yorktown<span class="nowrap" style="padding-left: 0.1em; white-space: nowrap;">'</span>s 120,000 shp (89,000 kW), the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;" title="Essex-class aircraft carrier">Essex-class</a>'s 150,000 shp (110,000 kW), and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence-class_aircraft_carrier" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;" title="Independence-class aircraft carrier">Independence-class</a>'s 100,000 shp (75,000 kW)).</i></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; margin: 0.5em 0px; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;"><i>Additionally, Wasp was launched with almost no armor, modest speed, and more significantly, no protection from torpedoes. Absence of side protection of the boilers and internal aviation fuel stores "doomed her to a blazing demise". These were inherent design flaws that were recognized when constructed, but could not be remedied within the allowed tonnage.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-4" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_(CV-7)#cite_note-4" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;">[4]</a></sup> These flaws, combined with a relative lack of damage control experience in the early days of the war, proved fatal.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Whodunnit?_5-0" style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_(CV-7)#cite_note-Whodunnit?-5" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;">[5]</a></sup></i></p><p>Wasp's limited capacity meant that she was held back for Atlantic operations (where her most useful operations in first 6 months of 1942 were ferrying fighters to Malta), until the USN was reduced to desperate straits and forced to use her as a frontline carrier. After the losses at Coral Sea and Midway, they had no choice. Wasp arrived off Guadalcanal in August 1942, and was – perhaps fortunately – off re-fuelling during the Battle of Eastern Solomons. But she was torpedoed and sunk anyway within a few weeks.</p><p>The possibility of the Wasp, with her Vindicator dive bombers (predecessor to the excellent Dauntless, but just as bad as the Devastator's or Buffalo's), making much difference against the IJN in the earlier battle options above is somewhat dubious, but must at least be taken into account... Post Midway she received Dauntless's, but by then she had repeated engine problems, and struggled to make 25 knots for some of the critical mid period (sometimes only managing 15), but an operational flight deck is a flight deck, and if she was way less protected than most USN vessels, she was still no more vulnerable than many of the IJN's ships. </p><p>Which leaves USS Ranger – a far too light experimental carrier – which the USN never considered fast enough or in any way suitable for Pacific Operations. She spent her entire operational life in the Atlantic on escort or ferry roles, and wasn't even considered worth upgrading to carry the more modern and heavier aircraft until the war was almost over. </p><p>As <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ranger_(CV-4)" target="_blank">Ranger's Wikipedia article</a> notes: <i><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;">On 15 April 1942, Prime Minister Winston Churchill cabled President Franklin Delano Roosevelt requesting </span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;">North Carolina</span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;"> and </span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;">Ranger</span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;"> reinforce the Eastern Fleet in the wake of the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_raid" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; color: #0645ad; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none; widows: 2;" title="Indian Ocean raid">Indian Ocean Raid</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;">... Admiral Ernest King had already definitely stated that </span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;">Ranger</span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;"> and any other major fleet unit could not be made available for the Indian Ocean...</span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;"> King's draft response to Churchill's insistence displayed a lack of tact. Roosevelt supported King, but toned down King's draft by playing up </span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;">Ranger's</span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2;"> faults to steer the British towards accepting the ferry mission.</span><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-44" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 11.2px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 1; orphans: 2; text-decoration-thickness: initial; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap; widows: 2;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ranger_(CV-4)#cite_note-44" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;">[42]</a></sup></i></p><p>I think it is fairly safe to dismiss the idea that the USN would have accepted the idea of having no carriers at all in the Atlantic in 1941, and suggest that Ranger and Wasp would almost certainly have been there in December 1941 even if Hornet had been relocated to the Pacific.</p><p>A possibility of an extra few cruisers or destroyers being available in December 1941 if there was no neutrality patrol is also there: but again, the numbers would not be particularly significant.</p><p><b>Other possible factors to consider?</b></p><p>More interesting is the question of whether continued increases in orders for aircraft by the RAF and the French Air Force between 1939 and 1941 might have boosted aircraft types and numbers available to US forces? </p><p>Presumably most such aircraft would be going to fill said orders, but under peacetime conditions, there may have been more flex in deliveries than otherwise? It is hard to imagine the numbers would be enough to make substantial differences, but certainly there might be some variations? But also consider how US industry had benefited from the war starting in 1939.</p><p>A considerable part of US armaments expansion pre 1941 was to fill British or allied orders, and included everything from light infantry weapons and ammunition; to Grant and Sherman tanks; to Warhawk, and Wildcat fighters (and of course the Mustang fighter, which was designed for a British order); to Liberators and Catalina's; to Liberty ships and Escort Carriers. Even destroyer and escort production had begun to increase in response to the Battle of the Atlantic at a rate well beyond what the USN would have been doing otherwise. Without those orders, the US would have had only a fraction of the armaments production capacity it benefited from in December 1941.</p><p>In practice the US would have been in a far worse military position to deal with and replace the sort of casualties it took in late 1941 and early 1942 if a major war hadn't already been going for a couple of years.</p><p><b>Weird Possibilities?</b></p><p>If war had not started in 1939, then it is hard to see the Japanese daring to attack a potential coalition of Britain, France, the Netherlands, the US, and perhaps even Italy in December 1941. </p><p>No matter what the Germans think or do.</p><p>If the Japanese are willing to go to war in December 1941, or perhaps earlier in June or July in a better planned cooperation with the Germans: it would most likely be only against the Russians. (Perhaps particularly if Italy is also attacking Russia, and teh British and French are showing further disinterest?)</p><p>In which case it is theoretically possible to see the US still putting enough pressure on Japan in support of China to make Japan want to attack the US. Theoretically.</p><p>In fact I suppose if Japan hadn't gone to war on Russia, they might even be in a better position to attack the US, if they kept trying to support China even without British and French assistance and access other Burma supply route etc...</p><p>But either way, if Japan attacks the US when the US has no Britain, France, Netherlands or Australian allies to distract them, then it is almost impossible to see how the US would not have suffered even worse losses than it already did.</p><p>Even if the British and French could be relied on to step in to help the US when it was attacked, they would not have been ready to launch any effective offensive operations until months after the Japanese had completed the occupation of Hawaii and the Philippines, and the destruction of much more of the USN. (Leaving the RN the challenging task of fighting past the Japanese occupied positions in the Philippines and Taiwan and China before it could bring any pressure to bear on Japan itself. A huge task that the US took 3 years to gather the resources to do even when it had major allies... And that is only if Britain could be convinced to consider the cost worthwhile while Germany and Italy are still sitting there as potential threats, possibly looking for new opportunities as Russia collapses? And even if Britain did intervene, would France or the Netherlands want to play too?)</p><p>It is perhaps amusing to consider a world war of Germany and Japan (and perhaps Italy – land and air anyway as the RN would continue to ensure that the Italian Navy would not take risks trying to attack US interests), against a coalition of the Russians, Chinese and US. </p><p>Perhaps internal politics might have led Britain and France and the other allies to act like the Americans actually did, and just stand aside for years and try and profit from other people's misfortunes. without doing anything to actually assist in maintaining some sort of order?</p><p>But if any of these myriad options did happen, in any form, it is very hard to see it ending well for the USN.</p><p>The US would no doubt have eventually recovered, even from the loss of their entire Pacific fleet, and the resulting carrier launched bombing of their West Coast cities and factories. No doubt they would possibly have eventually defeated Japan, but presumably having taken the sort of economic damage that Britain actually experienced through having to take most of the load for many years with little support. (Which would have re-entrenched the British as the dominant international power post war, not the Americans... Interesting... the Middle East would certainly have been more peaceful since... probably Asia too... But Eastern Europe might have been an ongoing bloodbath...)</p><p>But the US had no more chance of saving their allies in Soviet Russia and China in such circumstances than the British did of saving Poland and Yugoslavia. (Would the rump of China have still finished Communist? Probably. The US allied with the two Communist powers, or at least what is left of them? Fun concept.)</p><p>So no doubt a peace would have eventually have happened, probably with US West Coast cities, and almost all Japanese cities, being in the same ruins as the US East Coast cities were at the end of their disastrous intervention in the Napoleonic wars. (See the War of 1812... The reality version, where the US war aims to 'liberate' Canada fail; the US coastal cities and trade are in ruins; and the inevitable peace allows the British to go back to their actual priority of finishing off Napoleon. Not the US apologists version where the US 'won' something in some way... see Canadian opinion of that fantasy.)</p><p>But Germany would still dominate European Russia, and although the peace might involve Japan ceding back the Philippines and much of China so the US could claim victory, Japan would probably still have been left with much of Siberia and Mongolia and Korea etc. (And quite as capable of economic recovery post war as the US was after the War of 1812...) </p><p>Even an unlikely, and very costly, US invasion of Japan would not have changed Germany dominating Russia. Without the British Empire and Commonwealth to carry much of the effort, the US simply wasn't capable of winning more than one front at a time. And her economy would have looked like Britain's post war, while Britain's would probably have looked more like America's.</p><p>But that is far more conjectural than assessable.</p><p><b>Conclusion – very bad news for USN</b></p><p>In fact, returning to more practical realities, without British and Australian and Netherlands allies, the chances of the USN coming out on top of the IJN in early 1942 are almost impossible to imagine.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div></div><br /><p></p>Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-71423789307018944342021-05-01T01:10:00.001-07:002021-05-06T12:21:17.859-07:00If the War hadn't started until December 1941, would it?<p>Probably not...</p><p>Or at least not in the version that we know.</p><p>The naval balance of power, let alone other forces, in December 1941 just wouldn't have allowed the same sides to form.</p><p>But that needs some explanation.</p><p>When I started to draft this article, I realised I needed to do some background, and it actually led to 5 'preview' articles that can be accessed in this blog.</p><p>1. Defining a battleship.</p><p>2. Effective Re-Builds of WWI battleships.</p><p>3. If War had started December 1941, Part 1 - Battleships</p><p>4. If War had started December 1941, Part 2 - Aircraft Carriers</p><p>5. If War had started December 1941, Part 3 - Naval Balance of Power</p><p>You are welcome to read them all to follow the reasoning of this article. (And I would welcome comments and any extra information that people might have... the field is vast, and I keep finding minor corrections or additions to much of the available information.)</p><p>But the conclusion is simple.</p><p>If Britain, France, and Germany had not gone to war in 1939 (and Italy in 1940), and all had continued their building programs to December 1941, then a later start to WWII would simply not have seen Germany, Japan and Italy as allies.</p><p>Let's explore that.</p><p>First I will restate the summary of my last article on Naval Power Summary December 1941:</p><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><b><i>Balance of Power December 1941</i></b></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>On the - fairly unlikely - chance, that a war starting in December 1941 might still see the same sides develope, let's look at Allies vs Axis in these circumstances.</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><b><i>Battleships/Battlecruisers:</i></b></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>Britain – 21 (+7 likely to complete), France – 10 (+1 likely to complete), US – 16 (+9 likely to complete). Total 47? (+17?)</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>Germany – 4 (+1?), Italy – 7 (+1), Japan – 10 (+2). Total 21? (+3 or 4?). </i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>(Note, without Italy – which would be far less likely to jump onto the Axis team in such circumstances – the real German/Japanese battleship/battlecruiser numbers would be just – 14 (+2 or 3), with potentially Italy now in Allied column making it 54 (+20) on that side... You can do similar calculations for the rest of these types if it amuses you, but note that the Italians are about 40% of the Axis totals in most classes, and if they rejoined the Allies for the Second war, the Allied naval dominance would be even greater than in the First...)</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><b><i>Fleet Aircraft Carriers:</i></b></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>Britain – 13 (+ 8), France – 1 (+2), US – 6 (+11). Total 19? (+20?).</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>Germany – 1? (+1?), Italy – (+2?), Japan 6 (+1 and 4 conversions). Total 7? (+6-8?)</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>(Note, Britain, Japan and the US also had 2 or 3 older or lighter carriers each, none really suitable for front line service, and Britain and the US would both have their first few escort carriers coming on line. Japan also had 4 light conversions in process, and a pile of UNRYU class on order (only 3 of which were ever completed), while the USN had 11 cruiser conversions in line for 1943-4 and lots more escort carriers starting in 1942; and the RN would also have had 10 Colossus class in line for 1943-4, and lots more escort carriers starting 1942.)</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><b><i>Cruisers:</i></b></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>Britain – 88 (+24?), France – 23 (+5?), US 37 (+40?). Total 148? (+69?)</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>Germany – 12? (+3?), Italy – 23? (+12?), Japan 38 (+10). Total 73? (+25?)</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>(Italy in allied line up - Allies 171 (+81) to Axis 50 (+13)...)</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><b><i>Destroyers:</i></b></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>Britain – 321 (+64), France – 105 (+30?), US 177 (+188). Total 604? (+282?)</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>Germany – 34? (+12), Italy –59? (+12?), Japan – 108 (+43). Total 188? (+63?)</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>(Italy in allied line up - Allies 663 (+294) to Axis 142 (+75)...)</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><b><i>Escorts:</i></b></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>Britain – 500? (plus 240?), France – 120 (+45?), US – 120? (+160?). Total 740 (+445?)</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>Germany – 35 (+18), Italy – 78 (+15?), Japan – very few...</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><b><i>Submarines:</i></b></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>Britain – 102? (+60?) , France – 113? (+40?), US – 114 (+79). Total 329 (+ 179?).</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>Germany – 112? (+85?), Italy – 129? (+24?), Japan 63 (+60?). Total 304 (+169?)</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>(Italy in allied line up - Allies 458? (+203?) to Axis 175? (+142?)...)</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>I think you can see where I am going with this. With these respective numbers in December 1941, it is extremely unlikely that Italy would enter the war on Germany's side. </i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>Even if France was suddenly defeated and knocked out and the French fleet dropped out of the allied count. British naval dominance would be too great for Italy to take the risk. </i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>And Japan would be unlikely to see an opportunity to take advantage of even if France was suddenly knocked out, given RN and USN combined numbers. Especially if Italy seemed unlikely to assist.</i></div><p><br /></p><p><b>First, why might war not have started in September 1939?</b></p><p>Frankly, it is because Britain was having trouble getting France and the Dominions to agree to go to war. It is perhaps unfortunate that after years of trying to get everyone signed up, they finally got agreement to fight at a bad time, over a very poor case.</p><p><b>A bit of explanation</b></p><p>When Germany re-occupied the Rhineland in 1936, it was Britain that wasn't ready to support France in countermeasures. </p><p>But by the time of the Austrian Anschluss in March 1938, none of the 3 WW1 allies – Britain, France, or Italy, were willing to fight Germany over the issue. (One American journalist asked the previously belicose Mussolini why he had threatened war with Germany over just this sort of plan in 1934, but backed down in 1938. His answer was simple. "In 1934 I could have beaten Germany's army".)</p><p>Nonetheless the Anschluss made the major powers accelerate their re-armament programs. though note that Germany tripled it's gold reserves, and greatly increased its steel resources...</p><p>The occupation of the Sudetenland by Germany in September 1938 caused much more debate, but Chamberlain's notorious Munich Agreement was considered a reasonable result by many people, given that the Sudetenland was mainly occupied by German people's. But Hitler's promise that it was his last territorial demand was given a little bit too much weight. Churchill demurred...</p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><i>We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat... you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude... we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road... </i></span></p><p>Unfortunately sacrificing the powerful Czech army and its impressive border defences to this agreement actually undermined the ability of Britain and France to bring Hitler to heel. In October 1938 the combined British, French and Czech forces could probably have beaten the still woefully unprepared German forces. (The strong Czech army, with superb border fortifications and 470 modern tanks – more than Germany had at the time – was very motivated to fight until sold out by the British and French. If anything it was actually capturing the Czech arsenal and munition factories that made it possible for Germany to win the battle with France 18 months later. That included 25% of all German military equipment, including 350 of the mechanically reliable Czech t35 and t38 tanks. Which were effectively the dominant medium tanks for the German attacks on Poland and France, being hugely superior to the large numbers of Panzer I and Panzer II that were the backbone of the German forces, and greatly outnumbering the Panzer III, and Panzer IV that were only just entering service.)</p><p>But when the British government discussed war in 1938, the simple fact was that none of the Dominions were willing to consider it yet, and it had been clear since the White Russian wars and the Turkish Crisis of the 1920's that the British would not go to war without at least the agreement of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and hopefully South Africa. </p><p>[Eire was pretty much a write off for the Allies in WWII, and not worth considering in the anti-Axis camp. The Irish government's supposed neutrality was actually fairly pro-Nazi – or at least anti-English – in its effects for much of the war: greatly hindering Allied efforts, and giving constant fears of Vichy style Nazi occupation that would have to be countered by British or American troops. (The Valera government was the only government in the world to issue official condolences to Germany on Hitler's death in 1945... A fitting comment on their parochial delusions about the world.)]</p><p>Frankly, in 1938 and early 1939, the Dominions weren't ready to fight for 'a small country, far away, that no one has heard of' over its right to control its German sub groups. So war at surprisingly good odds for the allies was not possible. New Zealand might have signed up, maybe, but possibly not even Australia, and almost certainly not Canada or South Africa.</p><p>This was particularly unfortunate, as the German High Command actually sent a private envoy to tell the Chamberlain government they would mount a coup if Hitler ordered an attack and started a war that Germany must surely lose. See the Wikipedia article on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement#Opinions" target="_blank">Munich Agreement/Opinion</a>:</p><p><i><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">On 4 August 1938, a secret Army meeting was held. Beck read his lengthy report to the assembled officers. They all agreed something had to be done to prevent certain disaster. Beck hoped they would all resign together but no one resigned except Beck. His replacement, General </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Halder" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Franz Halder">Franz Halder</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">, sympathized with Beck and they both conspired with several top generals, Admiral </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Wilhelm Canaris">Wilhelm Canaris</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> (Chief of German Intelligence), and </span><a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf-Heinrich_Graf_von_Helldorf" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Wolf-Heinrich Graf von Helldorf">Graf von Helldorf</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> (Berlin's Police Chief) to arrest Hitler the moment he gave the invasion order. This plan would only work if Britain issued a strong warning and a letter to the effect that they would fight to preserve Czechoslovakia. This would help to convince the German people that certain defeat awaited Germany. Agents were therefore sent to England to tell Chamberlain that an attack on Czechoslovakia was planned, and of their intention to overthrow Hitler if this occurred. The proposal was rejected by the British Cabinet and no such letter was issued. Accordingly, the proposed removal of Hitler did not go ahead.</span><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEParssinen2004_62-0" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement#cite_note-FOOTNOTEParssinen2004-62" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[62]</a></sup><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> On this basis it has been argued that the Munich Agreement kept Hitler in power, although whether it would have been any more successful than the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_July_plot" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0645ad; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="20 July plot">1944 plot</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> is doubtful.</span></i></p><p>The allies actions, or lack of them, not only bolstered Hitlers position, but undermined any opposition. Poland and Russia had been willing to untie with teh British and French against Germany over Czechoslovakia. Both were appalled that the French in particular abandoned their treaty obligations. Th Poles shrugged and joined in the scavenging, (though their are cases where Czech and Polish forces worked together to stop further German advances). But the Soviet Union started seeking a rapprochement with Hitler.</p><p>Unfortunately it was only Hitler's occupation of the 'rump' of Czechoslovakia a few months later that revealed the lie of 'no more territorial demands', and swung the Dominions around. People like Prime Minister Menzies in Australia start actually pushing for Britain to make a stand. But too late...</p><p><i><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Germany gained 2,175 field guns and cannons, 469 tanks, 500 anti-aircraft artillery pieces, 43,000 machine guns, 1,090,000 military rifles, 114,000 pistols, about a billion rounds of small-arms ammunition, and 3 million rounds of anti-aircraft ammunition. That could then arm about half of the Wehrmacht.</span><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-99" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement#cite_note-99" style="background: none; color: #0645ad; text-decoration-line: none;">[99]</a></sup><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> Czechoslovak weapons later played a major role in the German conquest of Poland and France, the last of which country had urged Czechoslovakia into surrendering the Sudetenland in 1938.</span></i></p><p><b>Unfortunately the next opportunity for a stand was Poland.</b></p><p>The problem with Poland was that it was a bad country to make a stand for. Politically and militarily.</p><p>Whereas Czechoslovakia was a nice fairly innocuous country that could and would have put up a fight that Britain and France - possibly even Italy – could have effectively supported, Poland was not.</p><p>Poland was a fairly nasty aggressor between the wars, invading Russia in the 1920's, and gleefully grabbing part of Czechoslovakia, and indeed Hungary, when the Nazi's carved it up in 1938. Nor were they militarily capable of holding the Germans – armed with Czech tanks – off on open plains, the way Czech's might have held the considerably weaker German forces a year earlier in the fortified mountain passes. Nor could the allies find an effective way to support the Poles, particularly after the Russians also stabbed them in the back.</p><p>So the first point at which the British could go to war, was probably the point at which they shouldn't, and for a country they definitely shouldn't. (And which, notably, they couldn't save anyway, neither from the Germans, or from the Soviet's post war.)</p><p><b>Frankly the September 1939 start to the war was during a fairly temporary optimum window for the Germans. </b></p><p>Let's analyse that.</p><p>The German economy was already in poor condition, and it was the looting of Austrian gold and Czech armaments that gave it a temporary boost in what was effectively still peacetime. (The later looting of the Polish and French economies never made up for the costs of a full world war being in progress.)</p><p>Demographically German military manpower was at a height in 1940/41 that gave it an advantage over the allies and potentially Russians, that would quickly evaporate within a few years. (Demographics was an important science between the wars, and many leaders – like Hitler and Stalin – make frequent references to it. The Russians in particular would start having more manpower available starting in 1942... perhaps not a coincidence that Germany invaded in 1941?) </p><p>The Nazi air forces had a temporary superiority over the Allies in 1939 that was already being rapidly undercut as both the British and the French finally started mass production of newer aircraft. (By mid 1940 British aircraft production had overtaken the Germans, even without the French. If the war had not started in 1939, by 1941 the Luftwaffe would have been numerically quite inferior to the combined British and French air forces, even without the surprisingly effective new fighters being bought on line by the Dutch and others.)</p><p>German ground forces, while not really ready for war in September 1939 (half of their divisions were still pretty much immobile, and they had only 120,000 vehicles all up compared to 300,000 for the French army alone), were nonetheless in a peak of efficiency considering the Czech's and Poles had been knocked out, and the British and French were struggling to get new equipment into service. The Soviet short term decision to ally with the Germans to carve up Eastern Europe (Stalin knew this was only a temporary delay to inevitable conflict), also allowed the Germans an easy victory and much greater freedom of action. Again, by 1941 British conscription and production, and French (and Belgian, and Dutch, etc...) upgrades and increases in fortifications, would have come a lot closer to making the German task next to impossible. (Even then it was the collapse of French morale after the loss of Finland - leading to the collapse of the French government – and Norway, that really defeated France, not vastly inferior divisions or equipment.)</p><p>A byproduct of an Allied vamp up might also have seen Belgium rejoin the allied camp in 1941, or at least make significant planning preparations to properly add its 22 divisions and strong border fortifications to allied defences if Germany attacked. (Rather than the hopeless mess that happened in 1940 when the allies rushed to rescue the temporarily non-ally that had undermined the whole interwar defensive project ...) Again, the German's managed to find a sweet spot in 1939-40 that temporarily undermined long standing interwar co-operation, and one that was not likely to last very long.</p><p>Similarly a delay of war would have allowed allied negotiations with the Balkan states to advance. The same guarantee that was given to Poland had been given to Yugoslavia, Rumania and Greece. (It is usually forgotten that Greece – attacked by Italy – and Yugoslavia – <i>voluntarily</i> – joined the British side at the worst possible moment in 1941. (Only to be crushed by the Germans... but with the interesting by-product of effectively undermining Germany's chances of defeating the Soviets and occupying Moscow in the same year...)</p><p><b>The enigma that was Italy</b></p><p>More importantly Italy had wobbled backwards and forwards between supporting the allies in WWI, and threatening the Germans in the early 30's; to threatening the allies in the mid 30's over territorial expansion in Africa; to fighting on the anti-Communist side along with the Germans in Spain in the mid 30's; to desperately trying to supply the Finns in their fight against the Soviets in 1940 despite the Germans trying to prevent them getting supplies through. </p><p>Probably the only consistent thing about Italy's stands in Mussolini's 20+ years in power was anti-communism. Which was why his relations with Hitler were so fraught when Hitler signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and why Mussolini's government did its best to ship military supplies to Finland, and entered perfectly genuine negotiations with the Allies to support operations against Russian aggression... in return for getting back all the shares in the Baku oilfields that the Communists had nationalised... (Shares that skyrocketed on the French Bourse during the Finnish crisis...)</p><p>Mussolini was an opportunist rather than a genuine foam flecked fascist like Hitler. But he was a very genuine anti-Communist. People remember that at one point he signed they Axis Treaty with Germany, but manage to forget all the other treaties he signed with France (such as the Locarno Treaties in the 20's, and the Mussolini-Laval Accords in the 30's). The times he seemed to swap sides usually had more to do with where Britain, France or Germany were on the anti-Communist perspective at that point, than with which side he finished up on. Though of course, he always wanted any glorious territorial success story for his people to gloat about... the what and where, and indeed value, of that territory was actually hardly even relevant. (Ethiopia for God's sake! Who would want to fight a major conflict to control Ethiopia... particularly when Britain can cut your communications to it any time it likes?)</p><p>Frankly, had the allies gone to war at the time of the Rhineland, or even of Anschluss; or had they seemed like winning against the Molotov-Ribbentrop alliance: then Mussolini would probably just have joined the allied side. (For appropriate prestige and preferably territorial enrichment of course. Principals be damned.)</p><p>Mussolini made the fatal choice of joining Germany in 1940 –against the wishes of most of his population – simply because he saw a quick and easy win when France collapsed. He even let that greed overcome his disgust at the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.</p><p>But there is no way he would have declared war on Britain and France unless France suddenly collapsed... as it did in Germany's 1940 sweet spot. If war had not started until December 1941, and Italy had been faced with the naval balance of power listed above, there is no way that Mussolini would declare war on the allies. In fact, even if a much stronger set of allies had still seen France still collapse in 1942, it is nonetheless hard to see Mussolini taking the 'opportunity' he saw in 1940, given the overwhelming RN superiority that would completely dominate the Mediterranean by 1942.</p><p>Mussolini thought he saw a 'sweet spot' in 1940, and was wrong. It is unlikely he would have imagined the same sweet spot in the 1942 conditions described above.</p><p><b>Choosing Poorly</b></p><p>Frankly Italy abandoning its century long ally Britain and opportunistically joining the German side in 1940, was as bad a decision as Turkey doing the same thing in 1914. With equally bad results.</p><p>In the classic phrase of an Indiana Jones film, 'he chose poorly'.</p><p>Such incentives would have been extremely unlikely to happen in 1942... even if France did collapse then.</p><p>If war between Germany and the allies started in December 1941 it is hard not to see Mussolini joining the allied side. As long as he could get something out of it.</p><p>Particularly if it was a war of allies against a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact alliance.</p><p>Only if the war that started in December 1941 was between Germany and the Soviets, but <i>not against </i>Britain and France, might he have been on the same side as in the Spanish Civil War. (With the slight qualification that the British and French navies had not been willing to prevent him interfering in Spain during their civil war, and he would need the same effective licence from those navies to even considering interfering in Russia if Germany attacked the Soviets.)</p><p>To emphasise the point. Mussolini was genuinely anti-Communist, but also genuinely opportunistic. He only moved when he thought he saw real advantage.</p><p>Moving against the allies in 1940 probably <i>seemed</i> like a good idea at the time. But that in no way implies that he would have declared war on Britain and France at any point that didn't seem so opportunistically advantageous.</p><p><b>Japanese Ambition</b></p><p>Similarly, the December 1941 Japanese Navy preferred option to 'go south' against the French, American, British and Dutch colonial possessions (rather than keeping on with the Japanese Army's preferred 'going north' against the Chinese and Russians): was again, a decision to try and take advantage of a temporary 'sweet spot'. </p><p>Again, it may have looked clever to start with, but in reality, they also 'chose poorly'.</p><p>In reality France and the Netherlands had been suddenly knocked out of the war and occupied. (Making efforts to defend their Asian possessions almost impossible, and allowing the occupation of French Indo-China, which moved the Japanese air forces within easy reach of Malaysia, and also allowed her to demand 'basing rights' in Thailand). </p><p>And in reality Britain was suddenly saddled with a world-wide multi-front war where it was very difficult to move enough forces East to secure Malaya and Singapore in time. (Britain was fighting the Germans and Italians in Europe, Africa and the Middle East; across the north and South Atlantics, and the Indian Ocean; and also trying to fight enough supplies through to a recently invaded Russia to keep it in the war, which required the occupation of Syria, Iraq and Iran as well.) </p><p>Even though Britain theoretically had the military forces to secure Malaya if it had been possible to move them to the other side of the world in time, she could not get troops and planes from Europe to Asia while trying to keep all the other balls in the air. (The 3,000 fighters and several hundred tanks the British had shipped to Russia in 1941 may have been critical to save Moscow in December 1941, but a mere 10% of those planes and tanks would almost certainly have saved Malaya... IN fact 20% and the Japanese would not even have tried... Such are the consequences of difficult choices in wartime.)</p><p>Nonetheless, by March 1942 the intention was to have a fleet of 7 battleships and 2-3 aircraft carriers based in Ceylon, with enough extra planes and troops arriving in Malaya to finally make it secure enough to move an offensive fleet there. (And similarly the US was reinforcing its Pacific fleet and Philippines air forces as well, and discussions were finally moving towards combined operations, and units of the USN – a carrier, several cruisers and lots of destroyers and submarines were usually mentioned – rebasing to Singapore to support the RN.) </p><p>By April, or at latest by May 1942, the allies would have been strong enough to make a Japanese attack far more risky.</p><p>But in December 1941 the allied reinforcements were still dribbling in, and no proper plans for co-operation had been finalised: allowing the Japanese chose to take the chance. A temporary sweet spot.</p><p>Had war in Europe not broken out yet, it is hard to see Japan taking the chance.</p><p><b>Allied Naval Forces in the Far East in December 1941</b></p><p>Again, here are a couple of paragraphs from my post on Aircraft Carriers in December 1941 (read the full post for full deployments...)</p><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>Naval Security in the Far East in December 1941</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>RN with 8-9 capital ships - including 4-5 fast battleships, 2 slow battleships, and 2 battlecruisers - 4-5 KGV (though Howe would probably still be working up or en-route), plus 2 fully modernised Renown's, and 2 Revenge on Indian Ocean escort duty.</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>(Plus perhaps a Richelieu or two, and possibly both Dunkerques in Indochina, if Japan looks more threatening than Germany/Italy?)</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>A completely modernised Hood (possibly as flagship), and 2 or 3 of the new Lion class, also expected to join this force in the next year or so.</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>4-5 fleet aircraft carriers and one or two smaller - Indomitable, Ark Royal, and the somewhat modernised Courageous and Glorious (all about 70 aircraft each if deck parks had been adopted for service in the Indian or Pacific oceans?), and the new support carrier Unicorn (33 operationally) probably en-route.</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>Also Hermes and/or Argus, and perhaps a new escort carrier or two, for Indian Ocean escort duty.</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i>Indomitable or Implacable and maybe some more escort carriers expected to join this force in a few months; with Indefatigable joining late 1942, and another 3 or 4 large fleet carriers and several more escort carriers due in 1943.</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><i> </i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><div><i>Had Britain entered the war in December 1941 her 8 or 9 modern carriers in service, 2-4 more expected in 1942, and at least 4 more in 1943/44 (plus three older carriers, and a steady stream of escort and light carriers expected), the RN would have had a much easier war. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Combined RN and USN build rates, even without French support, would have already simply swamped the build capacities of the Axis powers.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Particularly as these new carriers would be fitted with Sea Hurricane and Wildcat/Martlet fighters, Fulmar strike-fighters and probably still Albacore bombers, (while waiting for deliveries of TBM Avenger and Barracuda Dive/Torpedo bombers), rather than the Swordfish and Gladiators of September 1939. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Also, the 8-9 available Japanese battleships would be facing potentially 20-24 RN, French and USN battleships – most of them more modern or more effectively modernised, and generally faster than anything the Japanese had in service. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Likewise the RN and USN's 8 or 9 fast modern fleet carriers (plus 2 or 3 small), with several more expected in 1942 and again in 1943, compared to Japan's 6 (plus 2 or 3 small) carriers, with only one significant vessel – <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Taih%C5%8D" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Taiho</a> – in the pipeline, and that only laid down a few months earlier – and no emergency <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unry%C5%AB-class_aircraft_carrier" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Unryu</a> having even been started yet.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>In fact if Japan had even considered declaring war without Germany, or – considerably less likely – at least Italy, also declaring war: then the odds would look much worse.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Without genuine threats from Germany or Italy, several more RN battleships – say the 2 Nelsons and 2 of the Queen Elizabeth's – and a few more carriers – Illustrious, and either Victorious or Formidable most likely – might have been transferred from the Home or Mediterranean fleet much earlier if needed (in return for Hermes and Argus returning to home waters while Implacable and Indefatigable completed...)</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Giving the RN alone complete superiority over the Japanese in battleships: with 12-14 RN fast battleships/battlecruisers available – almost all of them more modern and considerably faster than most Japanese ships – even without any of the 4 modern French fast battleships, and possibly even both modern US battleships – North Carolina and Washington. (Leaving 'just' another 10 or so older and slower USN battleships, for potential support in secondary defensive and escort roles...) </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Note that would still leave the Allies with superior numbers in the Atlantic/Mediterranean area, with the British (7 or 8 - including a couple of Lions and/or Vanguard working up with Home Fleet and 2 or 3 more battleships due in each of 1942, 43 and 44), the French (5 with possibly a 6th due 1943), and USN neutrality patrol (5 or 6 - including the first 2 South Dakota's working up, with 2 more battleships due in each of 1942, 43 and 44). These 'Allied' 18-20 capital ships numbering about twice as many capital ships as Germany (4, with possibly a 5th starting fit out anda 6th just launched but 18 months from completion... If the H plan had got anywhere) and Italy (6 with a seventh working up) combined... not that Italy would be likely to try anything stupid in these circumstances.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>In fact I would expect the Italian numbers to move back towards the Allied column in such circumstances.</i></div></div><p>The above does not include the dozens of extra cruisers, destroyers, submarines and escorts the allies would have been able to relocate to Asia in these circumstances. The Dutch alone had a number of new cruisers and submarines coming on line between 1939 and 1942 to reinforce the half dozen cruisers and 20 odd submarines already based there.</p><p>British, French and American air production was also skyrocketing from 1938 onwards (with a lot of the US increase being orders for the French and Dutch and even Chinese military), and without war start in September 1939, the allied air forces in Asia would have looked similarly enhanced by December 1941. Unless France and the Netherlands had already fallen to Germany: French Indo-China, Malaya, the Philippines, and the Dutch East Indies, would all have had a steady flow of new aircraft arriving. (And the main Japanese air forces would be starting from Taiwan – 3,100 kilometres away from Singapore – not from French Indo-China – about 1,100 kilometres – or indeed from Thailand - literally next door to Malaya.)</p><p>With conscription being re-introduced in March 1939 in Britain (pre-1939 war start...); late 1939 in Australia (admittedly on war start, but probably would have come anyway considering how the Menzies government was going); and in 1940 in the US (again, well the US entering the war): it is also likely that Britain, India and Australia would have had a several more divisions to defend Malaya, let alone US reinforcements to the Philippines, French to Indo-China or Dutch to the East Indies. </p><p>Even should France and the Netherlands both suddenly collapse after a December 1941 start where Germany, Italy and Japan actually co-ordinated efforts (realistically never likely to happen), Japan could not have just started from positions in Indo-China and Thailand for it's Blitzkreig, and wouldn't have had the necessary sweet spot of temporary superiority to allow it to move it's forces quickly to defeat each allied position one at a time before they could be made more secure.</p><p><b>Repeating the Turkish Mistake</b></p><p>Frankly Japan was an unlikely opponent anyway. On the allied side in WWI, it was really only a combined effort by paranoid Americans and racist Australians that saw the Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty – only just renewed post war – destroyed at the Washington naval conference. But for that incredibly stupid decision, the Japanese would have been as foolish to take on their British allies in WWII, as the Turks were to attack their long term ally and protector in WWI.</p><p>It may have seemed a good opportunity at the time, but see 'they chose poorly' above.</p><p><b>German/Japanese Co-operation</b></p><p>In the real war, the Axis version of co-operation was pathetic, with almost no attempt to co-ordinate action between the Germans and the Japanese.</p><p>Personally I think this is partly German racism, partly Japanese paranoia, and partly simply that the Japanese opportunism against the allies was almost as surprising to the Germans as German opportunism against the Russians a few months earlier had been to the Japanese.</p><p>But if we assume no start to war in 1939, and give the Germans and Japanese 2 extra years to communicate, (and particularly if we don't have the shocking Molotov-Ribbentrop pact to convince the Japanese not to trust the Germans): might they have actually come up with some sort of combined strategy?</p><p>I still think probably not, but if it had happened, it could have had only one target.</p><p>Russia.</p><p>Again, people forget that when the allies intervened in the White Russian wars between the communists and the Tsarists in the post-WWI period, one of those allies had been Japan. Even when the British and French eventually withdrew their troops from Archangel, Finland, the Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Siberia: the Japanese had continued to occupy significant parts of Siberia for several years.</p><p>And since engaging in the 'China adventure' in the 30's, Japan had fought several encounters with the Soviets. See Zhukov's brilliant victory against them in 1939 for instance. (And get a reinforced sense of why the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact really, really convinced the Japanese they couldn't trust the Nazi's.)</p><p>Yet if war had not happened in 1939. and particularly if the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact had not seen Japan 'stabbed in the back' by their Axis friend, then would a war start in December 1941 have seen the two co-operate to crush Russia? Certainly Japan's Foreign Minister Matsuoko had been as keen on the idea as the Imperial General Staff.</p><p>In 1941 it seems far more likely that the Japanese would 'do a Poland' and co-operate with Germany to go after Russia; than that they would co-operate with Germany to attack a combination of Britain, France, the Netherlands and the US.</p><p><b>Any chance of Italy joining the Axis?</b></p><p>Not in an attack on Britain and France (and incidentally on the US), no. </p><p>Particularly if Italy was now feeling a bit pro-allied in that regard... or should we say a bit more intimidated by rising allied naval superiority.</p><p>In fact the ONLY way Italy might finish up on the Axis side in December 1941, would appear to be if Germany and Japan convinced Mussolini that Russia was the only target... and that the British and French might not go to war to save her.</p><p>(This is not to say that Mussolini might not have tried to knock off Greece or Yugoslavia in passing. He was still a dangerously stupid opportunist. But if he did finish in a war against Britain and France, it would almost certainly be by accidental hubris, not by cunning plan...)</p><p><b>So is there any chance of a World War starting in December 1941 instead.</b></p><p>No, not in the form we know it.</p><p>But yes, definitely in the form of a German and Japanese alliance against Russia.</p><p>After all, that would be both more possible, and more attractive, given the changing balance of naval power.</p><p>There is even the possibility that Italy might have joined them in an 'anti-Communist crusade', but only if they thought it would NOT involve fighting Britain and France in the process.</p><p>So you are left with Germany and Japan, and perhaps Italy, against Russia and... China?</p><p>But does that become a world war? Could such a simple war start have led to 'complications'.</p><p>Would Britain or France have gone to war to save Stalin's appalling Communist dictatorship in such circumstances? It seems unlikely. (Nor would the Dominions have been keen to go to war for Stalin.)</p><p>Would Germany or Japan have felt it to be clever to attack Britain and France in such circumstances? It seems unlikely. If they were getting their territorial aggrandisement unopposed, why would you?</p><p>More interestingly, would the US have eventually decided to try and intervene on China's behalf anyway? Unlikely given US isolationism, and the reality that the US showed no interest in joining in either world war until forced into it, (and even then in 1941 it only actually declared war on Japan after having their teeth kicked in... Hitler still had to be the one to declare war on the US to get them properly involved). But I suppose it is still possible to conceive of the US going to war with Japan over China. After all, it was ever increasing US pressure and sanctions over China that effectively convinced Japan it had to take on the US in 1941.</p><p>This then provides the amusing picture of the US deciding to fight Japan over China while Britain and France are still neutral. (It may be hard to imagine the US actually taking the lead in anything given their domestic politics, but it parallels what they actually did in 1941.)</p><p>In which case, perhaps it would even having the same disastrous results that the US managed to achieve in reality? Without any British, Indian, Australian, New Zealand or Dutch allies distract the Japanese military into Malaya, the East Indies, Burma, New Guinea, and the Indian Ocean: there would be no need to divert most of the best Japanese units in other directions. Leaving only the barest screen against the British and French navies, the Japanese could have concentrated their battle hardened forces on the inexperienced and inadequately prepared Americans instead. </p><p><i>[Actually that looks like being a fun article in itself... perhaps my next post...]</i></p><p>Actually it even offers the amusing thought of a US-Russian-Chinese alliance against a German-Japanese-Italian alliance... without Britain or France becoming involved... Sweet!</p><p><b>Back to Reality</b></p><p>More realistically though, a German attack on Russia in the 1940 or 1941 campaigning seasons would almost certainly have succeeded, for the following reasons:<br />1) The entire German military could have concentrated on Russia. Instead of the reality where 90% of the Kreigsmarine (or what was left of it after 2 years of war with Britain), 50% of the Luftwaffe, and 35% of the Wehrmacht, were occupying - Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Crete; and fighting in/over/under – Britain, North Africa, the Atlantic, and the Mediterranean.<br />2)<span> The Russians would not get immediate support from people already fighting the Germans. Certainly not thousands of vital fighters and tanks pre Christmas...<br />3)<span> The best German forces for the invasion would not have done a little detour for a couple of thousand miles through the Balkans down to Greece and Crete, and back to the Polish border, before kicking off. And not suffered the casualties, attrition, and wastage of irreplaceable supplies that they actually suffered just prior to invasion in 1941. (It was actually Von Kluge's 10th Army – the one that fought all the way down to Greece and back before starting Operation Barbarossa – that finally ran out of steam in the suburbs of Moscow in December 1941...)<br />4) <span> The crack German paratroop arm, which was supposed to be a key to breakthroughs in Russia – as it had been in Belgium and France – would not have been wiped out as an effective force in Crete. <br /></span>5)<span> </span>The Russian military would not have had the time to get into the rebuild that its disastrous failures in the Finnish campaign actually led to. (Which were only starting to see vital new equipment like T34's arrive in late 1941.)<br />6) In fact Russia would probably not have had the disastrous Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact defeats in Finland to force it into changing its military structures, rebuilding its officer class, and hastening new equipment like the T34. Frankly it might have been in an even more parlous military state, and collapsed completely.</span></span></p><p><span><span>Frankly the 'miracle' of Russian survival in 1941 was only possible with all those things in their favour. Without any distractions to the Germans, or any rebuilds after a Finnish disaster, or indeed any equipment support from allies like Britain, the Soviets were unlikely to hold out.</span></span></p><p><span><span>Had the Japanese followed up with a serious invasion at the same time (meaning that Zhukov and his 30 crack Siberian divisions could NOT have been rebased to the defence of Moscow in December), then the Soviet collapse would have been practically guaranteed.</span></span></p><p><span><span>So the question becomes, does a Germany that has achieved its territorial ambitions in Europe and conquored Russia (and is extremely occupied digesting its new territories), then feel the need to attack Britain and France? Unlikely, at least in the short term.</span></span></p><p><span><span>Germany would simply have no capacity to attack Britain effectively. (And in Mein Kampf Hitler makes it clear that he valued the British Empire's role in the world, and saw them as natural allies who would only become enemies if they interfered in his 'rightful territorial ambitions'.) And if Britain was willing to stick to the guarantee to France, then even attacking France would be an unnecessary risk. (Remembering Hitler only felt the need to take the risky step to attack France in 1940, because they had gone to war with him over Poland...)</span></span></p><p><span><span>Or, given that they would both be much stronger by then, do Britain and France feel the need to attack Germany pre-emptively, just in case they might be next? Unlikely, as domestic politics would probably be as against it as US isolationism, and again, the Dominions might be hard to convince.</span></span></p><p><span><span>Frankly, no matter how we might fantasise that the British and French might go to war for to save the horrible Soviets, or the US go to war for the Chinese: it is far more likely Britain and France and the US would have stayed quietly behind their much improved defences, and just negotiated for the Germans and Japanese be satisfied with their new colonial empires in Russia and China.</span></span></p><p><span><span><b>Conclusion</b></span></span></p><p><span><span>If war had been delayed from the 'sweet spots' that Germany managed in 1939/40, and Italy and Japan consequently THOUGHT they saw in 1940/41, then it would simply not have happened in the same way.</span></span></p><p>Given naval build up alone, neither Italy or Japan would have even considered going to war with Britain and France in December 1941. No sweet spot = no fatal attraction.</p><p>Now whether a late 1940's war between a new German/Japanese alliance that had successfully integrated Russia and most of China, and THOUGHT they saw a sweet spot of allied disunity later... whether that might have happened... </p><p>That's a mindbogglingly impractical question to answer.</p><p><br /></p>Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-87862568383060307712021-03-18T13:22:00.000-07:002021-03-18T13:22:06.261-07:00If the war had not started until December 1941: Part III – Naval Power Summary<p> <i>Same Intro as Part I & II - I recently started looking at the issue of what would have happened if a second 'Munich Agreement' in 1939... a 'Warsaw Agreement' perhaps (presumably because France and perhaps a couple of Dominions refused to support a declaration of war), meant that Britain and France did not actually declare war on Germany on September 3, 1939. </i></p><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Might the World War have started in December 1941 instead? Probably not, but that needs explaining. It looks like being a fun topic, but it requires a lot of background. So I thought I would start with an analysis of where naval power would be in December 1941 if the European powers had not kicked off early. Even that is too big a bite for one go, so part I looked at Battleships, and Part II will just looks at aircraft carriers. (I will also look at land and air power in another article, then consider how – or if – any war might have developed on that basis as I progress.) </i></div><div><br /></div><div><b>If the war had not started until December 1941: Part III – Naval Power Summary</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>The previous posts - on Battleships and Aircraft Carriers - were getting a bit long, so I am doing a third to summarise the effects of the delay of a start of World War Two from September 1939 to December 1941 on the construction, re-builds, and new orders, of Britain, France, Germany and Italy, just to see what they would have brought on line to match what the US and Japan had on line by December 1941.</div><div><br /></div><div>[A lot of the previous discussion is based on the <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/44638028?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents" target="_blank">1938 NSF - New Standard Fleet</a> – plan for the RN, which started to replace the <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-08958-1_13" target="_blank">1935 DRC - Defence Requirements Committee</a> – plan in 1939, only to be cut short when war started early.]</div><div><br /></div><div><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">The main changes between the two RN plans were:</p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"> 1936 DRC fleet 1938 NSF fleet</p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">Battleships 15 20</p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">Aircraft Carriers 10 15</p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">Cruisers 70 100</p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">Destroyers 16 flotillas 22 flotillas</p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">Submarines 55 82</p></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Capital Ships.</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Part I pointed out that in the intervening two years, the British would have rebuilt Barham, Malaya, Hood and Repulse to the same standards as Queen Elizabeth, Valiant and Renown (plus engine and AA upgrades to Nelson, Rodney, and at least some of the Revenge class, which would have reduced weight and increased range even with the extra armour and armament upgrades). They would also have commissioned all 5 KGV, and probably have 2 Lions working up, 2 more Lions due to commission 1942 and another 2 1943, as well as Vanguard fitting out and possible 2 more battleships building for commissioning in 1944. (And I assumed that Britain would curtail construction of any other orders there, as they would be unlikely to complete any additional ships during the war... matching the US's actual practice of continuing the 3rd and 4th Iowa's, but cancelling the 5th and 6th Iowa's and all 5 Montana's.)</div><div><br /></div><div>It also notes that France would have bought on line 2 of the 4 new Richelieu, with a third fitting out and a fourth possibly being cancelled half complete. Germany would have completed the 2 Bismarck's, but probably cancelled the H class incomplete. And Italy would have 3 Vittoria-Venetto's commissioned, with another fitting out.</div><div><br /></div><div>That leaves Britain with about 20 Capital ships in commission, with 3 more due in 1942 (it's New Standard Fleet target of 20 modern or modernised, plus the 5 old Revenge's in support roles being due to complete 1943) and 2-4 likely to complete for a total of of 27-29 planned. The US with 20 in commission and perhaps 5 more likely to complete over 1942 -1944. Japan with 9 in commission and perhaps 3 likely to complete, 2 in 1942 and perhaps another in 1944. France with 9 in commission and another 1 likely to complete in 1943. Germany with 4 in commission, but unlikely to complete any others, and Italy with 8 and one likely to complete.</div><div><br /></div><div>Similarly with aircraft carriers. Britain would have had 12 in commission (and a couple of escort carriers) and another half dozen of each type likely to complete (still 3 short of it's NSF – New Standard Fleet – target of 15, but likely to meet that in 1942), Japan 9 with one fleet carrier (and a few conversions) likely to commission. The US 7, with 6 fleet and 5 Independence (and a number of escort carriers) likely to complete. (Germany may also have had 1 carrier in commission, but with even worse problems dealing with Luftwaffe disinterest in providing aircraft than the RN had faced in 1938 before taking back control of the Fleet Air arm. A second still under construction would be unlikely to be finished. Italy would still only have a barely started carrier conversion, unlikely to ever commission.)</div><div><br /></div><div><b>I'll take a moment to play with Escort Carriers too. </b></div><div><br /></div><div>The admiralty had put together designs for 'trade-protection carriers' either by conversion, or new build, as early as 1936. But lack of funding prevented experimentation, even in the first year of war. The first in service escort carrier – the converted cargo liner Audacity, with only 6 or 8 aircraft – actually served (and was sunk) prior to December 1941. But Audacity was not the first commissioned, with the first American conversion of a C-3 merchant hull beating her by days. </div><div><br /></div><div>Both navies had in fact started experiments as soon as funding and resources were available, with the British trying <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_catapult_ship" target="_blank">Fighter Catapult Ships</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_ship" target="_blank">Catapult Armed Merchantmen</a> (40 odd ships with one or more Hurricanes on a catapult), and later19 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_aircraft_carrier" target="_blank">Merchant Aircraft Carriers</a> – flight decks on top of existing tankers and grain carriers (often capable of handling 12 - 20 aircraft), before both navies ordered considerable numbers of proper Escort Carriers in 1941, for completion in 1942 or 3 (or 4). The first American built Escort Carrier commissioned into the RN - Archer - was actually in November 1941.</div><div><br /></div><div>Given that the USN was doing this in peacetime, it is unclear that there is any reason to believe that the RN would not have been doing same as soon as opportunity arose. So we have to assume that at least some of these Catapult, or Merchant Carriers, or even a few more proper Escort Carriers would have been on line for the RN had they been given another 2 years of peace to prepare. How many is hard to say, so let's just leave it at 2 Escort Carriers that in fact were in service then, and perhaps half a dozen each of Catapult Ships and the Merchant Carriers, with possibly twice that many again on line for similar conversions. The USN presumably would also have a few Escort Carriers already in service, with probably at least a dozen more in production.</div><div><br /></div><div>More importantly, The USN's promise of speedy production of the new designs, which was initiated in mid-1941, would certainly not have made the process of the USN or the RN receiving those ships any slower than it was in reality, and almost certainly a bit faster if the designs could be refines in peacetime conditions, before shipping losses pushed other concerns to the fore. In the case of a December 1941 start to the war, the initial impetus may have been no faster, but the process would probably be further developed.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Moving on to Cruisers, Destroyers, Escorts and Submarines...</b></div><div><br /></div><div>I will use the tables in one of Antony Preston's many books (<a href="https://biblio.com.au/book/illustrated-history-navies-world-war-ii/d/349890645?aid=frg&currency_id=4&gclid=CjwKCAjw9MuCBhBUEiwAbDZ-7nkZ6RnPq_nbAYLzBj5N95Q-HhNQcWvY_os7I2f_VM2lrJi02n8SIxoCAmoQAvD_BwE" target="_blank">An Illustrated History of Navies of World War Two, Bison, UK, 1976</a>) as a starting point, not because I particularly like his work (in fact I found much of it very poorly reasoned), but as a sample of the sorts of tables that have dominated too much discussion for too long.</div><div><br /></div><div>Preston gives the strength of the RN in September 1939 as 15 battleships (plus 9 building), 6 aircraft-carriers (plus 6 building), 15 heavy cruisers, 40 light cruisers (plus 8), 6 AA cruisers (plus 16), 1 cruiser-minelayer (+4), 113 modern destroyers (plus 24), 68 old destroyers (+ 11 being converted for AS duties), 47 modern submarines (+12); 54 Escorts (plus 80); 42 fleet minesweepers (+10); 2 monitors and 2 net-layers.</div><div><br /></div><div>Most people would have a few minor quibbles, but this looks approximately correct. In aircraft carriers the experimental model Argus (really reduced to a training ship) is not included, and it appears the 6th aircraft carrier would be Unicorn, (as the last Illustrious was not ordered until 1940). Fair enough.. The 9 capital ships building include the 5 KGV and 4 of the 6 Lions. Also, fair enough. Read Parts I & II for commentary on those. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Cruisers.</b></div><div><br /></div><div>15 heavy cruisers would be the same. Adding Radar, and some additional armour and light AA, being the only likely changes to those. (Though it is interesting to note that the surprisingly swift up-armouring of several of the County class in the late 30's seems to have revealed that they were designed specifically to have a 4" belt bolted on at short notice the moment the 10,000 ton Treaty restrictions could be downplayed... A 1941 start would have probably completed up-armouring all of them.)</div><div><br /></div><div>But let's look at how the other numbers would have varied by December 1941. I will note that I have to assume the cancellations on start of war in September 1939, and the even bigger dial down of the 1940 program (more than replaced later in the 41 and 42 programs), didn't happen when war didn't happen. So we have to use the established build programs from the 1937, 1938 and 1939 programs to guess at the likely 1940 and 1941 programs...</div><div><br /></div><div>First the 6 AA cruisers (+16) of 1939. Note that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-class_cruiser#Conversion" target="_blank">the 6 AA were all converted 'C' class</a> WWI vintage cruisers, and the plan was to re-arm another 6 C class, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danae-class_cruiser" target="_blank">and all 8 of the D class, as AA</a>, for a total of 20 modernised AA cruisers. Plus of course the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dido-class_cruiser" target="_blank">16 new Dido AA cruiser</a>s, of which 11 were complete by December 1941, with 5 more to complete 1942. (It is very likely that the lack of 5.25" turrets that led to the latter Dido's being equipped with 4.5" instead, would have been felt earlier if battleship production discussed previously had continued, so we can assume that most of the Dido's would have actually been finished with 10 4.5", rather than 10 or even 8 5.25". Actually improving stability, range, and their AA performance for most of the war, without too much reduction in their anti-ship capabilities.) So 31 AA cruisers in December 1941, with 5 from the 1939 program due 1942, and presumably the 1940 program of another 6 more Dido might be finished, but the 1941 program of perhaps 4 might be either completed or just cancelled?</div><div><br /></div><div>So of the 40 light cruisers (plus 8) listed for 1939, 13 would have converted to AA. The remaining 27 presumably would have all had some additional light AA (any ships with single 4" AA, having them replaced with twin, and with several others having some 6" or 7.5" single guns also replaced by twin 4" mounts), and presumably a fair number might have radar added. </div><div><br /></div><div>Of the '8' cruisers building, 10 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji-class_cruiser" target="_blank">Fiji class</a> were actually completed or working up by December 1941 (last one commissioned December 19), with the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur-class_cruiser_(1943)" target="_blank">6 Minotaurs</a> in each of the 1940 and 1941 programs scheduled for completion during 1942 or 1943. So 37 light cruisers, with 6 more due 1942 and another 6 1943.</div><div><br /></div><div>This lifts the 1939 total of 61 cruisers (still 7 short of the minimum required for the Defence Requirements DRC fleet of 1936 called for a minimum of 70 cruisers) to a December 1941 total of 83 cruisers, with 11 more due 1942, and perhaps 10 more 1943. The New Standard Fleet (NSF) of 1938 target was 100 cruisers, it appears the NSF was on track for mid 1943. Meaning cruisers would be the last part of the NSF to reach their target, with every other part of the plan exceeding their targets a full year earlier.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of the mine-laying cruisers, the 4 builds listed in 1939 were all in commission by December 1941, for a total of 5, with 2 more in the 1940 program due in 1942, and probably another 2 from the 1941 program in 1943. (Plus whatever extra 'wartime emergency' orders would have been made after war start in December 1941 of course.)</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>Submarines. </b></div><div><br /></div><div>Preston lists 47 'modern' (+12). Presumably excluding the old H and L classes used for training, but including the two dozen O, P, R and Thames classes (the big long range boats optimised for the China station, too many of which were lost plugging gaps in the unsuitable Mediterranean waters before they could come into their own in a Pacific war). The 27 or so S, T and U classes in service or working up by September 1939 take the numbers over 47, again, not including the 6 Porpoise class minelayer subs which Preston might think of as seperate (like the mine-laying cruisers?). I make it about 55 in service September 1939 (49 without the mine-layers), with another 37 actually reaching service by December 1941, for 92 in total. (Though again I think peacetime conditions would have lifted that by at least 8 or 10 others.) Say 100 in service, with another 24 or so due in each of 42 and 43. </div><div><br /></div><div>As usual the existing designs were immediately standardised when war started in 39, and only slightly modified for the first few years of the war. So the new and improved <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphion-class_submarine" target="_blank">A class</a> (optimised for Pacific operations again, and a considerably simplified construction that took half as along – only 8 months or so – to build), were not actually entering the production schedule until 43. Meaning the first dozen did not enter service until late 44 and early 45, effectively too late to see much service. So again it is interesting to speculate on whether the 1940 or 1941 peacetime programs might have included some A class style design for Pacific work to replace the old O, P & R class, once the target of 82 submarines for the NSF was clearly going to be passed in mid 1941. It seems likely that some newer Pacific oriented boats would at least be in the pipeline for delivery in 1943 or 44.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Destroyers.</b> </div><div><br /></div><div>Of the 68 old destroyers (plus 11 converting), almost all would have been converted to long range escorts by December 1941, so those 79 ships belong in the Escort Destroyer total. </div><div><br /></div><div>Of the 113 modern (+24 building) in 1939, the 24 appear to be the L, M and N class, (which finally established dual purpose guns in proto-turrets on British destroyers, though, limited to 55 degree elevation, they still had a long way to go to be anywhere near as good as the 5"/38 with 85 degree elevation fitted on contemporary US destroyers). The J and K class had been particularly good balanced designs, but with only low angle guns. the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_and_M-class_destroyer" target="_blank">L and M classes</a> were a bit too big, and a bit too expensive, so the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-,_K-_and_N-class_destroyer" target="_blank">N class returned to a J/K design</a> but still without proper dual purpose. </div><div><br /></div><div>When war started in 1939, the next classes dropped back to simpler earlier design 'Wartime Emergency' destroyers, and reverted to 9 classes constructed on an older 4 x 4'7" designs, but whether the same process would have happened for a December 1941 start is doubtful.</div><div><br /></div><div>Fairly obviously, the return to a J & K class design for the N class was supposed to establish a new standard destroyer type. The ongoing efforts to improve the Dual Purpose nature of armament in follow up N style classes in 1940 and 1941 would almost certainly have seen proper DP guns installed. If N class production had been repeated by another half dozen similar classes (say another 48 ships), during 1940 and 1941, and become the standard design by December 1941, the N class would probably have remained the main wartime production, in the same way as the contemporary <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher-class_destroyer" target="_blank">Fletcher design</a> became the default for the USN when it entered the war.</div><div><br /></div><div>[When exactly the 4.7" DP turrets would have swapped for the superior 4.5" twins is hard to say. Under the 1939 start, they were delayed becoming the main battery until 1943, but it is pretty likely that with a December 1941 start, the advantages of standardising the DP armament of the majority of fleet vessels – older modernised battleships, aircraft carriers, modern AA cruisers, and modern destroyers – so they all used 4.5", might have got them into service, or at least into production prior to December 1941? (Which is the exact process the Fletchers came from.) Some of the British destroyers launched in 1940 or 1941 were actually fitted with twin 4", or single 4.5" anyway. And the 65 odd Z, C and Battle classes from 1943 on all had DP 4.5". <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Savage_(G20)" target="_blank">HMS Savage</a> – commissioned 1943 – was actually the first real use of 4.5" DP, with wartime delays responsible.Who can say how much faster things might have developed with 2 more years of peace? But let's assume proper DP mounts, possibly in the P or Q class, and certainly by the S class. Which means proper destroyer DP would starting to be in use by war start in December 1941, not 4 years into the 1939 start war.]</div><div><br /></div><div>As it was all 24 L, M and N were complete by December 1941, as were the P class, most of the O class, and half of the Q class. Under non wartime conditions, let's assume all of them, for 48 new builds, with perhaps the new 'proper' DP designs, the S and T classes, of another 16 launched and fitting out or working up. </div><div><br /></div><div>On top of the 113 1939 destroyers, adding that 65 that comes to 177 destroyers, or 22 flotilla's... (exactly on target for the NSF requirement). In which case another 24 - 32 might be expected in each of the 1942 and 1943 years.</div><div><br /></div><div>Add the 79 fast escort destroyers from old WWI conversions, for 256. Also, not a single one of the excellent Hunt class fast escort destroyers was ready in 1939, whereas 65 were in service by December 1941, with another 13 due in 1942. </div><div><br /></div><div>So about 321 destroyers and destroyer escorts in service in December 1941, compared to 113 two years earlier, (with 24-32 more due in 42, even before 'wartime emergency' builds were started).</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Smaller Escorts is where it starts getting tricky. </b></div><div><br /></div><div>Preston lists 43 with 80 building in 39. That 43 appears to be about 8 WWI, and 35 interwar ocean going sloops of the 1,050-1,250 tonne style, including a few new build Egret and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Swan-class_sloop" target="_blank">Black Swan</a> class. (The 11 600 tonne patrol sloops don't seem to make his list.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Minesweeping sloops (600-900 tonne) were a particular problem with only about 45 in September 1939, with another 120 or so due to complete by December 1941, for a much more useful 165 available for a December 41 war start (with the same again on order).</div><div><br /></div><div>The new Corvettes (the famous <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower-class_corvette" target="_blank">Flower class</a>) had not started to come into service in September 1939, but about 210 of them, as well as the first half dozen of the new <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_frigate" target="_blank">River Class</a> would be in service by December 1941. With a couple of dozen more Flower or modified Flower, and the same of the River class due in 1942 (maybe 50 or 60), and at least the same again in 43 and 44. Then the much improved Castle class and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch-class_frigate" target="_blank">Loch Bay class</a> would start rolling out by the score in 43 and 44. </div><div><br /></div><div>So instead of the 220 odd destroyers and escorts actually available in September 1939, by December 1941 Britain actually had put into service about 600 destroyers and escorts. (This would probably be a bit less for a December 1941 war start, as the building rate wouldn't already have seen resources diverted from finishing battleships and aircraft carriers for urgent wartime conditions as yet. But let's be really conservative and say 500 odd minimum by December 1941 instead of the 220 available 2 years earlier?) </div><div><br /></div><div>Even with all 22 flotilla's of Fleet destroyers reserved for fleet work (which never really happened), that allow somewhere between 400 and 500 escort vessels available, compared to the 125 or so available in September 1939. Plus a number of Escort carriers and Merchant carriers. Plus considerably more Coastal Command long range air patrol capacity. Nor did German 'wartime emergency' U-boat production start climbing at any considerable rate until their own Plan Z battleship and aircraft carrier effort was officially abandoned when war started in 1939. Presumably if war had been delayed until December 1941, the Kriegsmarine would have continued to concentrate on producing at least 2-4 of the 8 authorised of the H class battleships, plus 3 or 4 more heavy cruisers and another carrier, etc... leaving U-boat construction to fall far far behind the increases in RN escorts. Frankly, with plenty of resources to make convoys possible from December 1941, it is hard to see how Germany could have even attempted the sort of Battle for the Atlantic that was possible with a 1939 start.</div><div><br /></div><div>(Let's not even consider the American contributions - the famous 50 '4 stacker' destroyers probably would not have been sent to Britain, or at least not until after war started. Similarly the 10 Coastguard cutters, 34 mine-sweeping sloops, and 110 odd Escort sloops that all arrived in 42 or 43.)</div><div><br /></div><div>So just to reflect, the New Standard Fleet design of 1938 was predicated on being able to have superior fleets available for facing both Germany and Japan at the same time, with adequate left-over to convince the Italians that war would be a bad idea. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>The New Standard Fleet was predicated on: </b></div><div><br /></div><div>20 capital ships. In fact 20 or 21 would be ready in December 1941, with another 3 due in 1942, and 2 probably more 1943. (But given that the old Revenge class were planned to be restricted to back ups as newer models came on line, the real goal of 20 modernised or new build capital ships would really be achieved 1942-3, with the total number of 25 or more capital ships in commission just being a bonus.)</div><div><br /></div><div>15 aircraft carriers. 13 ready December 41, with 2 to 3 more due in each of 42, 43 and 44 (not counting dozens of escort carriers etc.) Target to be reached mid 1942.</div><div><br /></div><div>100 cruisers, of which 80-90 were ready, with a dozen more due in each of 42 and 43. Target to be reached early 1943.</div><div><br /></div><div>22 flotillas of destroyers would probably be available by December 1941. Target exceeded (plus perhaps 500 escorts!)</div><div><br /></div><div>82 submarines were required, but more like 100 would be in service by December 1941. Target exceeded (with 30 more due in each of 42 and 43).</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Though I note that it is also predicated on the French navy providing the backup to give absolute superiority over all 3 Axis powers - Germany, Italy and Japan. Of course if war didn't start until December 1941, that would still be the case.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>So a bit of a summary of other navies builds for a December 1941 war start.</b></div><div><br /></div><div>We know the USN and Japan numbers of course, and it is unlikely that there would be much change there had Europe not gone to war earlier. Both were building up at a significant rate, and the US in particular was vamping up as fast as it could in peacetime.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>France: </b>would have probably commissioned 2 Richelieu, with a third due perhaps 1943-44. Also the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joffre-class_aircraft_carrier" target="_blank">aircraft carrier Joffre</a> would be close to completion, and her sister Panlieve likely to be cancelled at war start (unless it was war against Japan, not Germany, in which case it would be accelerated rather than cancelled). </div><div><br /></div><div>None of the new St-Louis heavy cruisers were in commission, but 2 were planned to be finished in 1943, along with a few light cruisers and a dozen new destroyers.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Italy:</b> 2 Vittorio-Vennetto's, with a third due 1942. Several more cruisers and a couple of dozen destroyers and escorts and submarines would have been added, with the same again in production.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Germany:</b> 2 Bismarck's, and their first aircraft carrier working up, and perhaps another <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Hipper-class_cruiser" target="_blank">2 Hipper class</a> cruisers, and a dozen destroyers, and probably another 40 - 50 submarines. (Possibly another <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-class_battleship_proposals" target="_blank">2 H class</a> launched, and maybe even one approaching completion, though it seems extremely unlikely that more than 1 or 2 were possible to actually complete even if the naval plan had soldiered on into December 1941... The German economy was actually in dire straights even with raiding the Austrian and Czech – and presumably Polish – economies to keep it going...) Any other major ships were unlikely to complete, with wartime emergency production switching to escorts and submarines. (Though even Doenitz would have to admit that there were still not nearly enough U-boats to take on the expanded RN escort fleet with any chance of war winning success given relative numbers in December 1941.)</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Balance of Power December 1941</b></div><div><br /></div><div>On the - fairly unlikely - chance, that a war starting in December 1941 might still see the same sides develope, let's look at Allies vs Axis in these circumstances.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Battleships/Battlecruisers:</b></div><div>Britain – 21 (+7 likely to complete), France – 10 (+1 likely to complete), US – 16 (+9 likely to complete). Total 47? (+17?)</div><div><br /></div><div>Germany – 4 (+1?), Italy – 7 (+1), Japan – 10 (+2). Total 21? (+3 or 4?). </div><div><br /></div><div>(Note, without Italy – which would be far less likely to jump onto the Axis team in such circumstances – the real German/Japanese battleship/battlecruiser numbers would be just – 14 (+2 or 3), with potentially Italy now in Allied column making it 54 (+20) on that side... You can do similar calculations for the rest of these types if it amuses you, but note that the Italians are about 40% of the Axis totals in most classes, and if they rejoined the Allies for the Second war, the Allied naval dominance would be even greater than in the First...)</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Fleet Aircraft Carriers:</b></div><div>Britain – 13 (+ 8), France – 1 (+2), US – 6 (+11). Total 19? (+20?).</div><div>Germany – 1? (+1?), Italy – (+2?), Japan 6 (+1 and 4 conversions). Total 7? (+6-8?)</div><div><br /></div><div>(Note, Britain, Japan and the US also had 2 or 3 older or lighter carriers each, none really suitable for front line service, and Britain and the US would both have their first few escort carriers coming on line. Japan also had 4 light conversions in process, and a pile of UNRYU class on order (only 3 of which were ever completed), while the USN had 11 cruiser conversions in line for 1943-4 and lots more escort carriers starting in 1942; and the RN would also have had 10 Colossus class in line for 1943-4, and lots more escort carriers starting 1942.)</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Cruisers:</b></div><div>Britain – 88 (+24?), France – 23 (+5?), US 37 (+40?). Total 148? (+69?)</div><div>Germany – 12? (+3?), Italy – 23? (+12?), Japan 38 (+10). Total 73? (+25?)</div><div>(Italy in allied line up - Allies 171 (+81) to Axis 50 (+13)...)</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Destroyers:</b></div><div>Britain – 321 (+64), France – 105 (+30?), US 177 (+188). Total 604? (+282?)</div><div>Germany – 34? (+12), Italy –59? (+12?), 108 (+43). Total 188? (+63?)</div><div>(Italy in allied line up - Allies 663 (+294) to Axis 142 (+75)...)</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Escorts:</b></div><div>Britain – 500? (plus 240?), France – 120 (+45?), US – 120? (+160?). Total 740 (+445?)</div><div>Germany – 35 (+18), Italy – 78 (+15?), </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Submarines:</b></div><div>Britain – 102? (+60?) , France – 113? (+40?), US – 114 (+79). Total 329 (+ 179?).</div><div>Germany – 112? (+85?), Italy – 129? (+24?), Japan 63 (+60?). Total 304 (+169?)</div><div>(Italy in allied line up - Allies 458? (+203?) to Axis 175? (+142?)...)</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>I think you can see where I am going with this. With these respective numbers in December 1941, it is extremely unlikely that Italy would enter the war on Germany's side. </div><div><br /></div><div>Even if France was suddenly defeated and knocked out and the French fleet dropped out of the allied count. British naval dominance would be too great for Italy to take the risk. </div><div><br /></div><div>And Japan would be unlikely to see an opportunity to take advantage of even if France was suddenly knocked out, given RN and USN combined numbers. Especially if Italy seemed unlikely to assist.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Would war have started in December 1941?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Can't see Italy joining the Axis. Mussolini, like Stalin, was an opportunist: not a genuinely foam flecked ideological idiot like Hitler.</div><div><br /></div><div>Can't see Japan attacking Britain and the US. (And even less Britain, the US, and France, with Italy potentially now in their column!) Perhaps war against Russia to retake Siberia (which Japan had actually held for most of the 1920's after the White Russian intervention by the Allies of WWI) might look a better option</div><div><br /></div><div>Frankly Germany would probably still not be deterred from a continental war if the madman still wanted one, as her naval situation – or lack of naval possibilities – would really be no worse than in WWI...</div><div><br /></div><div>But that assumes the land and air relative strengths by December 1941 would still make a continental war an attractive game for Germany.</div><div><br /></div><div>I will look at those figures in the next posts.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-40576661887618188382021-03-06T01:50:00.002-08:002021-03-18T11:25:27.340-07:00 If the war had not started until December 1941: Part II – Aircraft Carriers <br /><i>Same Intro as Part I - I recently started looking at the issue of what would have happened if a second 'Munich Agreement' in 1939... a 'Warsaw Agreement' perhaps (presumably because France and perhaps a couple of Dominions refused to support a declaration of war), meant that Britain and France did not actually declare war on Germany on September 3, 1939. </i><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Might the World War have started in December 1941 instead? Probably not, but that needs explaining. It looks like being a fun topic, but it requires a lot of background. So I thought I would start with an analysis of where naval power would be in December 1941 if the European powers had not kicked off early. Even that is too big a bite for one go, so part I looked at Battleships, and Part II will just looks at aircraft carriers. (I will also look at land and air power in another article, then consider how – or if – any war might have developed on that basis as I progress.) </i></div><div><br /></div><div><b>If the war had not started until December 1941: Part II – Aircraft Carriers</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Britain entered the war in September 1939 with 7 aircraft carriers (Argus, Hermes, Eagle, Furious, Courageous, Glorious, Ark Royal), of which the last four were fast, 30 knot plus, well equipped models, with significant antiaircraft firepower. A fifth, Eagle, was also a proper fleet carrier, but at 24 knots only as fast as the older 21, 23 or 24 knot battleships – which admittedly included every pre 1939 British or American battleship – so she could continue to work with the battle-fleet at least. Whereas Argus and Hermes were little better than escort or training carriers: and in practice spent most of the war on ferry or escort duties, with only brief roles as operational carriers. </div><div><br /></div><div>So let's look at 1939 for the Americans and Japanese. In 1939 America had two big Lexington carriers and the newly commissioned Yorktown and Enterprise, plus the failed experiment Ranger, while Japan had two big old Akagi/Kaga carriers, two smaller modern ones (Hiryu and Soryu), a their own little experimental one (Hoshu). So four and a bit carriers each compared to the British five and two bits in September 1939. All 3 navies were using a mixture of biplanes and some pretty unimpressive monoplanes in 1939 (<a href="https://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.com/search?q=comparing+naval+aircraft" target="_blank">see my article on naval aircraft here</a>). </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Myths</b></div><div><br /></div><div>To knock off a much misunderstood issue early, the main reason British carriers carried less planes per tonnage than the equivalent American or Japanese carriers was twofold. </div><div><br /></div><div>A) British carriers in general were more heavily constructed, protected, fire-safe, and armoured. No British carrier had the structural or seakeeping problems that bedevilled Shoho and Ranger (though Argus was really not a fleet carrier either); none were knocked out of service by storms like a Princeton or even an Essex (at least not after the curved bow doors of courageous were welded shut!); none were unable to fly off in anything other than calm weather like the soon to be completed Wasp. Most British carriers also tended to have considerably more fuel safety and fire suppressions systems, (to the point that when the first American built escort carriers arrived they were rushed straight into dock for extra safety fit-outs before being considered fit for operations). Though as a byproduct, no RN carrier carried anywhere like the amount of fuel for operations as many American and Japanese carriers.</div><div><br /></div><div>B) the British also considered permanent Pacific style deck-parks completely unsuitable for Atlantic conditions, or indeed too dangerous for continental waters too close to enemy airbases like the Mediterranean. </div><div><br /></div><div>(Noticeably, British carriers deployed to the Indian or Pacific oceans quickly adopted deck parks for air wings on average 50% larger than their ‘designed capacity’, coming much closer to Japanese and American ‘designed capacity’. But also note that most carriers lost to air attack in the Pacific suffered explosions amongst such deck-parks, or in un-armoured hangars, while British carriers in the Mediterranean and Pacific regularly survived bombings because their aircraft were hidden away under armour. A bomb hit on a plane on the deck of any Japanese or American carrier, usually led to fires that often put the entire air group out of operation, if not outright disabling or sinking the ship. A bomb hit on a British carrier usually left the majority of the air-group relatively untouched, and the ship able to resume combat operations. To paraphrase one American observer in 1945 "A Kamikaze hit on a US carrier puts it in dry-dock for 6 months... whereas on a British carrier it's a case of 'sweepers, man your brooms'...") </div><div><br /></div><div>Also note that when 'Halsey's Typhoon' hit the Pacific optomised US fleet, the USN had 30+ ships damaged , with 9 requiring major repair (see Princeton and Essex class ships put out of action) and 3 sunk, and 145 or so planes destroyed. When Halsey radioed the British Pacific Fleet asking about storm damage, the somewhat cheeky reply from an Atlantic optomised force was "what storm?". (In reality a couple of dozen RN planes were damaged or written off when their tie-downs broke, but nothing worse than that.)</div><div><br /></div><div>So the designed 'under-cover' aircraft numbers listed for British carriers usually went up by 50% once deck parks were used in the Indian or Pacific Oceans. Illustrious, Victorious and Formidable, designed for 36 under armour, carried 54 aircraft in the Pacific. Indomitable, designed for 48, carried 72, as presumably would Courageous and Glorious had they survived for work in the Pacific. Implacable and Indefatigable, designed for 54 under armour, carried 81. And Ark Royal, theoretically designed for 72, but really suitable for 60 under cover, presumably could also have carried about 80 or 90 in the Pacific. </div><div><br /></div><div>(Perhaps it should also be noted that, regardless of supposed design numbers, ships like Saratoga, Yorktown, Wasp, Akagi, Soryu and Shokaku – all of them designed for 80 - 100 aircraft in ideal conditions, usually actually operated about 65-75 aircraft in Pacific actions like Coral Sea and Midway. Although accepted numbers vary a little: at Coral Sea Lexington had 69 and Yorktown had 66, while Shokaku had 66 and Zuikaku 65. At Midway the Yorktown class - design 96 - actually carried, Yorktown 71, Enterprise 78, and Hornet 76. From the Japanese end the numbers at Midway were Akagi 60, and Kaga 71, Hiryu 54 and Soryu 56. Later in the war – when the percentage of smaller and lighter fighters over heavier attack aircraft went from a starting 25%-30% to an eventual 75% - 80% – obviously the total numbers carried went up a bit. Theoretical number capacity and actual numbers used operationally vary a lot.)</div><div><br /></div><div><b>RN carriers in 1939</b> </div><div><br /></div><div>So in 1939 these 7 available carriers were only inadequate for British needs because the oldest two were outdated experimental models (rather like the USS Ranger, or the Japanese Hosho), so they should not really count as proper fleet carriers. The Eagle, although a good conversion design. was a bit small and a bit slow, and Furious, though fast, was also a bit small. Really leaving only Ark Royal, Courageous and Glorious as proper modern fleet carriers. (Note - Courageous lost 1939, Glorious 1940, Ark Royal 1941... Meant that situation didn't actually improve much despite commissioning of Illustrious, Formidable, Victorious and Indomitable during the same period...)</div><div><br /></div><div>Under the DRC (<a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-08958-1_13" target="_blank">Defence Requirements Committee 1935</a>) fleet requirement for 10 modern aircraft carriers, the 1936 program saw the first 2 Illustrious laid down, with another 2 in 1937, a fifth – plus the support carrier Unicorn – in 1938, and a final Illustrious in 1939. 2 more were planned in each of the 1940 and 1941 programs, allowing all the 'over age' – over 25 years old – designs to not be included in that '10 modern' list by about 1944. (Though Courageous and Glorious at least were likely to be modernised rather than scrapped, even if Furious and Eagle were retired to training carriers, with Hermes and Argus completely scrapped or put in reserve.)</div><div><br /></div><div>But the NSF (<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/44638028?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents" target="_blank">New Standard Fleet 1938</a>) plan lifted the requirement to 15 modern aircraft carriers, which would have seen an extra fleet carrier, or two, ordered in each of the 1939, 1940, and 1941 programs, with presumably another 1 or 2 more for the 1942 plan. (With further modernised designs taking advantage of the naval escalation limits being dropped, to lift the 23,000 ton standard/ 28,000 ton full load limits of the Illustrious class to more like the 27,000 tons standard/ 33,000 ton full load of the Essex class.) </div><div><br /></div><div>Given that the heavily armoured Eurocentric Illustrious design varied from the Pacific oriented Ark Royal because of the perceived need for heavier armour for Mediterranean operations, it is also sensible to think the 6 extra 'Eurocentric' fleet carriers becoming available by 1941 would have allowed for a more Pacific friendly design on the next 5 or 6. Presume larger ships with bigger air-groups but somewhat reduced hangar armour. (See the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audacious-class_aircraft_carrier" target="_blank">Audacious class</a> for what really happened in the 1941 program, but in that case only after the 2 year order holiday caused by the 1939 start. The Audacious were 'improved Implacable's with proper double hangars', and should actually have been started in the 1940 program, and half complete by a December 1941 start to the war.)</div><div><br /></div><div><b>RN build progress in December 1941</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Had Britain entered the war in December 1941 they would have also had the 4 Illustrious class - Illustrious & Victorious (1936 program), Formidable (all 28,000 ton full load), & upgrade design I - Indomitable (1937 - 30,000 tons) - and probably <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Unicorn_(I72)" target="_blank">Unicorn (1938 - a 20,000 ton 'maintenance carrier')</a>, already in service. With the upgrade II ships - Indefatigable (1938 - 32,000 ton) about to commission, and Implacable (first of 5 in the 1939 plan) working up. </div><div><br /></div><div>The other two 1939 program upgrade II Illustrious ships from the 1936 DRC plan - Irresistible and Irrepressible, plus hopefully the two bonus 1939 upgrade II Illustrious of the 1938 NSF plan - Inflexible and Incomparable (now pushing 34,000 tons) - would be launched and fitting out for service between mid 42 and mid 43. </div><div><br /></div><div>The 1 DRC aircraft carrier and bonus NSF carrier - Audacious and Africa - of the new 38,000 ton Audacious class 1940 program would be due in late 1943, and the single DRC and single NSF ships of the same class of the 1941 program would be due in 1944 (and traditionally might adopt names of any aircraft carriers sunk in the war so far).</div><div><br /></div><div>Designs for a 3 ship 50,000 ton <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta-class_aircraft_carrier" target="_blank">Malta class</a> (the size the Audacious class actually finished at after all their delays), 2 for 1942 - Gibraltar, Malta - and 1 for 1943 programs - New Zealand - would have been well advanced, and the even larger design for a 56,000 ton class for the 1944 and 45 programs would be in the works.</div><div><br /></div><div>Meanwhile the 10 ship 18,000 ton <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942_Design_Light_Fleet_Carrier" target="_blank">Colossus class</a> of 'light fleet' carriers would probably have entered the process contemporary with the USN's light cruiser carrier conversions alternative. With 3 or 4 arriving in 1943, and 5 or 6 in 1944, by which time the first of the 6 slightly enlarged Majestic's would also be starting to appear, and the 4 28,000 ton <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur-class_aircraft_carrier" target="_blank">Centaur class</a> would be in production. (In fact I am only assuming these about 12-18 months in advance of when they actually happened even during the wartime slowdown.) These Centaur 'light fleet' carriers of the 1944 program had actually grown as big as the 1937 Illustrious Class fleet carriers, while the equivalent Malta class fleet carriers had doubled in size to 57,000 tons over the course of the war!]</div><div><br /></div><div>[Note - When war started in September 39, Britain cancelled future battleships builds, and put aircraft carriers on an 18 month to 2 year delay, while concentrating on urgently needed escorts. When war started in December 41 for the United States, the USN also cancelled new battleships builds, but kept the aircraft carrier process going (though the assumption that the allies had enough escorts in 1942 was severely tested by the U-boats as a result). However if Britain had not entered the war until December 1941, and had still stopped new battleship construction then, the RN might also have been able to continue their aircraft carrier program anyway. Certainly by December 1941 the RN escort build program would have been increased by over 300 ships in advance of its 1939 strength, and they would not have needed to slow so much construction elsewhere... see the next article on naval balance overall.]</div><div><br /></div><div><b>RN carriers in December 1941</b></div><div><br /></div><div>So the new fleet carriers Illustrious, Formidable, Victorious and Indomitable, already in service; and Indefatigible working up (and Implacable due mid 42); along with Ark Royal, Furious, Courageous and Glorious (last two both possibly re-fitted, with flight decks and hangars extended to the bows bringing them to a capacity of about 56 under cover, and 76 with deck parks), that amounts to 9 large, fast, well armed and - in most cases - well armoured aircraft carriers available, with several more in the pipeline... with the modern Unicorn, and older Eagle, Argus and Hermes to back them up. </div><div><br /></div><div>The first couple of experimental escort carriers would probably have also come on line, to support a number of Merchant Catapult ships, or Aircraft Armed Merchant Ships (usually oil or grain carriers suitable to having a small flight deck installed for half a dozen aircraft... ) These would be in partial replacement of the Armed Merchant Cruisers that Britain had needed in 1939, but would not have needed had the NSF lifted the number of cruisers available from 70 to more like 100.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Comparative numbers for December 1941:</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Britain:</div><div>Fast Fleet 8 or 9 - Courageous, Glorious, Furious, Ark Royal, Illustrious, Formidable, Victorious, Indomitable, (with 2 more – Implacable and Indefatigable - fitting out, and 8 more fleet carriers under construction. 3 or 4 due in 1942, 2 or 3 in 1943, 2 in 1944, for 18 – if no more were ordered... the 15 'underage' from Ark Royal forward required for the 1938 NSF plan, and the 3 'over age' rebuilds still – like the Lexington and Saratoga – too good to just scrap.)</div><div>Others 6? - Argus, Hermes, Eagle and the new Unicorn, with say 2 escort carriers. (With several more escort carriers fitting out and several more escort carriers and a few 'light fleet' carriers on order. Say 2 dozen, if no more were ordered? Though Argus at least would probably have been honourably retired to depot ship in these circumstances...)</div><div><br /></div><div>United States:</div><div>Fast Fleet 6 – Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise, Yorktown, Hornet and Wasp. (With 11 Essex class on order or under construction, for 17 – if no more were ordered?)</div><div>Others 2 - Langley and Ranger. (With 4 Independence, and several escort carriers building and several more on order. Say two dozen, if no more were ordered?).</div><div><br /></div><div>Japan:</div><div>Fast Fleet 6 – Kaga, Akagi, Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku, Zuikaku (with Taiho under construction).</div><div>Others - Hosho, Ryuho, Ryujo, (with conversions to Chitose, Chiyoa, Hiyo and Junyo in progress).</div><div><br /></div><div>Other Nations:</div><div>Although France, Germany and Italy would all have one new carrier 'launched' by December 1941, and another building, actual completion is more dubious. </div><div><br /></div><div>The French <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joffre-class_aircraft_carrier" target="_blank">Joffre</a> would almost certainly not be completed yet. Perhaps late 1942 to early 1943. Her sister ship Panlieve, running 2 years later, would probably be cancelled at wars start. (War with Germany anyway. If it was war with Japan only, no doubt she would be accelerated.)</div><div><br /></div><div>The Italian <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Aquila" target="_blank">Aquila</a>, a liner conversion rather than a new build, would only have started the conversion a few months previously, and be no where near completion. </div><div><br /></div><div>The German <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graf_Zeppelin-class_aircraft_carrier" target="_blank">Graf Zeppelin</a> might be completed, and even possibly in service, but might still lack an air-wing of suitable aircraft. (The planned Junkers 87 scout/dive bombers were probably quite workable, as were the fascinating <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_167" target="_blank">Feiseler F 167</a> torpedo bombers – surprisingly effective biplane equivalents to the British Albacore – but the suggested BF109 fighters were definitely not suitable for deck landings – at least in Atlantic conditions – so exactly how that would have been sorted remains dubious. Without a fighter arm, she would be extremely limited in operational capacity.) The first of her 3 proposed sisters would probably also be launched, and might be completed in 1943, but it seems likely the remaining two would be cancelled.</div><div><br /></div><div>If Graf Zeppelin was operational, the RN would certainly want at least 2 modern carriers available for the Home Fleet. If not, well that depends how threatening Japan looks...</div><div><br /></div><div>Notes - Wartime plans/additions</div><div><br /></div><div>Britain ordered 10 Colossus in 1942, 6 Majestic, and 4 Audacious in 1943, and 4 Malta in 1944, but, although all 16 Colossus and Majestic, and 2 of the Audacious, were eventually completed, only half a dozen Colossus were serving with the fleet by wars end. (4 of them with the British Pacific Fleet.) </div><div><br /></div><div>Had the war started in December 1941, some of those new orders would probably have been a year or two earlier, and the number completed would almost certainly have been increased due to less urgency to divert effort to build emergency escorts. (Given that the NSF would have received another 50-70 plus destroyers and more than 200 other escort vessels by December 1941!) Let's assume perhaps 6 or 7 more fleet carriers and a dozen of the Colossus/Majestic class in action by 1945, with the same number of each due by 1946, even if no additional orders were made.</div><div><br /></div><div>After Pearl Harbour the US ordered 5 more Independence (all completed in wartime), and 15 more Essex (only 6 of them commissioned during wartime - Bennington, Bon Homme Richard, Shangri-La in late '44, and Boxer, Antietam, and Lake Champlain in early-mid 1945 - which meant that they - like some of the RN's Colossus class, were simply too late too see any real combat). Of 34 Essex's ordered only 24 were actually completed, and only 14 saw wartime service, if not actual action for some, while the others were really post war ships. Plus 6 Midway class, of which, like the British Audacious, half were completed post war.</div><div><br /></div><div>Japan ordered 16 Unryu class (budget copies of Soryu), most of which were later cancelled. Only 3 saw wartime service. Also converted the last Yamato class, Shinano, into a huge HMS Unicorn style support carrier, and half a dozen other escort carrier style conversions.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>First a few more side notes for context...</b></div><div><br /></div><div>1. People overlook the fact that the Royal Navy experimented with 3 carrier (Furious, Courageous, Glorious) fast strike task groups in the mid 1930’s. (The first plan for raiding the Italian fleet at Taranto was based on 1930's exercises by these 3 ships.) </div><div><br /></div><div>2. Also overlooked is that the Fleet Air Arm was re-established in early 1939, too late to be ready for a war in 1939, but excellently timed to be ready for a war starting almost 3 years later! (The RAF 'assigned' planes on RN carriers pre the hand-back had drastically restricted RN preparations for modern carrier work, both in numbers and technique. Huge advances in naval aviation were being made under RN control, but numbers and techniques were still 2 years behind where they needed to be. December 1941 would have seen a very different fleet air arm.)</div><div><br /></div><div>3. People also tend to compare the British 1939 biplanes with 1942 American aircraft, somehow failing to note that the British were using the Hurricane and Wildcat fighters as their main carrier fighter by the time of Pearl Harbour, whereas the Americans were still using many of the dreadful Buffalo fighters as well as the newer Wildcat, even at Coral Sea, and Midway.</div><div><br /></div><div>The British Gladiator biplane fighters, and Swordfish biplane torpedo bomber, or Skua monoplane fighter/dive bombers of 1939: were in no way inferior to the equivalent Japanese Claude monoplane fighter and Susie biplane bomber, or the American F3F biplane fighter, the just introduced Buffalo monoplane fighter, the Vindicator dive-bomber, or Devastator torpedo bomber of the same period. In fact Gladiator fighters were still surprisingly effective in defence of Malta against the Italians and the Luftwaffe in 1941 (as, interestingly, was the Buffalo when used by the Finns against the Soviets in 1942), whereas the Devastator was a death-trap when used as the main American torpedo bomber at Midway in 1942. (In fairness to the Devastator - and the Swordfish and Albacore - even the vastly superior TBF Avenger that replaced the Devastator was a death-trap in daylight hours until adequate fighter support was available.) </div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.com/2010/12/comparing-naval-aircraft-of-world-war.html" target="_blank">See a full article on comparing naval aircraft here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div>4. Also, amusingly, the British continued using biplane strike aircraft throughout the war, even after good monoplanes were easily available, but they had found a way to take advantage of their strengths - ruggedness, manouvrability, stability, excellent take off and landing abilities on small carriers, load capacity, and flexibility; and obviate their main weakness – speed – which made all attack aircraft - and biplanes in particular - so vulnerable to day fighters. By 1941 they were radar equipped night strike aircraft with proven track records against the Germans – see Bismarck – and Italians – see Taranto and Vittorio Veneto at Matapan. Not only were the Japanese and Americans incapable of night ops in 1941 - let alone 1939 - they were still regularly crashing dozens of aircraft that got lost in the dusk in 1942 and 1943! But a December 1941 start to the war would probably have seen the first monoplane Fairey Barracuda torpedo/dive bombers, and possibly even the first American built Avenger's, arriving to replace the older Swordfish and Albacore's on fleet carriers. (Probably at about the same rate the Avengers were replacing Devastators on US carriers in 1942.)</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>RN Deployments in December 1941</b></div><div><br /></div><div>So if Britain had had 8-9 fleet carriers available in late 1941, compared to the US or Japan with 6 each, how might they have been deployed? </div><div><br /></div><div>(Noting that in December 1941 the primary naval threat would probably be Japan, with Germany a poor second – at least in heavy units – and Italy probably quite unlikely to take the risk of war in these circumstances.)</div></div><div><br /></div><div>Home Fleet </div><div><i>3-5 battleships</i> - 2 Nelson's (Rodney just out of refit), with the new KGV Howe just commissioning, and the first 1 or 2 Lion class battleships, and possibly even the new Vanguard working up. </div><div>With another 2 Lion launched but still fitting out (and Malaya and Hood still in dock for major rebuilds). </div><div>Plus the possibility of a Richelieu or two for backup if the Germans look genuinely frisky.</div><div><i>2-3 Fleet Aircraft Carriers and perhaps 2-3 smaller carriers</i> - Victorious and Formidable in service, and perhaps Implacable fitting out, plus perhaps Argus as training carrier, and at least 2 new escort carriers on North Atlantic escort duty.</div><div><br /></div><div>Gibraltar </div><div><i>3 old battleships</i> - 3 Revenge class, mainly to back up the 5 older battleships of the French fleet in the Mediterranean, but also for a bit of South Atlantic escort duty.</div><div>(Plus the possibility of a couple of Dunkerque 'cruiser killer's' for South Atlantic patrolling if Germany looks dangerous?)</div><div><i>1-2 aircraft carriers</i> - Eagle, plus the French carrier Bearn?</div><div><br /></div><div>Mediterranean </div><div><i>4-5 battleships</i> - 4 fully modernised Queen's, with the still in rebuild Malaya expected later.</div><div><i>1-2 aircraft carrier</i> - Illustrious, with one of the Home Fleet carriers like Formidable likely to join if Italy looked genuinely threatening.</div><div><br /></div><div>Far East </div><div><i>8-9 capital ships - including 4-5 fast battleships, 2 slow battleships, and 2 battlecruisers</i> - 4-5 KGV (though Howe would probably still be working up or en-route), plus 2 fully modernised Renown's, and 2 Revenge on Indian Ocean escort duty.</div><div>(Plus perhaps a Richelieu or two, and possibly both Dunkerques in Indochina, if Japan looks more threatening than Germany/Italy?)</div><div>A completely modernised Hood (possibly as flagship), and 2 or 3 of the new Lion class, also expected to join this force in the next year or so.</div><div><i>4-5 fleet aircraft carriers and one or two smaller</i> - Indomitable, Ark Royal, and the somewhat modernised Courageous and Glorious (all about 70 aircraft each if deck parks had been adopted for service in the Indian or Pacific oceans?), and the new support carrier Unicorn (33 operationally) probably en-route.</div><div>Also Hermes and/or Argus, and perhaps a new escort carrier or two, for Indian Ocean escort duty.</div><div>Indomitable or Implacable and maybe some more escort carriers expected to join this force in a few months; with Indefatigable joining late 1942, and another 3 or 4 large fleet carriers and several more escort carriers due in 1943. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Naval Security?</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>Had Britain entered the war in December 1941 her 8 or 9 modern carriers in service, 2-4 more expected in 1942, and at least 4 more in 1943/44 (plus three older carriers, and a steady stream of escort and light carriers expected), the RN would have had a much easier war. </div><div><br /></div><div>Combined RN and USN build rates, even without French support, would have already simply swamped the build capacities of the Axis powers.</div><div><br /></div><div>Particularly as these new carriers would be fitted with Sea Hurricane and Wildcat/Martlet fighters, Fulmar strike-fighters and probably still Albacore bombers, (while waiting for deliveries of TBM Avenger and Barracuda Dive/Torpedo bombers), rather than the Swordfish and Gladiators of September 1939. </div><div><br /></div><div>Also, the 8-9 available Japanese battleships would be facing potentially 20-24 RN, French and USN battleships – most of them more modern or more effectively modernised, and generally faster than anything the Japanese had in service. </div><div><br /></div><div>Likewise the RN and USN's 8 or 9 fast modern fleet carriers (plus 2 or 3 small), with several more expected in 1942 and again in 1943, compared to Japan's 6 (plus 2 or 3 small) carriers, with only one significant vessel – <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Taih%C5%8D" target="_blank">Taiho</a> – in the pipeline, and that only laid down a few months earlier – and no emergency <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unry%C5%AB-class_aircraft_carrier" target="_blank">Unryu</a> having even been started yet.</div><div><br /></div><div>In fact if Japan had even considered declaring war without Germany, or – considerably less likely – at least Italy, also declaring war: then the odds would look much worse.</div><div><br /></div><div>Without genuine threats from Germany or Italy, several more RN battleships – say the 2 Nelsons and 2 of the Queens – and a few more carriers – Illustrious, and eitherVictorious or Formidable most likely – might have been transferred from the Home or Mediterranean fleet much earlier if needed (in return for Hermes and Argus returning to home waters while Implacable and Indefatigable completed...)</div><div><br /></div><div>Giving the RN alone complete superiority over the Japanese in battleships: with 12-14 RN fast battleships/battlecruisers available – almost all of them more modern and considerably faster than most Japanese ships – even without any of the 4 modern French fast battleships, and possibly even both modern US battleships – North Carolina and Washington. (Leaving 'just' another 10 or so older and slower USN battleships, for potential support in secondary defensive and escort roles...) </div><div><br /></div><div>Note that would still leave the Allies with superior numbers in the Atlantic/Mediterranean area, with the British (7 or 8 - including a couple of Lions and/or Vanguard working up with Home Fleet and 2 or 3 more battleships due in each of 1942, 43 and 44), the French (5 with possibly a 6th due 1943), and USN neutrality patrol (5 or 6 - including the first 2 South Dakota's working up, with 2 more battleships due in each of 1942, 43 and 44). These 'Allied' 18-20 capital ships numbering about twice as many capital ships as Germany (4, with possibly a 5th starting fit out anda 6th just launched but 18 months from completion... If the H plan had got anywhere) and Italy (6 with a seventh working up) combined... not that Italy would be likely to try anything stupid in these circumstances.</div><div><br /></div><div>In fact I would expect the Italian numbers to move back towards the Allied column in such circumstances.</div><div><br /></div><div>The RN would also have at least parity, if not superiority, in carriers in the Far East: with 6 or 7 fast fleet carriers, most of them armoured; plus the Unicorn, and another couple of older carriers in support.</div><div><br /></div><div>Again, this would be even without counting potential USN support. (Britain and the US had serious discussion under <a href="https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/Sp1941-42/chapter3.htm" target="_blank">Rainbow V</a> in 1941 about moving at least part of the US fleet to Singapore to support the British fleet in intimidating the Japanese away from war – anything from a carrier and several cruisers, to a major battle fleet. Or at least rebasing the 'Asiatic' – read Philippines – submarines, destroyers and cruisers there if they had to be withdrawn. It was sadly unworkable in the circumstances where Britain had already been at war for 2 years – and France had fallen already – but if all 3 nations were still at peace?)</div><div><br /></div><div>The combined RN, French, USN force in the Pacific in late 1941 to mid '42 might be 30+ battleships to Japan's 10 or 11, and more than a dozen large modern carriers to Japan's 6.</div><div><br /></div><div>Again, I ask, 'Would Japan have risked war with the Allies under these circumstances?' Or would she have gone looking for easier targets like the Japanese army's preferred opponent Russia?</div><div><br /></div><div>In such circumstances, is there any realistic chance at all Italy would have even considered joining in a war, except on the Allied side?</div><div><br /></div><div>More on the overall naval balance of power in Part III. After that we will consider Air and Land.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-58842579548603249312021-01-25T23:18:00.007-08:002021-04-30T14:02:04.269-07:00If World War II didn't start until December 1941: Part 1 WWII Battleship Construction<p><i>I recently started looking at the issue of what would have happened if a second 'Munich Agreement' in September 1939... a 'Warsaw Agreement' perhaps (presumably because France and perhaps a couple of Dominions refused to support a declaration of war in 1939 the same way they had refused at Munich), meant that Britain and France did not actually declare war on Germany on September 3, 1939. </i></p><p><i>Might the World War have started in December 1941 instead? </i></p><p><i>Probably not, but that needs explaining.</i></p><p><i>It looks like being a fun topic, but it requires a lot of background. So I thought I would start with an analysis of where naval power would be in December 1941 if the European powers had not kicked off early. Even that is too big a bite for one go, so Part 1 just looks at battleships - and itself is largely based on a preparatory posts on <b><a href="http://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.com/2021/01/real-battleships-for-wwii-part-i.html" target="_blank">What defines a battleship for WWII</a> </b> and <b><a href="http://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-best-re-builds-of-wwi-capital-ships.html" target="_blank">The best 'Re-builds' of WWI Capital Ships for WWII</a></b>, Part II will do aircraft carriers, and Part III naval expansion overall.</i></p><p><i>This first part is actually based on a re-work of a draft article I did in 2010, under the title '<a href="https://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.com/search?q=apples+and+oranges" target="_blank">Comparing Apples and Oranges</a>', but with a lot more new research data...</i></p><p><b>If WWII didn't start until December 1941 - Part One - Battleships:</b></p><p>What if Britain had enjoyed the luxury of not entering the war until December 1941? What would her battleship fleet have looked like by then? How would the modernisations and new build numbers have stacked up against the Japanese and American figures available for that year?</p><p>More importantly, if Britain (and France, Germany and Italy), had continued their peacetime build rates to the end of 1941 the way the Japanese and Americans did: what would total battleship numbers look like.</p><p>And would that new perspective change anyone's attitude to declaring war? </p><p><b>The RNs 1935 DRC build plan vs the 1938 NSF plan</b></p><p>First I will note here that the RN's DRC plan (<a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-08958-1_13" target="_blank">Defence Requirements Sub-Committee 1935</a> plan), is the default pre war build plan, until replaced by the NSF (<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/44638028?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents" target="_blank">New Standard Fleet</a>) plan in 1938, which really came too late to have much effect on a 1939 start to the war, but would have had very considerable effect on a 1941 start. </p><p>Most commentators pretty much assume that the DRC was more accurate, given that building of the NSF - in battleships at least - was never completed. But for comparison, the 1935 DRC which led to the KGV and Lions it is roughly the equivalent of the American <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Act_of_1938" target="_blank">Naval Act of 1938</a> which led to the South Dakota's and Iowa's, and the 1938 NSF is 'expansion program' roughly equivalent of the USN <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Ocean_Navy_Act" target="_blank">Two Ocean Navy Act of 1940</a> - which included the last 2 Iowa's and at least a further 5 Montana's. Roughly. But in each case 2 years earlier, with subsequent advance in build rates.</p><p>The fact that the first 6 Lions of the 1938 NSF expansion didn't get completed because Britain went to war in late 1939 so they were cancelled: completely matches the last 2 Iowa's and the 5 Montana's of the USN 1940 Two Ocean Navy act being cancelled when the US went to war in late '41. </p><p><b>Real costs versus fantasy propaganda costs</b></p><p>I will also note that the RN and Treasury had actually analysed the often quoted but ridiculous propaganda claim of 1,000 bombers for the price of each battleships, and come out with a more realistic (over lifetime) 43 medium bombers! </p><p>The <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304025011_The_Royal_Navy_and_Grand_Strategy_1937-1941" target="_blank">NSF program</a> could add an extra 3 capital ships, 4 fleet carriers, 10 large cruisers, 4 small cruisers, 6 flotillas of destroyers (that's 48 destroyers) and 21 submarines to the already existing DRC build, (that's about 90 ships in all), for about the cost of 500 medium bombers all up. </p><p>(Note that point 'over life'. A 1937 medium bomber - a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Hampden" target="_blank">Hampden</a> for instance – needed replacement with a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Blenheim" target="_blank">Blenhiem</a> in 1941, and another replacement with a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito" target="_blank">Mosquito</a> in 43 or 44 – compared to a naval ships life expectancy of 15 - 20 years. 'Over life' is a way of emphasising how cost effective long term items like ships are compared to short term items like bombers. Another way of saying that might be: better to build say 75% as many <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Battle" target="_blank">Battle</a> light bombers –1600 not 2200 – and 75% as many medium Hampden's – 1050 not 1400 – between 1937-40, and get 80 or 90 extra ships in return!)</p><p>Cost is a bit of a red herring.</p><p>(Note - 500 less light and medium bombers available in December 1941 would have been about 20% reduction to the actual RAF front line bomber fleet that month... which is a useless statistic in terms of war starting December 1941 rather than September 1939, as it included all wartime production - thousands - and all wartime losses - also thousands - dating back to September 1939. But the raw number 20% reduction of total bombers, for attaining a far bigger and far far more modern fleet, would very definitely be a win for Britain overall. See below.)</p><p><b>Real constraints</b></p><p>The main issues of such increased NSF naval production for Britain would not actually be cost, but the limitations of dockyard availability and armour production. (The 2 Ocean Navy Act faced similar restraints, with the Wikipedia article noting that, <i>"<span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">The expansion program was scheduled to take five to six years, but a </span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">New York Times</span></i><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"><i> study of shipbuilding capabilities called it, "problematical" unless proposed, "radical changes in design" were dropped."</i>)</span></p><p>And, of course, the fact that the RN was not throwing nearly as much subsidy to industry as the RAF... in 1938... </p><p>But under this NSF plan that subsidy balance would change dramatically, with RN subsidies being increased substantially, even if it cost a small reduction of the frankly fantastic RAF subsidies being thrown about in 1938.</p><p>There was also plenty of capacity for private expansion of dockyards of course. (Literally hundreds had been closed during the Depression, and many could fairly easily be re-opened with not too much extra expense). But many companies were waiting for confirmation of a bigger naval build program before committing, so didn't do so until after the war started. </p><p>The NSF should have provided that assurance, and advanced the re-opening of many of these dockyards a year or two earlier. (Though the NSF had a shaky start in the '38 budget, with some of the lighter units like destroyer squadrons delayed. But this was clearly not going to be repeated in the '39 budget after Munich...)</p><p><b>Better Investments?</b></p><p>Certainly the lack of success of the RAF bomber force in the first years of the war would argue that a few more major warships would have been a better investment? </p><p>Indeed the same argument could be made that less expensive multi-engine bombers, and more cheap one engine fighters would have been a better investment in 1938. (The RAF was spending 5 times as much on bombers as on fighters in 1938, and there was considerable strength in an argument for say 600 less bombers - that is a 25% reduction – in return for 250 more fighters – which is a 25% increase – and still fitting the entire NSF program into the spare change of almost the same total budget?</p><p>Finally, it should be noted that the RN rebuilds were an extremely cost effective fix compared to new builds. The 1920's partial modernisations and refits of all 12 Revenge, Queen and Renown class ships costing just 2.7 million pounds compared to 7 million for a single Nelson new build. And the estimates for the late 1930's rebuilds were similarly cost effective. Warspite at 2.3 million, or even Renown at 3.3, still meaning 3 or 4 rebuilds could be done for the price of a single new ship. All 8 Queen Elizabeth, Renown and Hood class vessels could be completely rebuilt for about the cost of 2.5 new KGV's, and at a fraction of the time and effort. Let alone the increases in effectiveness of these rebuilds! </p><p>Queen Elizabeth's new engines for instance, meant that her boilers had been reduced from 24 to 8: which allowed a 30% reduction in volume and weight; which allowed substantial increases in deck armour; and <i>tripling</i> of range; let alone the vastly more effective DP armament... (Japan achieved almost as much with their complete rebuilds of the Kongo class – though they still didn't move to DP secondary batteries.) </p><p>Which makes it all the more surprising that the USN did so little modernisation. (The much longer Great Depression in the US torpedoed most of the USN's plans for reconstructions or additions of DP batteries, but on the other hand why modernise 21 knot ships... The RN had decided the Revenge class 21 knot ships were simply not big enough or fast enough to be worth the effort, and concentrated on the 24+ and 30+ knot ships. Perhaps it was sensible for the USN to leave their old 21 knot ships unmodernised and concentrate on faster new builds?)</p><p><b>The New Standard Fleet and the 2 Ocean Navy</b></p><p>The main changes between the two RN plans were:</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> <span> </span><span> 1936 </span></span>DRC fleet<span> </span><span> <span> 1938 NSF fleet</span></span></p><p><span><span>Battleships<span> </span><span> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> 15<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> 20</span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span><span><span>Aircraft Carriers<span> </span><span> <span> 10<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> 15</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Cruisers<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> 70<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> 100</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Destroyers<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> 16 flotillas<span> </span><span> 22 flotillas</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Submarines<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> 55<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> 82</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p>For (very rough) comparisons of build plans - </p><p><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304025011_The_Royal_Navy_and_Grand_Strategy_1937-1941" target="_blank">RN DRC build programs (with the small NSF additions in brackets)</a> compared to USN 2 Ocean Navy plans.</p><p><span>1935 <span> <span> 2 KGV</span></span><span> </span><span> <span> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>2 Washington</span> </span></span></p><p><span><span>1936<span> 3 KGV</span></span><span> </span><span> <span> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> 2</span></span></span> Sth Dakota<span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span></span></p><p><span><span>1937<span> </span>2 Lion<span> <span> </span><span> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> 2 Sth Dakota</span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span></span></span></p><p><span><span><span>1938<span> </span>3 Lion (+1)<span> <span> </span><span> </span><span> 2 Iowa</span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span><span><span>1939<span> </span>Vanguard, 1 Lion (+1<span>) </span><span> 2 Iowa</span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span><span><span><span>1940<span> </span>2 (+1) all cancelled<span> </span><span> </span><span> 2 Iowa, 2 Montana (all cancelled)</span></span></span></span></span></span> </p><p>1941<span> </span> 2 (+1) cancelled<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> 3 Montana (cancelled)</span></p><p>So, if the RN hadn't entered the war until December 1941, there would have been another 7 or 8 battleships on line or working up (though I presume the RN's 1940 program would be cancelled at December 1941 war start, just as the USN one was). With other ships like Barham, Malaya, Hood and Repulse all completely modernised, and the other 7 battleships considerably improved - at least in AA.</p><p><b>RN Battle fleet December 1941</b></p><p>First modernisations. In capital ships only Queen Elizabeth, Valiant and Renown were modernised for the September 1939 start (along with Warspite to a lesser extent – new engines, bridge and aircraft facilities, but no proper DP battery). Whereas Barham, Malaya, Repulse and Hood would all have been modernised (or half finished anyway) by December 1941. </p><p>Nelson and Rodney might also have had a refit by December 1941, including probable significant increases in anti-aircraft armament. (Either the basic refit replacing their 6 4.7" single AA with 12 4" in 6 twin turrets in the same places and 4-6 octuple 2 pounder if they were considered too valuable to take off line for long; or - circumstances allowing – the full rebuild option with the six twin 6" and six single 4.7" AA probably replaced with a Renown style 8 or 9 twin 4.5", and 6-8 octuple 2 pounder mountings and a couple of dozen 20mm added). </p><p>Of the 5 Revenge class, although all would have received some sort of engine and new boiler refits; probably some extra range as a result; some more deck armour; and probably a little more 4" and octuple or quad 2 pounder mounts: no more substantial rebuilding work was really considered particularly worthwhile given that they were – in Churchill's words during the 1937 Program debates – support vessels, purely for convoy escort and bombardment purposes. (Note that under the original 1935 plan the Revenges were to be retired in turn as each KGV came on line, but the 1937 debates make clear that 'plans to retire them will depend on changes to circumstances'. The NSF plan apparently assumed that they would be kept, even if in reserve.)</p><p>The King George V and Prince of Wales (from the 1936 program) and Duke of York, Anson and Howe (1937 program) would all be in service by December 1941. (In reality the last three were slowed down by the 1939 start by the urgent need to focus on other work like escorts, and commissioned in August 1941 and April and June 1942. Presumably 6 to 10 months earlier under peacetime conditions seems very likely if the RN's steady increase in build rate during ongoing peacetime worked out similar to the USN's experience of those extra precious years of peacetime builds before more urgent work slowed things.)</p><p>As a nice extra the 1939 program 'quicky build' bonus - Vanguard, using old 15" turrets to speed build time - would also be fitting out for completion in mid 1942.</p><p>The 1937 program Lion class – Lion and Temeraire – would also, under peacetime conditions, be coming a bit faster, working up to enter service in within a few months, and probably the four 1938 program Lions – Conquorer, Thunderer, Bellerophon and Vengeance (equivalent of last 2 South Dakota's in build process) – due for 2 to complete in late 1942, and the other 2 by mid 43.</p><p>The 1939 Lions – Tiger and Agamemnon (equivalent of first 2 Iowa's in build process) – also due late 1943.</p><p>The 2 1940 program 'Improved' Lions – Orion and Monarch (equivalent of last 2 Iowa's) – and the third NSF 'bonus' 'Improved' Lion – Thunderer – would all be only half complete (the last possibly even less), so 1 or 2 might be completed like the last 2 Iowa's, with 1 or 2 likely to be suspended for possible completion at a slower pace... more as Vanguard actually was. (Note names were never assigned to these last few Lions, but there has been a lot of speculation of which alternatives the RN might have used, and I just collated the most popular picks). </p><p>The 2 authorised 1941 program new design battleships – Colossus and Hercules – and any planned later ships, presumably being cancelled: just like their contemporaries in the pace of the build process: the Iowa's 5 & 6 - Illinois and Kentucky – and the 5 Montana class – Montana, Ohio, Maine, New Hampshire and Louisiana. </p><p><b>Wartime building cancellations</b></p><p>It is important to remember that every nation that joined the war halted new construction, and cancelled or delayed barely started construction. From a September 1939 start the 1935 and 1936 program King George V class were finished, but the 1937 and 1938 program Lion’s were cancelled, and the 1939 ones never even started. </p><p>Just as the 2 1936 Bismarck's were finished but any of the later H class cancelled. </p><p>For the Italians, a mid 1940 start to the war meant that the third Littorio – the 1938 program – Roma –was also completed. But the 4th ship – Impero – also a 1938 start, and actually launched pre-war, was never completed.</p><p>For a December 1941 start to the war the 1937 Yamato and 1938 Musashi were finished, but the1940 Shinano was only sort of finished... as a carrier in 1944. </p><p>For the USN the 2 1939 program and 2 1940 program Iowa's classes were all finished (though the 1940 ones not until the war was almost over), but the 2 1941 ones not finished, and all 5 1940/41 program <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_class_battleship">Montana</a>’s were all suspended when war came, and finally cancelled in mid 1943. </p><p><b>For amusement, let's run the concept the other way. </b></p><p>Let's say Japan and the US joined the war in September 1939 too!</p><p>If Japan and the US had joined the war in 1939, it is likely that of the American battleships, the 1937 program - Washington and North Carolina, would be completed, but almost certainly some of the mixed 1938 and 1939 programs of the South Dakota and the Iowa classes – ordered at the same time as the Lions – would have gone the same way as the Lions and been cancelled. </p><p>The 4 South Dakota class (all designed to complete in 1942) might well have been kept to schedule, (giving a matching 6 modern ships to the 6 equivalent the RN completed – 5 KGV and Vanguard). But presumably even the Iowa and New Jersey (both started mid 1940 but not even scheduled to launch until late 1942, for completion 12-18 months later) might have been suspended, and certainly the Missouri and Wisconsin (not expected to complete until late 1944 or early 1945), along with the fifth and sixth Iowa's and the 5 1940 program Montanas, would all have been cancelled if the US had joined the war in 1939.</p><p>Had the Japanese entered the war in 1939 they might have attempted to finished at least one or two of the Yamato class simply because they had no modern battleships at all (the most modern being the two ships of the 1920 vintage Nagato class), but frankly their ability to do so under wartime conditions is even more questionable than the German H Class. Realistically even completing one of them might be a stretch, and they might have finished up just floating hulks like Impero or Graf Zeppelin.</p><p><b>So lets list the real 1939 stats for comparison -</b> </p><p><i>RN 15 capital ships:</i></p><p>5 Revenge Class - WWI - 21 knot (minimal modification)</p><p>5 Queen Elizabeth - WWI - 25 knot (3 completely rebuilt, 2 not)</p><p>2 Renown - WWI - 32 knot (1 completely rebuilt, 1 not)</p><p>1 Hood - WWI - 32 knot (not)</p><p>2 Nelson - 20's - 23 knot (modern...ish)</p><p>For comparison purposes:</p><p><i>USN 15 capital ships –</i></p><p>1 12" Wyoming – Arkansas, and 2 14" – New York & Texas, all 21 knots. (The last of pre-war Dreadnoughts). </p><p>9 14" 'standards' - Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Mississipi, Idaho, Tenessee, California - WWI builds - all 21 knots</p><p>3 16" standards - Colorado, Maryland, Washington - 20'S - all 21 knots.</p><p>None of them substantially modernised.</p><p><i>France - 8 capital ships (though 3 of those, like Arkansas, pretty marginal):</i></p><p>3 12" Courbet, Ocean, Paris (pre-WWI - 21 knot dreadnoughts equivalent to Arkansas)</p><p>3 14" Bretagne, Provence, Lorraine (WWI - 21 knot. Roughly equivalent to Texas or early USN WWI 'standards')</p><p>None of them substantially modernised. Plus</p><p>2 13" Dunkerque, Strasbourg (30'S - 30 knots, but only battlecruiser grade armour)</p><p><i>Japan - 9 capital ships</i></p><p>4 14" Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise, Hyuga - WWI - 22 knots (roughly equivalent to Revenge's or USN standards)</p><p>3 14" Kongo, Kirishima, Karuna - Modernised WWI - 30 knots <br />(a fourth ship, Heie, had been demilitarised in 1929, but was being reconstructed in 1939)</p><p>2 16" Nagato, Mutsu - 20's - 25 knots (roughly equivalent to Queen's or Colorado's)</p><p><i>Germany 2 capital ships:</i></p><p>2 11" 'fast-battleships' - Scharnhorst, Gneisenau - 30's - 32 knots</p><p><i>Italy 4 capital ships (cruiser killers really):</i></p><p>4 12" Conti de Cavour, Giulio Cesare, Andrea Doria, Caio Dulio - WWI - 26 knots</p><p>(Most of them substantially modernised, but as battlecruisers, and simply not capable of taking on proper battleships.)</p><p>So by Sep 1939 </p><p>ALLIED TOTAL: 38 with up to 14 more likely to complete.</p><p>AXIS total 15, with possibly 9 more.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>By contrast...</b></p><p><b>Theoretical December 1941 start to the war: </b></p><p><i>RN 20-21 capital ships (with 3 more completing '42, 2 more'43, and perhaps one more later - total 27-28 perhaps):</i></p><p>5 Revenge Class - WWI - 21 knot (minimal modification)</p><p>5 Queen Elizabeth - WWI - 25 knot (all completely rebuilt)</p><p>2 Renown - WWI - 32 knot (completely rebuilt)</p><p>1 Hood - WWI - 32 knot (completely rebuilt)</p><p>2 Nelson - 20's - 23 knot (modernised)</p><p>5 KGV - 30's - 28 knot (new)</p><p>3-4 Lions - 40's - 30 knot (new) due to complete in 42 </p><p>1 Vanguard - 40's - 32 knot (new) also completing 42?</p><p>2-3 more Lions due for completion 43?</p><p>1 more Lion possibly to complete in 1944? (Rest cancelled)</p><p><br /></p><p><i>For comparison - USN 17 capital ships (4 more due 1942, + 2 1943, +2 1944 - total 25)</i></p><p>1 12" Arkansas and 2 14" New York and Texas - 21 knots (last of pre-Great War dreadnoughts)</p><p>9 14" standards - Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Mississipi, Idaho, Tenessee, California - WWI - 21 knots (all pretty much unmodernised)</p><p>3 16" standards - Colorado, Maryland, Washington - 20's - all 21 knots (unmodernised)</p><p>North Carolina, Washington - 30's - 28 knots (new)</p><p>4 South Dakota and 4 Iowa completing over next 3 years.</p><p><br /></p><p><i>France - 10 capital ships (though 3 marginal, 2 more building - possible total 10 or 11):</i></p><p>3 12" Courbet, Ocean, Paris - WWI - 21 knot dreadnoughts (unmodernised)</p><p>3 14" Bretagne, Provence, Lorraine - WWI - 21 knot (largely unmodernised)</p><p>2 13" Dunkerque, Strasbourg 30's - 30 knots (new, but 'cruiser killers')</p><p>2 15" Richelieu, Jean Bart 40's - 32 knots (new)</p><p>Remaining 2 Richelieu's likely to be cancelled.</p><p><i>Japan: 10 </i></p><p>(Hiei having been re-armed) - with Yamato commissioned only days later on 16/12/41, and Musashi 5/8/42 (total 12)</p><p><i>Germany - 4 capital ships (+2 H class started, but unlikely to finish):</i></p><p>2 11" 'battlecruisers'? - Scharnhorst, Gneisenau - 30's - 31 knots (new) - possibly one or both of them back in refit to have her 11" turrets replaced with 15"?</p><p>2 15" Bismarck, Tirpitz - 30's - 30 knots (new)</p><p><i>Italy - 6 capital ships</i></p><p>4 12.6" Conti de Cavour, Giulio Cesare, Andrea Doria, Caio Dulio - 26 knots (WWI - completely rebuilt, but only to battlecruiser standard)</p><p>2 15" Littorio, Vittorio Venetto - 40'S - 30 knots (2 more building, 1 – Roma – might be finished?)</p><p>So by Dec 1941</p><p>ALLIED TOTAL: 51 with up to 14 more likely to complete</p><p>AXIS TOTAL: 20, with possibly 3 more likely to complete.</p><p>I imagine that might have changed some people's outlooks on going to war?</p><p><b>Starting too early...</b></p><p>The RN's biggest problem with starting a war in 1939 was that - with the Revenge class really being only suitable for backup purposes, and Barham, Malay, Hood and Repulse all still desperately needing modernisation, they really only had 6 modern/modernised capital ships Warspite, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Repulse, Nelson and Rodney, to face potentially Germany, Italy and Japan all at once. </p><p>Which is almost fine with France's 2 fast modern back ups (plus 6 older battleships) in the war on their side, but becomes a real problem in 1940 when they dropped out.</p><p>Unfortunately the 5 new build KGV's Britain added to the fleet during the war came no faster than 5 losses - Royal Oak 1939, and Hood, Barham pre December 7/8 1941, and Repulse and Prince of Wales post. (Note - 4 out of 5 losses were largely unmodernised ships.)</p><p>By contrast, in a December 1941 start to the war 19 of the RN's 24 available capital ships would have been modernised or new builds. (Still with the 5 Revenge class for backup, and at least 3 or 4 more new builds expected within another year or two.) </p><p>Compared to a total of 20 Axis capital ships (4 of them only 12.6" dreadnoughts and 2 others only 11" - all 6 of those unable to face even the unmodernised Revenge's.)</p><p><b>Just visualise likely December 1941 deployments for the RN under NSF plan.</b></p><p>(And noting that if no one is at war, the RN would deploy for best counter to maximum threat. So presumably enough modern ships – and new ships working up – to intimidate Germany just in case; several modernised ships facing Italy – with plenty of French support to make that threat look overwhelming to Italy; and a fast modern fleet facing Japan which – with USN potential support – should be enough to make them consider the army's plan for expansion in Siberia over the navies to tackle Britain and the US!)</p><p>Planned Deployment: (though some ships would still be finishing refit, working up, or en- route.)</p><p>Gibraltar 'just' 2 or 3 old capital ships - 3 Revenge's – say Ramillies, Royal Oak and Royal Sovereign – assigned to support the the 5 older battleships of the French fleet in the Western Mediterranean, and/or to undertake Mediterranean or Atlantic convoy escort duty. (Though the Dunkerques would probably be better to handle the South Atlantic convoy protection if Germany looked genuinely threatening... or to deploy to Indochina if the Japanese appeared more threatening...) </p><p>Mediterranean Fleet - 4 capital ships, the 4 rebuilt Queen Elizabeth's – Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Warspite and Barham. </p><p>Eastern Fleet 8-9 capital ships - 5 KGV's – King George V, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Anson and the still to arrive Howe – and 2 rebuilt Renown's – Renown and Repulse. With 2 Revenge – Resolution and Revenge – for Indian Ocean escort duty. (Potentially with USN support? Would Roosevelt follow through on the plan to rebase some of the USN to Singapore to help intimidate the Japanese in these circumstances? Would the RN and USN be doing joint exercises in the Pacific as well as joint neutrality patrols in the Atlantic?)</p><p>Home Fleet 5 or 6 active capital ships (plus 3 fitting out and 2 still in dock for rebuild). Including:</p><p>– 2 short ranged but powerful Nelson class (though Rodney might still be working up post refit)</p><p>– Perhaps with French support of a Richelieu or two?</p><p>– presumably with Howe still working up before heading East</p><p>– 1 or 2 1937 program Lions – Lion & Temeraire – working up towards commission, </p><p>– and the first 2 1938 program Lions – Conquorer and Thunderer – due to commission in late 1942. </p><p>– Vanguard would also be launched and fitting out. Due for commission in mid 42? </p><p>– The last two 1938 program Lions – Bellerophon and Vengeance – also due for commissioning in mid 1943. </p><p>– also 2 ships still in dock for rebuild: the last of the Queen Elizabeth's – Malaya – and the Hood. (Presumably both half way through their complete rebuilds, and both due back in service in late 1942 and mid 1943 respectively. For amusements sake I will suggest that Hood's long delayed refit had finally been forced into effect by her 'stripping a turbine' in July 1940 - let's say it was 'exercising' with the Strasbourg, rather than chasing her at Mers el Kebir...)</p><p>The 3 1939 program 'Improved' Lions – being 60% or more complete, would probably be completed, but more slowly.</p><p>The 3 1940 program Improved Lions, probably at about 30%, 20% and 15% build respectively, would all suspended. Probably all to be cancelled, or possibly the most advanced ships to be completed more slowly to trial new technology like the power loaded 5.25" turrets. (The ones actually used for the final version of Vanguard.)</p><p>The 1941 program for 3 more ships of a completely new 50,000 ton class would certainly have been cancelled.</p><p><b>Naval Security?</b></p><p>Which means that for a December 1941 start to the war, the RN alone would have parity or superiority in capital ships over all potential foes in every theatre, regardless of whether they received any French or US backup. With the full backing of the French, and the potential backing of the USN, it would actually look more like 2 to 1, or even 3 to 1, odds against potential aggressors!)</p><p>In fact, as long as France - now with 4 modern and 6 older battleships - remained in the war, Britain could fairly easily reinforce the Eastern Fleet with the 3-4 more ships from the 15 odd in the Gibraltar, Mediterranean or Home fleets, bringing the Eastern Fleet fleet to 12-14 capital ships once Howe arrived too. (Potentially 7 or 8 of them modern KGV's or Lions, with the 2 Renowns added, giving 10 modern or modernised fast battleships, all with completely modern DP batteries unmatched by anything in the world except the 2 recently commissioned North Carolina and Washington.)</p><p>And the USN would also have at least a dozen capital ships in its Pacific Fleet, mostly old 'standards', but including those two modern ones.</p><p>While the Japanese would still only have 8 from WWI, 2 from the early 1920's, and a Yamato due in a few days (and Musashi not due until August 1942).</p><p>December 6 1941 = 10 Japanese capital ships (4 of them only battlecruisers, unable to face any Allied battleships), versus say 20-22 British and American capital ships? Not including any Richelieu's or Dunkerque's that might turn up?</p><p>Looking at a few months later in mid 42 = perhaps 11 or 12 Japanese (only 2 modern, and none with proper DP armament) versus 24 to 26 Allied (probably 14 or 15 of them with modern DP armament)?</p><p><b>Would Japan or Italy have been willing to fight the Allies in December 1941?</b></p><p>Anyone think Japan was likely to even consider going to war with even Britain alone, let alone Britain and the US and France combined under those conditions? (The preference of Foreign Minister Matsuoko and the Japanese Army Council to go north to invade Siberia again – rather than the navy's preference to go south – suddenly looks much more likely doesn't it? Perhaps a combined Japanese-German attack on the Soviet Union might look a better option?)</p><p>How about Italy? (A traditional British ally, who had fought on the Allied side in WWI, and who only took the opportunistic, and frankly stupid, decision to join the Germans in WWII after France collapsed unexpectedly.) Any chance of Italy joining the German side in those conditions? </p><p>Interesting, isn't it... It will become more so when I look at the Aircraft Carriers... next episode.</p>Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-4863699443035833382021-01-23T21:34:00.007-08:002021-10-18T20:34:48.673-07:00The best 'Re-builds' of WWI Capital Ships for WWII<p><i>This is a long and quite technical post, but I needed to do some background research as reference for a series of future articles. this follows on from Part I - Defining a Battleship - where I discuss the 'balance' or armament, armour and speed in detail.</i></p><p><b>Real Battleships of WWII - Part II - The best 'Re-builds' of WWI Capital Ships for WWII</b></p><p>Following on from the previous article, the more I listened to You-Tubes comparisons of warships by Drachinifel, Navyreviewer, and by Ryan Szimanski, the more I kept coming up with.. 'surely that can't actually be right'.</p><p>My 'surely not' discussion of what makes a Real Battleship is in the previous post.</p><p>As another 'surely not' example, British ‘rebuilds’ of World War One vintage battleships are often criticised in several books for not going nearly far enough in 1939, while Italian and Japanese 'rebuilds' are congratulated for what was not commissioned until late 1940 or mid 1941 (some of which didn't actually go nearly as far). Some commentaries even make statements about how good American rebuilds were, by sampling a few largely unmodernised ships that were sunk in late 1941 at Pearl Harbour and not re-commissioned until late 1944! </p><p>So 'proper rebuilds' will be the discussion point for this article.</p><p><b>Full Modernisation Rebuilds</b></p><p>Everyone did at least some major refits of their Great War vintage ships. Everyone.</p><p>In fact many countries did 2 modernisations on most of their ships. </p><p>Usually they started in the 20's with additional armour, AA guns, torpedo bulges, main gun elevation, fire control, and often engine upgrades (particularly conversion from coal to oil). Even the Soviets upgraded their <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangut-class_battleship" target="_blank">Gangut</a> class dreadnoughts, but I will pretty much ignore those as being of little relevance to WWII.</p><p>By contrast proper late 1930's- early 40's major 'Rebuilds' of Great War ships, are really only those rebuilds that completely changed the combat value in speed, firepower or protection of the vessel: to upgrade it enough to make it genuinely competitive with a 1930's or 40s new-builds. </p><p>I am going to focus on proper 'rebuilds' that created up to date and competitive vessels, not incremental 'improvements' that still left their recipients incapable of facing modern ships. But only a very few of these rebuilds actually brought Great War capital ships up to competitive WWII battleship standards. </p><p>In fact I would argue that some of the best 'rebuilds' were those that converted inadequate Great War dreadnoughts into quite good WWII 'cruiser-killers', rather than pretending to renew them at battleship level.</p><p><b>The Italian Jobs...</b></p><p>The Italians for instance did some very comprehensive, interesting, (and expensive), full rebuilds of their 4 pre Great War design 12" dreadnoughts. The 2 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conte_di_Cavour-class_battleship" target="_blank">Conte de Cavour's</a> being recommissioned in the late 30's, and the 2 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Doria-class_battleship" target="_blank">Andrea Doria's</a> in 1940. Uniquely, their 12" guns were bored out to 12.6", and, (in return for the removal of the fifth 'Q' turret amidships), they were all lengthened, re-engined, their speed upgraded from 21 to 26 or 27 knots, and both their deck armour and AA equipment substantially improved. (Though without any Dual Purpose options, they kept an inefficient mixed secondary battery of low angle and high angle guns). </p><p>But the enormous effort and cost may have been misspent. Some commentators note that the expense of each reconstructions was almost enough for a brand new Littorio class battleship, and the delays in armour production for these rebuilds slowed the production of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littorio-class_battleship" target="_blank">Littorio's</a> by years. </p><p>And the results were simply not capable of facing any modern ship larger than a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland-class_cruiser" target="_blank">Deutschland</a>, or even any older ship with bigger guns or heavier armour than a 12" Dreadnought like the French <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courbet-class_battleship" target="_blank">Courbet </a>class, or the USS <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Arkansas_(BB-33)" target="_blank">Arkansas</a>. They certainly couldn't face any completely unmodernised <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge-class_battleship" target="_blank">Revenge</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise-class_battleship" target="_blank">Ise</a> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada-class_battleship" target="_blank">Nevada</a> and have much chance. Let alone a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson-class_battleship" target="_blank">Nelson</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagato-class_battleship" target="_blank">Nagato</a> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado-class_battleship" target="_blank">Colorado</a>. The main value of their reconstruction was to give them the speed to run away from such opponents.</p><p>These Italian rebuilds finished as excellent 'cruiser-killers', and fast enough to run away from <i>most</i> of the pre 30's battleships that could smash them. (Except the 'fast battleship' <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral-class_battlecruiser" target="_blank">Hood</a>, and other cruiser killers like the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renown-class_battlecruiser" target="_blank">Renown's</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkerque-class_battleship" target="_blank">Dunkerque's</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong%C5%8D-class_battlecruiser" target="_blank">Kongo's</a>... all of which were frankly much superior combat ships). </p><p>But nothing in the Italian rebuilds made them capable of winning an engagement with any proper WWII battleship, and probably only the Kongo's in the battlecruiser class.</p><p>Would the Italians have been better off in 1941 with 4 commissioned (or fitting out) Littorio's, simply backed up by 4 more modestly refitted 12.6" ships; rather than with 4 expensive but not very adequate rebuilds and only 2 Littorio's ever actually making it into service? </p><p>Almost certainly the answer is yes.</p><p><b>The French Gamble...</b></p><p>By contrast the French did very little to their 3 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courbet-class_battleship" target="_blank">Courbet</a> class 12" dreadnoughts (the only 'capital ships' left by '39 still mounting a pair of side by side waist turrets), apart from a basic modernisation that partially replaced their coal fired boilers with oil ones, increased elevation of the guns, and added some AA. The 3 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretagne-class_battleship" target="_blank">Bretagne</a> class 13.4" super-dreadnoughts deservedly had a little more work, and Lorraine had her Q turret removed to fit aircraft. But all 5 ships remained slow 20 or 21 knot ships, and their maximum 10" armour belt was a bit dubious for facing even other Great War 12" 13.4", 13.5", 14" or 15" designs, let alone the newer ships entering service post war. </p><p>Frankly the French apparently simply accepted that it was more cost effective to build new Dunkerque's and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richelieu-class_battleship" target="_blank">Richeleiu's</a> rather than copy the Italian expenditure on ships that were a bit too small, lightly armed, and lightly armoured, to face modern battleships. Their minimal upgrades were probably still adequate to take on the Italian full rebuilds, or the German new build Deutschland cruiser killers, but realistically their main value in WWII would have been defensively as convoy escorts, or just for shore bombardment. (Though they could have operated alongside other marginally modernised ships like Texas for Torch or Overlord, or Mississippi at Surigao Strait, without looking at all out of place.)</p><p>Would the French have been better off in 1941 (if they had made it that far) with 2 Richelieu's in service (and another completing), 2 Dunkerque's, and the 6 lightly refitted 12" and 13.4" ships, than if they had done an Italian style 5 rebuilds of marginal ships, and not even got one of the Richelieu's complete? </p><p>Definitely.</p><p>So what really made 'rebuilds' worthwhile?</p><p>Let's concentrate on how effective the total modernised armament of 're-build' were, particularly for WWII operations, and particularly on the rebuilds. </p><p>Specifically, let's look at proper AA for modern war fighting.</p><p><b>Dual Purpose Secondary Batteries</b></p><p>Perhaps if any of the Italians, Japanese or the French had done rebuilds that did a proper conversion to real <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-purpose_gun" target="_blank">Dual Purpose</a> secondary batteries, there might have been more value to such rebuilds. Rebuilds like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Renown_(1916)" target="_blank">Renown</a>, Queen Elizabeth & <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Valiant_(1914)" target="_blank">Valiant</a>, and eventually <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pennsylvania_(BB-38)" target="_blank">Pennsylvania</a>, Nevada and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tennessee_(BB-43)" target="_blank">Tennessee</a>, did produce significantly improved ships suitable to front line service against modern builds. But Italy didn't even use DP for the secondary batteries of her new build's, let alone for any of her rebuilds.</p><p>So, let's look at DP.</p><p>The superb <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/38_caliber_gun" target="_blank">American 5"/38</a> is often called the best dual purpose gun of the war (which I agree with... mid war), largely on it's high rate of fire for AA, and the vast barrage it could throw up. (though notably it took 1,000 shells per kill, so the actual value was volume of deterrence...) In fact it had a similar rate of fire to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_4-inch_naval_gun_Mk_XVI" target="_blank">British 4"</a> but a heavier shell, and was much faster than the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_5.25-inch_naval_gun" target="_blank">5.25"</a>, and a little bit faster than the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_4.5-inch_Mk_I_%E2%80%93_V_naval_gun" target="_blank">4.5"</a>. But all the British AA guns, and particularly the 4.5" and 5.25" outranged the 5"/38 by anywhere up to 6 or 7 kilometres. </p><p>[Enemy planes had to keep a much greater distance from British ships for most of the war, and, as radar direction (and proximity shells) improved, range counted. Japanese planes flying comfortably out of range of the 5"/38 in 1944 and 1945 could sometimes get a nasty surprise when sniped out of the air with a single shot from one of the British Eastern or Pacific Fleet's 4.5" or 5.25". (If you were facing the Luftwaffe or the Japanese in 1939-43 RN destroyers would have killed for the elevation and rate of fire of the 5"/38, but facing German X-bombs or Japanese Kamikaze's in 1943-5 the USN would have killed for the range and accuracy of the 4.5" or 5.25". Frankly they were all good guns for a given purpose, and each had strengths and weaknesses which must be fairly assessed. The 5"/38 was certainly the best barrage AA gun of mid war: but the radar guided, power loading, proximity exploding, 4.5' or even 5.25", was certainly a better sniping AA gun by late war.)]</p><p>The Italians, the Germans and Japanese, never actually advanced as far as DP secondary batteries. For the Germans, there was never any consideration of rebuilding their only old 'capital ships'... the two ancient pre-dreadnoughts that had long since been relegated to coastal gunboat status. The Japanese also failed to fit DP into any of their modernisations. But it is surprising that all 3 of them failed to fit DP secondary batteries to their new builds either! The fact that the Duetschland's, Littorio's, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck" target="_blank">Bismarck's</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato-class_battleship" target="_blank">Yamato's</a> all stuck with an inefficient mixed battery throughout shows how far off the pace their designs were. Not helped by the fact that virtually none of their AA guns were particularly effective. </p><p>[Note Yamato's 6.1" secondary triple turrets were theoretically DP, but they were really too low angle and and slow traversing/firing. Their AA function is more comparable with the flechette rounds ships like the Revenge class could fire – apparently very effectively when you read about the Mediterranean convoy battles – from their single casement guns.]</p><p>[As an extra aside, the light <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_96_25_mm_AT/AA_Gun" target="_blank">25mm AA</a> guns the Japanese stuck with throughout were also a sign of falling off the pace. The USN dropped reliance on the dreadful <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1.1%22/75_caliber_gun" target="_blank">1.1" AA,</a> and their quad 50's as fast as they could (though 1.1" continued to serve throughout the war on some ships), and the RN also sought to replace their quad MG mounts wherever possible , and even gradually replaced the considerably more effective 2 pounder Pom-Pom's: as both navies bought in better 20mmm and 40mm alternatives. (Though the Pom-Poms, like the 5"/38, were sheer rate of fire weapons – rather than the longer ranged and more accurate alternatives like 40mm Bofors or 4.5" and 5.25" respectively – and the octuple Pom-Poms found a new lease of life due to their unmatched volume and sustainable belt fed fire was facing Kamikaze's in 1945, when it was realised the 20mm lacked adequate stoping power for Kamikaze's). But the Japanese were forced to soldier on with the very unsatisfactory 25mm to the end, and it had to not only fill the 20mm slot of the Allies, but also cover the 40mm slot as well. It was deficient at the first, and totally inadequate for the second.]</p><p><b>Advantages of proper DP</b></p><p>The true value of a secondary DP armament is that it is vastly more space and weight efficient than having secondary batteries separated into low angle and high angle guns. Replacing 10-12 single casemented low angle guns, and 4-8 single high angle guns, with 16-20 DP guns in mechanised twin turrets, improves both functionality and efficiency out of all proportion to mere numbers. Even turreted low angle and high angle mixes in their new-builds aren't nearly as efficient. Advantages of proper DP include single magazine's instead of two sizes of shells; single supply shafts; plus reduced weight overall; which also led to considerably better armour options for both gun mounts and ship.</p><p>The RN, French navy, and USN did all go for proper dual purpose turrets in all their post Great War and later 1930's treaty designs and builds. But the 1920's Nelson's, the mid 30's Warspite rebuild, and 1940's Richelieu's new builds, still suffered from a more limited ability DP 6" secondary battery, as well as additional proper AA 4.7" or 3.9" respectively tertiary batteries. (The first and last at least had real DP batteries, but in two sizes, so without the magazine and armour advantages of a single calibre). </p><p>The Japanese went half way with their rebuilds, with their modernised ships getting a mix of reduced low angle and limited number of turreted high angle guns. In effect their half way was usually similar to what was achieved with the Warspite (the first Queen Elizabeth to get a full modernisation), which was left with 8 old 6" low angle, and 8 new 4" DP in twin turrets. But while the British 4" AA was one of the best AA guns of the war, the larger Japanese 5" AA had only half the range. </p><p>Whereas the Dunkerque's, KGV's, North Carolina's, Lion's, South Dakota's, Iowa's, Vanguard, Montana's etc, all had proper single battery DP with all the advantages thereof. </p><p>But no one except the RN managed to get real DP secondary armament into their interwar 'rebuilds' of WW1 ships...</p><p><b>Rebuilds with proper DP</b></p><p>The 1930's rebuilds of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Renown_(1916)#1926%E2%80%931939" target="_blank">Renown</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(1913)#Interwar_period" target="_blank">Queen Elizabeth</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Valiant_(1914)#Inter-war_period" target="_blank">Valiant</a>, which had proper DP, will be covered later, so let's finishing looking at everyone else.</p><p>The USN did the 1920's re-engine coal to oil and add some AA modernisations to all their ships, but not so much the full 1930's rebuilds. </p><p>They had discussed interwar re-fitting proper DP guns on at least the 'big 5' (the 2 Tennessee's and 3 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado-class_battleship" target="_blank">Colorado's</a>), but never got around to it. The initial plans to do a conversion to 16 5'/38's in twin turrets in the early 1940's all proved too difficult, time limited, or expensive: so the compromise of putting 4 more 3' guns and a few quad 50 Calibre MG's on most ships was all that was achieved. (But the 'Big 5' did – mostly – get extra torpedo bulges between 1940 and 1942 to assist with being substantially overweight from their original design, and thus so low in the water that the effectiveness of their main belts were being compromised.)</p><p>So, no USN pre-treaty battleships was actually given a 'rebuild' with a proper DP armament, until after Pearl Harbour. </p><p>The old 12" Dreadnought Arkansas for instance, and the two 14" <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York-class_battleship" target="_blank">New Yorks</a>, were all part of the Atlantic neutrality patrol in 1941, and all avoided being damaged at Pearl Harbour. As a result, apart from their 20's conversion from coal to oil etc, they were never substantially rebuilt. They just had their AA upgraded bit by bit as the war progressed, but never advanced beyond mixed secondary batteries.</p><p>The 9 14" super-dreadnoughts of the Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Tennessee classes were all re-engined, and up-armoured a bit in the 20's and 30's, and received the 8 single 5" and most of them the 4 single 3" AA guns fit out, but were otherwise unaltered from their 1920's refits by the time of Pearl Harbour. </p><p>Oklahoma and Arizona, were sunk there and never repaired. Pennsylvania was only lightly damaged, so went back into service ASAP with the same equipment, not starting a substantial rebuild until late 1942. Nevada was badly damaged, and went straight into rebuild. Both emerged in 1943 mounting a modern style DP battery of 8 twin 5" turrets similar to the most recent new-build ships. </p><p>The 3 New Mexico's, like the New York's, were in the Atlantic, and not damaged, so never properly rebuilt. </p><p>The Tennessee's had been scheduled for modernisation work in 1940 and 1941, but that was put off by the need to try and intimidate the Japanese. California was sunk at Pearl, and Tennessee damaged. Although Tennessee was put back into service for a few months, both were eventually rebuilt with the full DP secondary armament, going back into service in mid 1943 and mid 1944 respectively. (Finishing by far the most compact and balanced looking rebuild anyone managed: but probably understandable considering they were almost the last finished, so faced none of the compromises of the pre-war rebuilds.)</p><p>The 3 16" ships of the Colorado Class were basically 8 x 16" versions of the 12 x 14" Tennessee's. (But, given that the 16" delivered 50% more kinetic energy, this reduction to 8 guns was considered a possible improvement overall.) Substantial 1930's plans for modernisations of the 'Big 5' Tennessee's and Colorado's being eventually – and possibly sensibly – abandoned in favour of spending the money on new ships, nothing was done. </p><p>Of the Colorado's only West Virginia got the full DP conversion in 1942 - September 1944 (again, only because of receiving very substantial damage at Pearl Harbour), with Maryland and Colorado just getting more single AA bolted on like most of the 14" ships. </p><p>So of 15 USN capital ships (well 12 really... as the pre-WWI Arkansas and New York dreadnoughts still on the list were no more worth upgrading than the French Courbet's), only 5 – of the 7 sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbour – were ever actually rebuilt, and most of them were not finished until the last year or so of the war anyway. </p><p>But even then, the 21 knots maximum speed of all these 'Standard' battleships kept all of them limited thereafter mainly to escort and shore bombardment duties for the rest of the war, which suggests that the Naval Board could have been right all along that money might indeed have been better spent on new, and faster, ships.</p><p>The Japanese by contrast did 2 major upgrades of all their ships, including a second that sort of fit the 1930's 'rebuild' category... except they don't manage proper DP rebuilds. </p><p>The Fuso and Yamashiro, and the Ise and Hyuga, were re-engined, lengthened a bit, and had the elevation of their main guns increased. Some people suggest that they even came out a knot or two faster, but that is debatable once they start getting weighed down with more and more AA after 1942. (The Fuso class were apparently restricted to about 18 knots by 1944, and when the USN inspected the surrendered Nagato in 1945, they were astonished at the state of disrepair.) </p><p>But these 'rebuilt' ships had very little improvement to their 12" belt armour, and none of them advanced beyond mixed secondary batteries. They were still definitely capable battleships for line of battle slogging matches – if they were close enough to see and hit anything, considering they never received proper radar guidance. But they were hardly equivalent to more modern builds – or proper DP rebuilds – for WWII AA conditions. </p><p>In fact Drachinifel makes the point that most Japanese battleships had inferior armour to Germany's <i>WWI</i> battlecruisers! Which makes the enormous sums spent on rebuilding them look a bit Italianesque. But in reality the rebuilt ships were excellent given their limitations, and it appears the Japanese simply accepted they simply had to do the best they could with what they had.</p><p>The even more substantial rebuilds of the elegant Kongo class battlecruisers, which started in the mid 30's, (though Hiei was still completing in early 1940): also suffered from lacking a modern Dual Purpose armament. Their lengthening and new engines lifted their 27 knot design, and made them proper 30+ knot ships, but, apart from a bit more AA, the improvements stop there. Their armour remained inferior to <i>any</i> WWI battlecruiser, let alone to anything they might actually face in WWII. Frankly re-designation as 'fast-battleships' is not convincing compared to any real battleship, let alone the Washington Treaty ships they later faced. </p><p><b>Armour Issues.</b></p><p>Even the substantial armour additions (particularly to deck armour) of the Kongo rebuilds, didn't bring them up to the level of an only slightly modernised WWI Renown class battlecruiser like Repulse, let alone anywhere near the relatively unmodernised Hood. The completely rebuilt Kongo's upgraded slightly from 6" belts and finished with 8" belts, compared to the relatively unmodernised Repulse's 9" and Hood's 12". Which is a problem considering that the British admiralty always tried to keep the Renowns clear of real battleships, because they considered their armour insufficient to face more than the German 11" or Italian 12'6" guns. (Renown shrugged off <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Renown_(1916)#Second_World_War" target="_blank">multiple hits from Scharnhorst and Gneisenau</a> during the Norway invasion while damaging both of them enough to encourage them to withdraw.)</p><p>Considering Hood's 12" belt, and even more her deck armour was – rightly – considered in need of upgrade by WWII, the Kongo's compromise on an 8" 'upgrade' to her belt is worrying. (The Dunkerque had a far more modern 9" belt angled at 11 degrees, which was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_battleship_Dunkerque#Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir" target="_blank">easily penetrated by 2 British 15" shells at Mers El Kebir.</a>) </p><p>Even the completely obsolete and largely unmodernised French and American dreadnoughts had 30%-50% thicker armour than the Kongo's. </p><p>[Worth looking at the previous article to see the discussion of armour QUALITY as opposed to merely thickness.]</p><p>Even if the Renown classes 9" belt was apparently pretty close in quality and effectiveness to the 10" - 11" of the older French, and Japanese ships, and the new build Littorio's, and actually not far off the 12.1" or less of most of the American and Japanese battleships: no one really wanted Repulse to try and go toe to toe with even an unmodernised real battleship.</p><p><b>Battlecruiser level vulnerability</b></p><p>But returning to the Kongo's 'upgraded' 8" belt', to quote the Wikipedia article on the Kongo's...</p><p> "<span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">Even after these modifications, the armour capacity of the </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Kongō</i><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"> class remained much less than that of newer capital ships, a factor which played a major role in the sinking of </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Hiei</i><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"> and </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Kirishima</i><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"> at the hands of U.S. Navy cruisers and battleships in 1942."</span></p><p>It is fair to note that the reason the Kongo's had such an active war was that they were considered expendable cruiser killers, rather than proper line of battle ships. (Notably the Japanese <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantai_Kessen" target="_blank">'Kantai Kessen', or 'Decisive Battle' plan</a> had, apparently since the Battle of Tsushima, suggested that the aircraft carriers, destroyers, cruisers and even battle-cruisers would do waves of suicide attacks on the advancing US fleet, particularly at night, paring it down – and tiring it out – prior to facing the fresh and undamaged Japanese line of battle in daylight.)</p><p>So while most of the Japanese battleships - particularly the Nagato's - led a pretty inactive war, as they were all held close to the main islands awaiting the Kantai Kessen, only the Kongo's really wandered all over the East Indies, Indian Ocean and South Pacific.</p><p>The loss of Hiei at Guadalcanal was actually due to damage from 8" cruiser fire (her steering knocked out by a single 8" cruiser shell, leaving her as helpless given how far from safety she was, as Bismarck or Prince of Wales's torpedo hits left them). </p><p>Kirishima at least managed to put the brand new <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota-class_battleship_(1939)#South_Dakota" target="_blank">South Dakota</a> in serious danger when a similar lucky stroke that knocked out the US ships power supply. But she didn't get a chance to finish the US ship off. Instead Kirishima was rapidly reduced to impotence by several radar guided hits from Washington's 16" guns, which left her with no functional main armament and massive flooding. The supposed 'solution' to these Kongo class weaknesses, was that the surviving ships – Kongo and Haruna – received a rough and ready increase to 'protection' with concrete 'armour' added to some spaces!</p><p>But have a look at the punishment real battleships could take. Bismarck and Scharnhorst took dozens of hits and still fought. Even the outdated 12" armoured battleship Yamashiro kept fighting back when facing 6 USN 14" and 16" armed battleships 4 8" and 4 6" cruisers at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf#Battle_of_Surigao_Strait" target="_blank">Surigao Strait</a>. These ships give an idea of how even the oldest properly armoured battleship could still go toe to toe with other 14"+ armed battleships in a way an 8" or 9" armoured battlecruiser could not hope to! </p><p><b>Other Innovations for Rebuilds</b></p><p>Other RN style innovations also led the capital ship field even before anybody did 'rebuilds'. Certainly Nelson style ‘tower-bridge’ rebuilds on Warspite, Renown and the Queens – and of course on the KGV's and Vanguard – were considerably better developments for space, weather protection, and stable mounts for radar and range finders. They allowed superior capacity for fighting a ship than the assorted towers, pagoda's and open bridges of brand new German, Italian, Japanese or American construction coming on line 20 years after Nelson was launched. (Though the French also adopted the 'tower' idea for their Dunkerque's and Richelieu's.)</p><p>And there were other design features the RN had settled on interwar, from the Nelson's to the KGV's and Lions, that hadn't made it into most other navies concepts.</p><p>The only truly 'post Washington' designs, the Iowa's for instance, still had pre-Nelson style bridges; Hood - Nelson style internal angled belts – which the KGV and Vanguard discarded as too limiting on space and too difficult to repair; Nelson style DP – though in this case the far superior 5"/38 of course; pre-Nelson style armoured conning towers – which the RN had greatly reduced as too much weight too high up for too little purpose, and which, interestingly, the USN stripped out of all their post Pearl Harbour rebuilds; and the Iowa's even still maintained angled fronts of the turrets – which the KGV had replaced with flat fronts, because the angled fronts dated from WWI short range engagements, and actually assisted enemy shells in the expected longer ranged engagements of 30's designs.</p><p>[It is also interesting that the 40's designed Alaska class battlecruisers came out with a central hangar and crane fittings, like the British 30's rebuilds and the KGV's, (but a feature dropped in the equivalent early 40's rethought designs for the Lions and the Vanguard). A somewhat weird compromise design (almost like the equally pointless British WWI experiments with Courageous and Glorious in concept), the Alaska's modern 12" guns were probably better than the WWI 14" ones, but the Alaskas certainly had inadequate armour for their own guns – let alone to face modern battleships guns – and also virtually no torpedo protection at all. Given that their AA was more cruiser scale than battleship, they didn't even make particularly good fast carrier escorts. More like Kongo cruiser killers's than the properly modernised DP battery of Renown. Some more Baltimore class cruisers would have probably been much better value for carrier escort. Of the six Alaska's started, only 2 were completed, and neither was used in service for even 3 years, with both being decommissioned by 1947! Szimansky is completely incorrect to claim that they could be considered battleships. They couldn't even be considered battlecruisers. Their only real contemporaries were the Duetschlands, and, like them, the correct title is 'large heavy cruisers'. Even the Italians got better value from their rebuilds than the USN did from these cute, expensive, but not particularly useful new builds.]</p><p><b>Were the Axis rebuilds worth it?</b></p><p>If the goal of the expenditure on rebuilding the Italian ships or the Kongo's was to have fast ships suitable for carrier escorts (remember the Italians and Germans were both building such carriers); and ships that could kick the backsides of enemy cruisers (the original concept of battlecruisers/cruiser-killers); and run away from the much slower French and USN battleships (or the slower 80% of British battleships) whenever they liked: then they were a good investment. </p><p>But, particularly for the Kongo's, if the goal was to give them the sort of AA firepower that properly modernised British and American capital ships provided as carrier escorts, it was a fail. </p><p>If the idea was to make the Kongo's genuine fast battleships capable of facing even the oldest or lightest real battleship, it was probably a worst waste of money than the Italian rebuilds.</p><p>In fact I think the Italian rebuilds and the Kongo's were excellent battlecruisers/cruiser killers, and well worth the upgrade money (even without a proper DP fit out). In fact I still thin the Kongo's were the best value capital ships the Japanese deployed in WWII.</p><p>But I can't be having with the idea that they were in any way classifiable as actual battleships.</p><p><b>The proper British 'rebuilds'.</b></p><p>In contrast to the commentary in too many books, Britain generally did much better on conversions. </p><p>Or, at least, was doing considerably better on conversions... </p><p>Or at least was starting to, but ran out of time...</p><p>A bit of context.</p><p>The 4 16" <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G3_battlecruiser" target="_blank">G3 class battlecruisers</a> (fast battleships really given their extremely strong armour protection), and 4 18" <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N3-class_battleship" target="_blank">N3 class battleships</a> Britain started post war to respond to the Japanese 8-8 program and the USN 10 battleship program, had all the benefits of Britains much greater wartime combat experience, and ability to test captured German battleships. The G3's in particular had, on a displacement of just 48,000 tons, superior armour, guns and speed to any ship produced prior to the 33% larger 63,000 ton Yamato class designed 20 years later. In fact the Yamato's theoretically came closer to the slightly slower but 18" N3 design, but N3 had superior armament and much better armour than Yamato (top quality 15" British belts being much much stronger than uncooked and brittle Japanese 16.1" belts), and the only loss for N3 being 15,000 tons lighter was 4 knots slower speed! (Even the K3 'battlecruisers's' 14" armour belt and 8" decks were probably superior to Yamato's armour, and they did 5 knots faster despite being 15.000 tons lighter!)</p><p>In fact, given their superior armour technology, speed, and prototype dual purpose secondary armament of mixed heavy, medium and light AA, both the G3 and N3 were still more technically advanced than the 1940's Yamato design. The British ships as designed in 1920 certainly had a better balanced and more effective AA battery than the Yamato's actual 1941 fit out, which particularly suffered from not having any medium AA at all.! (G3 as designed in 1921 had 16 6" DP in 8 turrets, 6 single 4.7", and 32 2 pounders, and 2 quad MG's. N3 had 16 6", 8 4.7", 40 2 pounders and 4 quad MG's as designed. Both would have had extra AA in 1930's refits, let alone in WWII upgrades prior to December 1941. The 21 years later Yamato only started 1941 with 12 5" in 6 turrets, 24 25mm, and 2 twin MG's...)</p><p>According to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpgr0fDVyhI" target="_blank">Drachinifel's You-Tube review</a> of the G3 and N3, had the G3's been built in the 1920's, they would have been "the Queens of the Sea" in WWII, and in the 20's immediately outclassed everything else afloat – including all those expensive new Japanese and American ships – in the same way that the original Dreadnought had outclassed and made obsolete every pre-dreadnought. (Ryan Szimanski commented in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuGJlPfs-HM" target="_blank">his You-Tube review of them</a>, that just the threat of starting to build the G3's let the British "win" the Washington naval treaty, by trading not even started ships for half completed ships. A bit of an exaggeration, but not an unreasonable point.)</p><p>The G3's/N3's weren't built. But, as the only truly pre-treaty, unrestricted, comprehensively new, post war designs: they provide the benchmark for measuring everything that came after them. (For comparison – or lack thereof – see the Italian <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Caracciolo-class_battleship" target="_blank">Carricciola's</a>, the American 1920's design <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota-class_battleship_(1920)" target="_blank">South Dakota</a>, or the Japanese <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tosa-class_battleship" target="_blank">Tosa's</a>, just to see what Drachinifel meant by calling the K3's the 'Queens of the Sea'.)</p><p>Still the Treaty limited 1923 'O3' class, or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson-class_battleship" target="_blank">Nelson class</a> 'compromise' battleships (sometimes referred to as the 'Cherry Tree' class, because they had been 'cut down' by Washington...) were not only the most powerful battleships afloat in 1939, but had been the first battleships actually built with innovative G3/N3 style features like 6" secondary armament in twin DP turrets. (Though note, although it was theoretically DP from the start, and had excellent elevation, it was not really fast enough in traverse or rate of fire for really effective battery fire DP use early in WWII. It was not until radar directed, long distance, proximity fused, 'sniping' became possible very late in the war, that it was really anywhere near effective as a proper DP secondary battery. Unlike most other 6" secondary armaments – prior to HMS Tiger – it had the elevation and the range for AA, but not the necessary speed of traverse or rate of fire.) </p><p>Whereas the only really good DP secondary battery actual rebuild's by any navy pre-war were the 20 4.5" DP in 10 turrets of Renown (finished 1938), Valiant ('39) and Queen Elizabeth ('40).</p><p><b>Real Comparisons</b></p><p>So in terms of proper DP 'rebuilds' we are only comparing British ships rebuilt pre-war and recommissioned in 1938 and 1941, with US ships damaged or sunk at Pearl Harbour and recommissioned in 1943 and 1944.</p><p>With this in mind, it is pretty hard to take seriously the dismissive statements about RN reconstructions offered by too many writers like H. P Wilmott (in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Warships-Modern-Military-H-Willmott/dp/0706403568" target="_blank"><i>Warships</i> - Octopus, 1975</a>)... "<i>Those British ships that were rebuilt failed to hold their speed as the American and Japanese ships had done: although their armour was thickened, little could disguise their all round inferiority to their contemporaries...</i>"</p><p>That attitude is reflected, presumably unthinkingly, by too many commentaries. </p><p>Frankly it doesn't hold water. </p><p>Certainly Britain would have liked to get more full rebuilds done before getting into a war, and would have done so, had her war waited until 1941. But the rebuilds she did get done by 1939-40 were considerably better than most other nations produced in time for Pearl Harbour, or even after Pearl Harbour. </p><p>In fact the 10 twin 4.5" DP turrets (the same models as on the Illustrious class carriers and some of the dedicated Dido AA cruisers) used on the late 30's rebuilt <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(1913)">Queen Elizabeth</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Valiant_(1914)">Valiant</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Renown_(1916)">Renown</a>, were never exceeded in AA effectiveness by any other battleships DP battery. Not on anything rebuilt after Pearl Harbour, nor really on any brand new ship commissioned by any navy during the war. (They were even superior to new build USN battleships with 20 5"/38, simply due to their much greater range.)</p><p>Had the European war start been delayed from a September 1939 start, to a December 1941 start, Britain would have completed or been completing similar 20 x 4.5" in 10 turrets conversions to Repulse, Barham and Malaya. And the Hood rebuild (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqnk2-noeUY" target="_blank">see Drachinifel again</a>), was probably going to get the same 8 twin 5.25" armament as the KGV's. So the plan was to have 6 or 7 of 8 completely modernised rebuilt capital ships with modern DP armaments (plus the 2 less efficient DP Nelsons) completed or half finished, by approximately the time of Pearl Harbour, compared to <b>none at all</b> with modern DP for the rest of the world's navies.</p><p>Not sure how that works with Wilmott's... "although their armour was thickened, little could disguise their all round inferiority to their contemporaries..."</p><p>Comparing to the RN's 3 genuine rebuilds, the phrase "all round inferiority" is simply fantasy.</p><p><b>Is Wilmott right that not enough was done?</b></p><p>Having dismissed Wilmott's criticisms of the quality of the RN rebuilds, still doesn't alter his point that the RN (or more accurately the UK Treasury) was lax not to achieve more between the wars. More full DP rebuilds, or at least more substantial upgrades.</p><p>It is certainly true that the RN only comprehensively rebuilt 4 of it's 15 capital ships - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Renown_(1916)" target="_blank">Renown</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Valiant_(1914)" target="_blank">Valiant </a>and Queen Elizabeth, and to a lesser extent <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warspite_(03)" target="_blank">Warspite</a> – before the war interrupted the process. If that is what Wilmott meant, it might be quite fair to say that more should have been done... Just unrealistic given treaty restrictions, Depression budgets, and the minor fact that Britain was already years ahead of everyone else at this task...</p><p>On the other hand, with Nelson and Rodney already having limited DP, the slightly earlier comprehensive Warspite rebuild only suffering from not having the full DP option, and those 3 proper DP rebuilds, there is also a fair argument that only 4 of the 9 other possible ships - specifically Repulse, Barham, Malaya and Hood – were actually worth substantial re-building. And even having 6 out of the 10 practical possibilities actually completed or under way as fully functional DP ships in 1939 was still way better than the no full DP rebuilds at all in any other navy in 1941. (With the French new built Dunkerque cruiser killers as the only other capital ships in the world with a DP secondary armament in 1939.)</p><p>Rebuilding the 4 other suitable vessels would have been good value, but, frankly, thoroughly rebuilding the 5 Revenge class would have been a complete waste of money and resources. The British simply considered them unworthy of major reconstruction compared to the better value of new builds. </p><p><b>Unworthy of rebuild?</b></p><p>It was also a bit unnecessary. Given their earlier upgrades to armour and other equipment, the Revenge's were pretty competitive, at least with anything of their own vintage. The Revenge's were still far tougher designs than any of the French or Italian or American or Japanese pre-WWI designs like Arkansas, New York, Nevada, Courbet, Bretagne, Conte di Cavour, Caui Dulio, or Fuso. </p><p>In fact they were tough enough to stand a reasonable chance of slugging it out even with later designs like Nagato, Colorado, Littorio, Bismarck or even the Washington's or Iowa's... at least at closer range. (In the 1936-8 Parliamentary Debates on Naval Estimates, the fact that the Revenge's were officially to be retired as the KGV came on line was fiercely debated, as their value even only partially modernised was still clear. It was noted in these House of Commons debates that 'circumstances might well change' before then, requiring them to be kept... at least in a suitable role... Which, as Churchill suggested in those debates, was clearly as heavy convoy escorts that would deter any possible convoy raider.) The unmodernised Revenge's certainly chased Scharnhorst's and Littorio's and lesser raiders away from many convoys during the war.</p><p>In fact one of the Wikipedia articles on one of the class - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ramillies_(07)#With_the_Eastern_Fleet" target="_blank">Ramillies</a> - is clear that the class was still reasonably competitive... <i>"<span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">On 30 May, Japanese </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midget_submarine" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Midget submarine">midget submarines</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"> that had been launched by the submarines </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-16" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Japanese submarine I-16">I-16</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"> and </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-20" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Japanese submarine I-20">I-20</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"> attacked the ships in Diego Suarez. One of the midget submarines scored a hit on </span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">Ramillies</span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"> just forward of her "A" turret on the port side. The explosion tore a large hole in the hull and caused extensive flooding, though damage control teams quickly contained it and prompt counter-flooding prevented her from </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_list" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Angle of list">listing</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"> badly. Still down by the bow after offloading most of her ammunition, she was nevertheless able to steam to </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Durban">Durban</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">, South Africa, at a speed of 9 to 10 knots (17 to 19 km/h; 10 to 12 mph). There, she was inspected by the Constructor </span><a class="new" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._S._Pengelly&action=edit&redlink=1" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #a55858; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="H. S. Pengelly (page does not exist)">H. S. Pengelly</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">, who noted that "although the vessel is now 26 years old and felt by most to be of little value owing to reduced size and slow speeds, the </span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">Ramillies</span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"> is in exceptionally good shape, and I should wonder whether or not the capital ships of today with their lighter scantlings would survive a blow as well as this old girl, some 26 years after they were built..."</span></i></p><p>But most importantly, even these 'unworthy of rebuilding' ships had, by 1939-40, been re-fitted with 8 modern 4" AA guns in twin mounts, 16-24 2 pounders and 8-16 MG's... an equal if not superior AA battery to any other WWI vintage ship in any other navy prior to the Pearl Harbour rebuilds. (And they had all received extra AA upgrades between 1939 and December 1941.) Given that the 8 5"/25 calibre individual mounts on all USN battleships had much less effective range and accuracy, and it is best not to mention the 1.1" backup: the next closest AA comparison in other navies in 1939-1941 was the Nagato class rebuilds's, which also had 8 somewhat less effective 5" in 4 twin turrets, and 20 of the very poor 25mm. (And in fact only the 4 rebuilt Italian ships, and the 2 Dunkerque and 2 Scharnhorst class new builds of any other navy actually had roughly equivalent AA to the the Revenge's 1939 armament until the Richelieu's, Littorio's and Washington's started to arrive in 1940-41.)</p><p><b>Were the British rebuild investments worth it?</b></p><p>I have stated that the large amounts spent on the Italian and Japanese rebuilds usually did not lift them to a level that could face WWII contemporaries. Most of the value spent on teh 4 Italian 'battleships' and the 4 Kongo class battlecruisers, was actually just to provide good cruiser killers that could run from most real battleships. (Though I acknowledge that the Nagato's and Ise rebuilds were notably closer to modern standards of battleships than the relatively unmodernised Revenge's or any of the US standards.)</p><p>So was the RN also wasting its money trying to bring old battleships up to modern standards?</p><p>Well, no.</p><p>Frankly the 1939-40 rebuilds – Renown, Queen Elizabeth and Valiant – were, on the basis of their superior DP and AA capabilities if nothing else, simply better rebuilds than anything else afloat until those few USN ships sunk at Pearl Harbour started turning up again in 1943 and 1944. And the Queens were already 3 or 4 knots faster than those USN rebuilds, and of any other WWI ship except the Italian lightweight rebuild 12.6" dreadnoughts (which were incapable of facing them), and the 4 Japanese ships which had similar or slightly better speed, (but without a modern DP armament).</p><p>Only the Kongo's might potentially be considered better value rebuilds, mainly due to their upgrade from 27 to 30 knot speed giving their 14" guns the ability to keep up with fleet carriers. But, like the Italian rebuilds, this really only made them of value as the type of ships that Szimanski refers to as 'cruiser killers'. Such rebuilds in no way made them suitable to stand in line of battle against even obsolete battleships. </p><p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong%C5%8D-class_battlecruiser" target="_blank">Kongo's</a> real comparison there is with the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Renown_(1916)#1926%E2%80%931939" target="_blank">rebuilt Renown</a>. But Renown was not only faster, but better armoured (Renown's 9" higher quality belt being more like 10.5" when properly compared to Kongo's 8"), and with a vastly superior DP secondary armament, (and therefore far more suitable to carrier escort). So even there, the Kongo rebuilds fail to match their only real contemporary.</p><p>The 3 real RN rebuilds, and even the half done Warspite, were definitely good value.</p><p><b>Were the Japanese rebuild investments worth it?</b></p><p>The Kongo's real issue is lack of proper armour. They simply could not face any other still existing battleships more modern than 12" Arkansas or Courbet's. (Probably not even those at most ranges.) Even the Italian 12.6" 27 knot rebuilds would have given them trouble (though it would be an interesting fight), and frankly even the slightly faster, 11" gunned, radar equipped, Scharnhorst's would have kicked their arses. The weakness of their armour made them even less suitable to facing other capital ships than the Queen Mary battlecruiser which, despite having a heavier belt than the greatly rebuilt Kongo's, had exploded when facing 11" dreadnoughts at Jutland. Taking a Kongo within range of 14" or 15' (let alone 16") battleships, was simply suicidal. (See Guadalcanal again.)</p><p>It is a pity really, because otherwise the Kongo's could have been as good as fast carrier escorts as Renown. But without a DP armament, they were really only cruiser killer escorts, and could not add much useful AA escort in the way Renown's massive battery could. Considering all the money spent on the Kongo rebuilds, the lack of a good DP secondary battery undermined their end value significantly.</p><p><b>[Side Reflections...]</b></p><p>[Some of these YouTubes reflect on whether having the rebuilt Renown, with one of the best AA batteries in the world, escorting the Prince of Wales in 1941 would have had a substantially different results for Force Z. Not really a dumb question, though the POW's actually very good 5.25" DP had been 'mission killed' early in the fight by a simple power failure. Note that POW – like Bismarck, Vittorio Veneto, and South Dakota – were all modern ships, that were all 'mission killed' early in the war by lucky hits on propellor shafts or by power failure in battle. POW unfortunately by both, which caused her sinking, and Bismarck by just one, but too far from port to recover. Vittorio Veneto and South Dakota were both very lucky to survive similar failures, and in their cases it owed more to having other ships nearby to assist with their survival and recovery, than to any superiority in design. (Notably wartime damage control experience meant that there were no such later failures in other ships of these same classes!)</p><p>Another of my old posts queries the really quite stupid assumption that <a href="https://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.com/search?q=force+Z" target="_blank">had the aircraft carrier Indomitable been with Force Z</a>, she would have just been lost with POW and Repulse... Obviously an assumption made by people who have never looked a the great Mediterranean convoy battles of 1941 and 1942 where one or two carriers CAP's often held off several hundred German and Italian bombers, sometimes for days at a time... <a href="https://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.com/2013/07/challenging-inevitable-results-in.html" target="_blank">But read that discussion here</a>.]</p><p><b>Could the RN have spent the rebuild money better?</b></p><p>We still have to ask whether it would have been better to devote the same resources spent on these RN rebuilds to new builds instead. But in the RN case it appears not. </p><p>The entire 1920's upgrades of 13 RN capital ships was only about 3 million pounds all up, and even the far more comprehensive mid 30's rebuild of Warspite, was only about 2.3 Million Pounds Sterling. This was a third the price of a mid 20's 7 million for a Nelson new build, let alone a late 30's new <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_George_V-class_battleship_(1939)" target="_blank">King Goerge V class</a>. Even though Renown's more comprehensive rebuild was more like 3.1 million pounds, the 4 rebuilds the RN did get done were practically new ships, quite capable of matching it with most new-built battleships, and they at least were powerful enough for both surface and AA actions to give the sort of combat value not possible from the far less effective Italian rebuilds. </p><p>Getting the other 4 possible rebuilds done for about the price of another 1.5 KGV would have been a real bargain.</p><p>There is also the timing value of the RN rebuilds. Rebuilt ships available in 1939 or 1940 were actually vital to holding the line until new builds could come on line. As it was the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_George_V-class_battleship_(1939)" target="_blank">KGV class</a> suffered a little from being pushed into production in the 1936 and 1937 programs, rather than waiting a year to get the 'treaty clause' upgrades that gave 16" guns to their American contemporaries. But the 6 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-class_battleship" target="_blank">Lion class</a> of the 1938, 1939 and 1940 programs (which were only dropped when war broke out, as were the USN's 1940 and 41 Montana's and later Iowa's when their war broke out): plus the rush compromise Vanguard in 1941, would have given Britain 10-12 modern ships PLUS 8 completely rebuilt and very effective older ships (plus 2 'modern-ish' Nelsons and 5 minimally modernised Revenge's) by about 1942-3. About 20 completely modern RN capital ships compared to a grand total of about 17 modern ships in the rest of the worlds navies combined. (4 German, 3 Italian, 2 Japanese, 2 French and 6 or 7 American... Which comes to 30 odd fully modern or modernised 'Allied' capital ships versus perhaps 9 'Axis'...)</p><p>So clearly the Admiralty considered that, at the cost of about 2.5 new builds, these 8 complete rebuilds – almost all likely to be complete before Japan or the US even entered the war –would have been a very worthwhile investment. </p><p>Pity they only got half of them done in time.</p><p>Still this 'just in time' approach compares to the French being caught out by their new build program not being advanced enough when they went to war, and not having any modernisations to fill the gap. Only the Italians, Japanese and Americans had long enough to get their new build programs actually working before war actually descended upon them.</p><p><b>Other possible rebuilds... had circumstances been different?</b></p><p>There are two specific reasons why the RN rebuilds worked so much better than the Italian ones. The 24 knot Queens, (and even more the 30+ know Renown's and Hood), were simply bigger and more spacious options for rebuild than any of the 21 knot ships (whether British or anyone else's), or any of the relatively under-gunned or under-armoured 12" or 13.4" ship.</p><p>Which meant that smaller older ships really weren't worth substantial rebuilds, and could probably make do with a minor 20s upgrade and some extra AA... if they were just to play second rank escort and bombardment roles like the Arkansas, New York, Courbet, Bretagne, Gangut, etc, classes.</p><p>Consider for instance the RN's 13.5" battleship fleet of WWI veterans, all scrapped pre WWII, (though several of which had stayed in commission until the early 30's), and all of which were better ships than those 5 classes of 10 ships named above. The lack of even some of these extra 13.5" ships was a sever problem in WWII.</p><p>Note that, unlike the French, Italian and US navies, which all had little choice but to kept 12" dreadnoughts in service into WWII to maintain some numbers: the RN had considered all of their 12" guns dreadnoughts ready for scrap post WWI. (Most of them had been pretty worn out by war service anyway, so the RN had no fantasies about any value in ever rebuilding them.) </p><p>But – had they not got the Washington Treaty through – the RN could easily have kept up to 13 of the 13.5" gun super-dreadnought or battlecruiser designs – many of them competitive with, if not considerably superior to, any of their contemporary French, Italian, Japanese or US 12", 12.6", 13.4" (or possibly even 14") Dreadnoughts that were still in service in WWII. </p><p>(The only other Dreadnought of much value that any other navy might have kept in service, was the 26,000 ton 12" dreadnought Wyoming - sister to Arkansas. Possibly the previous 22,000 ton class of the Utah and Florida might also have been considered... but these ships were all more comparable to the completely obsolete Courbet's than to the more useful Bretagne's. The Japanese 21,000 ton 12" dreadnought Settsu – with her six turrets in a hexagon layout... four in side by side pairs – might also compare with a Courbet. Or at a pinch, the 19,000 ton Italian Dante Alighieri. But nothing else in existence would have come anywhere close to matching one of these British 13.5" super-dreadnoughts. But even keeping every single 12" Dreadnought scrapped by every other navy in the world in service, would only total 7 more 12" Dreadnoughts, compared to the 13 13.5" super-dreadnoughts and battlecruisers the RN disposed of between the wars.)</p><p>Several of the 12 British 13.5" super dreadnoughts could have been kept. The 3 surviving 1911 King George V class and the 4 1912 Iron Duke class – all 25,500 tons – were suitable for minor upgrades like the Revenge class. And possibly even the 3 surviving 1909 22,000 ton Orion class that preceded the KGV's. All were superior to any of the 12" designs like Arkansas and Courbet and Bretagne still in service in WWII. They were all probably just as good as the 14" armed New York's, Nevada's, and Fuso's. The last 7 at least – the KGV's and Iron Dukes – could probably even match adequately with the Ise's. They were certainly capable of keeping the more lightly armed or armoured modern Deutschland's, Dunkerque's, and Scharnhorst's (or modernised Kongo's) clear of any convoys... </p><p>[This is where I query the line used by everyone from Wilmott to Szimanski , that the RN's numerical superiority post WWI was based on "worn out 12" (Wilmott) – and 13.5" (Szimanski) – ships in need of replacement". Certainly Britain planned to scrap the dozen or so 12" ships, even the relatively modern Agincourt (the 28,000 ton wartime build taken over from Turkey, which was a potentially excellent rebuild option). But at least 10 of the 13.5" guns (if not all 13) were as valuable, if not more valuable, than many of the more obsolete ships kept going by other navies. Putting these 11-15 vessels into the reserve fleet would have been exactly the same decision that the USN made with the Iowa's in the 60's and 70's, (before Reagan brought them back for his 600 ship fleet in the 80's.) </p><p>I think it was probably sensible to trade all the 12" and probably even some of these 13.5" ships (the 3 Orions presumably) for the Washington Naval Treaty, even if it allowed the US to achieve naval parity for no actual cost (which sort of makes a joke of Szymanski's suggestion that it was the UK that 'won' at Washington). </p><p>But if the Washington treaty had not gone ahead, it is probable that not all of these 13 odd 13.5" vessels would have been scrapped. (In fact although the 1909 model Orions were immediate victims of the Washington conference, the 1911 model Iron Dukes were still in service until after the 1930 London Conference, and the 1910 model KGV's were only deleted late 20's. Without the Treaties, the last 7 at least might have served in WWII.)]</p><p>Imagine Germany even bothering to build commerce raider like the Duetschland's if the RN had a 7-10 extra 21 knot 13.5" capital ships in the reserve fleet for convoy duty? Theoretically these 13.5" ships could all have had the sort of 'remove Q turret and upgrade' rebuild of the Italian Dreadnoughts, but in reality if the RN considered the Revenge's not worth the effort, these ships would certainly have remained 'reserve fleet' units with certainly no more than the 8 4", 16 2 pounder, 8 MG (probably in direct swap for Q turrets space and weight) upgrades like those of the slightly bigger Revenge's. IE: 'merely' better WWII AA than any contemporary US, French, Japanese battleship...</p><p>But, even if they had been kept, none of the ten Orion, KGV or Iron Duke super dreadnoughts would actually have been any more worth rebuilding than the Revenge's. Only the 3 28 knot 'big cat' battlecruisers – Lion and Princess Royal (scrapped in the 20's – Washington Treaty) and Tiger (scrapped 1932 – London Treaty), all of them similar in design to the Kongo's – would have been worth substantial rebuilds, all delivering very nice fast additional ships that could have been given a Renown style work-over to make 'cruiser killer' carrier escorts with considerably better fleet AA defence than the Kongo's or Alaska's. </p><p>Because the key element of making a rebuild truly worthwhile was really the extra length and space of the faster ships – the Queen's and the battlecruisers – which allowed more space for upgrades, particularly after re-engining and re-boilering released considerably more space below decks. The 20 4.5 DP guns could be fitted to these larger ships without much compromising speed, and indeed with significant increases in both armour and range. </p><p><b>Real Value?</b></p><p>Frankly the DP AA armament of the 3 full rebuilds that Britain got done pre war was just as good as the post Pearl Harbour American rebuilds, and close to as good as brand new 'Treaty' British, French and American ships: and it is simply a shame that the Repulse, Hood, Barham and Malaya didn't get the same rebuilds in time.</p><p>[Drakinifel has a cute YouTube on 'what if' Hood had suffered battle damage engaging Bismarck, but not been sunk by a fluke shot'. Presumably she would have immediately gone into repair and been given the refit that had been planned for her pre-war (originally scheduled for 1942 to allow KGV's to complete, then moved to a late1941 slot anyway). The suggested rebuild was to come out with the 16 5.25" DP batteries in the same format as the KGV. Perhaps even using the far faster modernised auto loading 5.25" models being produced for Vanguard. It is obviously disappointing that the Hood, Barham, Repulse and POW were sunk outright instead of just damaged enough to be rebuilt. Had any of them been able to be salvaged like some of the Pearl Harbour ships, or escaped similar battle situations and battle damage for repair – like Gneisenau, Vittorio Veneto, Nelson, Ramilles or South Dakota – some interesting results might have transpired... With some of them possibly even refitted in American yards like the Nelson, Illustrious and Indomitable?]</p><p>So the proper DP RN rebuilds were a considerably better investment than the half arsed Kongo's, or even the more comprehensively rebuilt, but frankly inadequate, Italian dreadnoughts. </p><p>And anyone doing damage repairs during wartime probably also got value from doing proper DP rebuilds where possible.</p><p><b>Had Capital ships reached their peak?</b></p><p>But it is worth commenting that the brand new post treaty restriction WWII ships like the Iowa's, Vanguard, and even Yamato's, all looked surprisingly inferior in various ways to the (48,000 ton) K3/N3 battlecruisers/battleships Britain had started laying down in 1921. </p><p>Szimanski makes the good point that although the Yamato's were bigger and tougher than Iowa's, their advantages just don't add up to justify an extra 15,000 tons (full load) of resources and expense. And he is quite correct, but then he fails to note that the same argument applies to Iowa's. At 15,000 tons heavier than (full load) KGV's, they had slightly superior DP and AA (as built, not by end of war additions), and maybe 3 or 4 knots greater speed (but only in good weather), but much inferior armour. For 15,000 tons advantage! </p><p>The KGV's modern 14" guns repeatedly punched through considerably heavier armour than the Iowa's carried (the Bismarck's was at least 15% better, and Scharnhorst's more than 25% better), and were guaranteed to defeat Iowa's; whereas KGV's armour was much more likely to be able to withstand Iowa's guns, given that it was the <i>only</i> treaty period battleship design with armour actually designed to withstand 16" guns!</p><p>In fact for the Iowa's 6,000 tons extra over Vanguard, the Iowa's had inferior DP and AA weapons, greatly inferior armour, and indeed inferior speed in anything but calm weather for short spurts. For 6.000 tons more! </p><p>The 13,000 ton smaller (full load) Richelieu's – despite lacking as good a DP secondary battery as the Iowa's – were both faster in most weathers, and much better armoured than Iowa's. </p><p>Even being 19,000 tons more than a Nelson doesn't alter the fact that an Iowa's 6-8 knot speed advantage won't help much if the Nelson's 14" armour is pretty good against Iowa's guns, compared to Iowa's 10.5" equivalent being very marginal against Nelson's. </p><p>(In fact Yamato, at almost 25,000 tons heavier than Nelson, only gets 4 knots advantage, and probably has less effective armour: and in most sea conditions, at most ranges, and certainly in anything other than perfect daylight line of sight: you would probably have to back Nelson's technically superior armour and radar guided guns against Yamato any time...)</p><p><i>As Szimanski notes, significantly greater tonnage, for minimal extra capacity, just reveals significantly inferior design effectiveness! </i></p><p><i>That means you Bismarck, Iowa and Yamato...</i></p><p>The Iowa 'battleships' could have matched speed – in good weather – and main guns with similar sized K3 'battlecruisers', but with 30% - 40% lighter effective armour, couldn't even go close on protection. (Meaning that in reality it was an Iowa battlecruiser compared to a K3 battleship, not the other way around!).</p><p>The Yamato's, with heavier guns, and even a bit more armour, but 5 knots slower than a G3, actually come out a bit more like the N3 designs. But again, is that all you can manage 20 years later and for 15,000 tons more!</p><p>Although even bigger designs were played with during WWII, (62,000 tons for Montana's, 92,000 tons for one 'improved' Yamato's and one late war redesign Lion, and a purely fantasy 140,000 tons for one of the German H class): the battleship had apparently reached its logical balance of size and power versus cost effectiveness with the K3 and N3 designs, and the cost ineffectiveness of going much further was pretty conclusively demonstrated by the events of WWII. </p><p>When the Admiralty dismissed the later wartime designs as uneconomic, it was simply because the cost of ever bigger ships for ever better defensive capability, would quickly outweigh the benefits of the strict limits of their offensive capabilities. (They decided when designing the K3/N3 that the offensive power of 8 or 9 heavy guns, simply wasn't worth the cost of more than 50,000 tons of investment... certainly not worth 70,000 or 90.000... the fact that you <i>could </i>keep building ever bigger and ever more expensive, did not mean that you should!)</p><p>The K3 design (with its plentiful tonnage and deck space for a possible DP upgrade), was probably close to the last word in how battleships might be formatted in an age of steadily rising airpower.</p><p><b>So some final comments on 'rebuilds'.</b></p><p>The Italians did some truly elegant work on rebuilding obsolete ships, but at dubious cost effectiveness considering the results could barely face the second or third rank capital ships of other navies. Frankly, although they got very nice cruiser-killers out of it, spending the same resources on new builds – as the French tried to – would probably have had a better return. But they had to answer the new Dunkerque's, and do it faster than new Littorio's were possible, so there is at least logic for attempting such rebuilds.</p><p>The Americans did some excellent rebuilds, but only on ships badly damaged or sunk at Pearl Harbour, and most of those weren't back in service until very late, and saw little wartime service except convoy escort and shore bombardment. Although doing the rebuilds while doing the necessary repairs made sense, the USN, possibly equally sensibly, didn't invest many resources in rebuilding their slow 'standard' ships pre war. Concentrating on getting 10 more modern battleships functional for 1941-44 instead was definitely a better choice. Lucky they got those precious 2 extra years of peace to get the process in train!</p><p>The Japanese 'rebuilds' saw substantial refits, particularly of engines, and in some cases lengthened hulls: which usually actually lifted their speed. But not much change to main armament or mixed secondary batteries, and certainly inadequate changes to armour for modern war fighting. The Fuso's and Ise's armour were barely adequate to face other modern capital ships, and the Kongo's apparently completely inadequate to cope with even heavy cruisers. The Nagato's were considerably better, but probably not actually enough better than even the partially refitted Queen's or Colorado's to make much difference. (Certainly not as good as the completely rebuilt Queen's and Colorado's with their proper DP batteries.)</p><p>The only really valuable interwar rebuilds then, were the Renown, Queen Elizabeth and Valiant, all completed in 39 to 40, ie: in time to serve throughout WWII. (Amusingly, the newly rebuilt Queen Elizabeth, which was sunk in Alexandria harbour just prior to Pearl Harbour, and – like several USN ships sunk at Pearl and rebuilt – was repaired in a US shipyard and then re-commissioned in mid 1943; could easily have been further upgraded during that repair had that been appropriate. But in reality only the light AA battery of 40mm/20mm was significantly altered during this post rebuild 'refit', as there really wasn't much of greater value that could be achieved on such a hull, than had already been done.)</p><p>Ideal rebuilds never actually happened though. The Italians enlarged their ships, and increased their speed, but with inadequate guns or armour to face modern battleships. The Kongo's, with good guns already, were enlarged, and had speed increased, but their DP was very limited, and their armour was disastrous. The Queens were given slightly better protection, much greater range, and truly excellent DP, but not enlarged to allow faster speeds. And the Renown was fast and with great DP, but still lacked the armour to fight proper modern battleships. And the American post-Pearl Harbor rebuilds were still too slow, and in most cases weren't back in action until the war was almost over.</p><p>But there doesn't seem much doubt that a proper DP rebuild of a suitably sized and armoured WWI ship was still a damn good investment for WWII.</p><p>If you could get it done in time to be of use...</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-47556461335728204182021-01-23T19:28:00.007-08:002021-04-30T14:57:27.393-07:00Real Battleships for WWII - Part I - defining a battleship <p> <i>This is the first of several long and quite technical posts, but I needed to do some background research as reference for a series of future articles.</i></p><p><b>Real Battleships for WWII - Part I - defining a battleship </b></p><p>I recently enjoyed comparing a run of excellent You-Tubes on naval history and warships by Drachinifel, Navyreviewer, and by Ryan Szimanski (the curator of Battleship New Jersey Museum and Memorial). If you are interested in naval history, particularly World War Two, and haven't seen them, they are full of great information.</p><p>I was particularly convinced by Szimanski's definitions of battleships versus battle cruisers (or 'cruiser-killers' as Szimanski prefers to label them). He classifies anything capable of facing a fair number of hits from a real battleship without becoming instant Swiss cheese as a battleships – regardless of its speed or armament – and anything not capable of doing so as a 'cruiser killer'. </p><p>Which fundamentally means he regards adequate armour to face roughly equivalent guns as the thing that lifts ships into Battleship class, by contrast to any amount of firepower and speed not making it past battlecruiser definition if the armour is simply incapable of taking hits from similar guns. </p><p>(In fact battlecruisers were not even designed to face other battlecruisers, as they weren't designed to face their own guns. Battlecruisers were simply a way to use big guns to kill enemy cruisers. Putting them into a slugging match with other battlecruisers, lat alone proper battleships – whether at Jutland or at Guadalcanal – was NOT their designed purpose... with inevitable results.)</p><p>This is actually pretty close to Admiral Fisher's earliest definition of the design concept difference, and much better than the British Great War practice of calling anything a bit faster a battle cruiser regardless of it's protection levels. </p><p>Meaning Szimanski puts Hood and Scharnhorst in the fast battleship class, and ships like Repulse, Kongo, Dunkerque, Conti de Cavour, Deutschland or Alaska in the 'cruiser killer' class. </p><p>All quite sensible.</p><p>However...</p><p>The more I listened to comparisons, the more I kept coming up with.. 'surely that can't actually be right'.</p><p>This caused me to do a bit of review of some of the facts, and to re-visit some of the over 50 titles of books – dating from 1938 to 2019 – I have collected on capital ships, as well as swot up on the latest Wikipedia information additions, and check a few recent academic articles. </p><p>Some of these books and articles are truly dreadful, though the reasons vary. Some, particularly the pre-war and wartime ones, are simply poor because they lack information we now know. Some later ones are bad because they seem to be confusingly based on the prejudices of the commentators (worse, they then seem to try and do incorrect comparisons). And some, particularly the 70's titles and some articles in Wikipedia, are clearly just people who have managed to dismiss facts that don't fit with their world view.</p><p><i>I will note that there is so much contradictory information between sources, that most of the below is just the best I can make of many many alternative offerings. I will hope to get some helpful referrals to better sources from anyone who spots anything where they can suggest better information?</i></p><p>As usual the worst books seem to be the 'poor little us, weren't we terrible' school for British academic historians, Some of whom like being disparaging about their countries efforts (in that they are just prescient of most modern academic 'historians' I suppose). And some of whom are consciously trying to suck up to the new trend...</p><p>A good example of possibly both attitudes being British academic H P Wilmott, who blatantly admits in one of his Forewards... </p><p>"<span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 13.2px;">It would be pleasing to record that this book first saw the light of day as a result of a conviction that the story of the British contribution to the war against Japan in 1944-45, and specifically the story of the British Pacific Fleet, deserved an account that did both justice. Unfortunately this author cannot honestly make such a claim.</span><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 13.2px;">This book took shape as a result of the realisation that a doctorate, and with it admission to the most mysterious Masonic order in the Western world, would be required if the author was to work in the United States"</span> ... </p><p>In other words, he approached his topic dismissive of it's value, wrote what the thought potential examiners wanted to hear to get his Doctorate, and managed some quite convoluted internal contradictions between his quoted evidence and his conclusions... (but see my review post of his dreadful book <a href="https://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-british-pacific-fleet-in-1945-issue.html" target="_blank">Grave of a Dozen Schemes </a> for a reflection on his approach). </p><p>The second worst sources are the 'gee, weren't we great' American school (though we are now getting plenty of 'weren't we actually awful' revisionists in the US too... but so far their fixations are race and politics, not so much technical detail). </p><p>Then there are the 'wow, look at what the clever stuff the Axis technical geniuses achieved' school. A lot of it really impressive fantasy, particularly relating to the Germans. (Though, interestingly, the many Italian technical successes are often actually under-rated)...</p><p>All of these schools get a reasonable, and well deserved, kicking from both Drachinifel and Szimanski. But even those two sometimes contradict each other. (Sometimes they even contradict themselves in their own videos. For instance I note that by his own definitions, Szimanski is not curator of Battleships New Jersey, but of Battlecruiser New Jersey... but more on that below)</p><p>So let's define what a battleship really was in WWII.</p><p>To investigate properly, we have to go a bit deeper into the traditional trade-off decisions made when building a capital ship. Specifically, the balance that could be achieved between Armament, Armour, and Speed.</p><p><b>Armament.</b></p><p>Let's start with armament, but not just by looking at how big the main guns were: which is often a bit pointless, as most guns above 13.4" or 14" could usually defeat most other people's 10" to 12" armour, on most ships, at most likely ranges. (Only British battleships from Nelson onwards, the German Scharnhorst's and the Yamato class, ever had the higher quality or heavier 14" to 18" armour – of variable effectiveness – that – probably – made the effectiveness of most of the older 12", 13.4" and 14" guns a bit more dubious)... </p><p>Capital ships could also only defeat their opponents armour IF they could find them and hit them accurately. Which was hardly a given, as only the British – with the 8 WWI 15" guns on Warspite – and Germans – with the 9 modern 11"! guns on Scharnhorst – actually hit any target moving at 26+ knots at 26,000 yards or more. (Both in relatively clear conditions in daylight, and both well inside the theoretical 35,000-45,000 yard full range of most battleship guns. Which would appear to make the concentration of too many technical articles on angles of penetration effectiveness of potential hits at 30,000 yards range a complete waste of time. 20,000 yards is useful analysis. 30,000 is just pointless, even with radar fire control.) </p><p>[3 years later, in foul weather at night during the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Scharnhorst#Battle_of_the_North_Cape" target="_blank">Battle of North Cape</a>, the Germans had their fears that British radar had advanced far beyond theirs in gunfire direction completely confirmed, when Scharnhorst was pounded to scrap by Duke of York and a few cruisers in a battle where even the British cruisers could engage and score hits at ranges that didn't allow Scharnhorst to reply accurately.]</p><p>No other navy came even close to hitting anything actually moving at any speed at 26,000 yards (though West Virginia managed within about 15% of it with 22,800 yards against a target limited to 18 knots using the latest radar at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf#Engagement" target="_blank">Surigao Strait.</a> in late '44). Certainly not the radar deficient Italians and Japanese. </p><p>At night, or in bad weather, that meant radar efficient nations had an unsurpassable advantage, particularly for fast moving targets at sea like those hit by Warspite and Scharnhorst. </p><p>[Although one USN 16" battleship peppered stationary French targets in a port at even longer ranges, some USN engagements – like Guadalcanal – were at Jutland distances, if not closer. (5,000-8,000 yards, even though the US ships had radar... Which would have been fine if the USN had been consciously doing a Matapan style 3,500 yard ambush, but South Dakota's radar and other power went down to 'electrical fault', and she accidentally wandered within 5,000 yards and was battered at close range, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_South_Dakota_(BB-57)#Battle_of_the_Santa_Cruz_Islands" target="_blank">"</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_South_Dakota_(BB-57)#Battle_of_the_Santa_Cruz_Islands" target="_blank">leaving the ship in Lee's words "deaf, dumb, blind, and impotent</a>". Fortunately Washington's working radar allowed her to sneak up on the J</span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">apanese and win the battle.</span>) ]</p><p>At Surigao Straits those USN battleships with more modern radar - the late war rebuilds West Virginia, California and Tennessee – spotted the enemy at over 30,000 yards, and opened fire at 22,000 yards, actually getting some hits with the opening salvo's! But some ships with less effective radar – Maryland (8 16") – had to wait for visual sightings of shell splashes before joining in, and Pennsylvania (12 14") with her older Mark III radar, failed to spot the enemy at all.</p><p><i>How many and how big your guns are, or what their range is, doesn't matter a damn if you never see your opponent!</i></p><p>Yamato/Musashi also get mentioned for 'accuracy' sometimes, mainly because they sometimes got straddles at long ranges, in clear weather, in daylight. But they rarely actually hit anything. Even slow escort carriers were apparently a bit difficult, even in daylight conditions, with the escort carrier Gambier Bay appearing to have been lost to damage from a near miss from Yamato, rather than to an actual hit...) So apparently the good optics that allowed straddles were not good enough to allow adequate corrections for many actual hits? </p><p>[Though please note, in every battle of the war, the navy which has the choice – either through speed in daylight, or radar superiority at night or in heavy weather – always closed the range to their maximum advantage (if not to point blank where possible) before engaging.]</p><p>So instead of endlessly debating the value of 10 or 12 14" versus 8 15" or 16" or even 9 11" or 16"; or of 20 degree versus 30 degree or 40 degree elevation; or of heavier slower shells versus lighter faster ones: I tend to accept that <i>most</i> heavy guns could penetrate <i>most</i> armour if they could find the enemy and get accurate shooting happening... and just wonder whether they could only hit anything in good light and good weather, or if they were completely blind in the wrong conditions?</p><p><b>Armour.</b></p><p>A vastly oversimplified theory is that 12" armour is OK to stand up to 12" guns, and – if it is sloped properly for some ranges – perhaps even for 14" guns: but it can't really be adequate for 15", 16" or 18" guns at most ranges. Theoretically that means about 14" of armour for 14" guns, and 16" for 16" etc.</p><p>Vastly oversimplified.</p><p>An unrecognised fact is that most WWI, interwar and even World War II constructed battleships, only had about 12" belts or less.</p><p>That includes almost every Japanese ship (except the 2 Yamato's with a theoretical 16.1"); the oldest 3 USN battleships; and – uniquely for Washington Treaty or post treaty – all 8 of the final 8 USN battleships ever built! </p><p>The Italians didn't even make it to 12" plate, and had nothing over 10.8" on the Littorio's, and 9.8" on the older ships. Nor did any of the French ships (except the Richelieu's with 12.9"); Even the vaunted Bismarck's were really 12.6" (though the 2 Scharnhorst's went to 13.8").</p><p>So not one of these ships was theoretically suitable to take on 15" or 16" guns! (Though an adequate 'slope' – from say 12 to 18 degrees – on 12" armour gave at least a theoretical 14" to 15" protection, at certain ideal distances. Note that most WWII battleship vs battleship engagements were definitely not at these theoretical ideal distances – Matapan, Gudalcanal, Barents Sea, etc – and Szymanski admits that Bismarck's 'outdated' 12.8" belt and turtleback was far more effective at the ranges of her final engagements than the Iowa's supposedly 'more advanced' 12.1" internal sloped belt would have been.)</p><p>Only British battleships – and about half of the older American battleships – had more than 12" of armour on anything they called a 'battleship': with the WWI model Queen Elizabeth and Revenge classes on 13"; the USN's 9 WWI 'standards' and the South Carolina's on 13.5" (though it's actual quality makes that number less impressive); the Nelson's and Vanguard 14"; and the King George V class on 14.7". </p><p>(The British 'Battlecruisers' Hood had 12" like many of the better protected foreign 'battleship', but the Renown class battlecruisers only had 9" like the lesser protected French, Italian and Japanese battleships/battlecruisers.)</p><p><b>But here we will do a slight diversion into armour QUALITY as opposed to merely thickness. </b></p><p>There is considerable discussion on various You Tube articles, about British battleship armour being 10% to 20% better than most other people's armour. (Garzke and Dullin - Battleships of WWII Janes 1980 p.247) say British battleship armour was up to 25% better than USN Class A, while Szimanski likes to claim 12%-15% better. Let's stick with about 20%.</p><p>But that is also a vast oversimplification. </p><p>If you want a one hour video on this topic made sensible for lay people then Drachinifel's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoEFjl0buiM" target="_blank">A brief history of Naval Armour</a> is apparently admired by many metallurgy professionals for its concise summary. </p><p>Simply put, the British Case Hardened just the front of the armour (hard but brittle front), and left the majority of its thickness 'ductile' (flexible); while the Americans Class A armour Case Hardened 50%-55% of total thickness, and therefore had much less ductile flexibility. The Germans were not far off the British approach; the Japanese tried to case harden parts just under the surface; and the Italians – possibly more sensibly – varied their approach depending on the thickness of plate. </p><p>Interestingly the American approach worked extremely well on cruiser grade armour stopping cruiser grade (6" or 8") guns, but was much less efficient for over 12" guns; and the British were most effective at battleships guns, with performance falling off at cruiser level. </p><p>[Which sort of makes sense in one way, as the American's and the Japanese thought of cruisers as being central to supporting their line of battle, while the British thought of them as commerce protectors with a limited scouting and AA focus for the fleet. (Literally British heavy cruisers like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County-class_cruiser" target="_blank">County's</a> and York's were usually off on isolated patrols, while lighter or AA focused cruisers like the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dido-class_cruiser" target="_blank">Dido's</a> and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-class_cruiser#The_Ceres_class" target="_blank">Cerese</a>/Carlyle's usually worked with the main fleets.) But in the other way it makes no sense, as the Americas and Japanese wanted their cruisers to help stand in the line against enemy battleships, whereas the British cruisers were specifically designed to face other cruisers.]</p><p>In practice this meant that for Cruiser armour, the American Class A was the best, followed by Italian, Japanese, German and British last. By contrast, for Battleships, British armour was best, followed by German, Italian, and probably American just pipping the Japanese. </p><p>[In fact the Japanese found that the thicker the plate, the harder to use their 'under the surface' cooking process, and in reality the theoretical 16.1" plates for Yamato were actually quite brittle; and prone to crack... though USN tests post war point out that sheer bulk makes up for a lot of the weakness, so 16.1" brittle belt armour (Yamato) is probably at least as good as 12.1" Class A (North Carolina/South Dakota/Iowa), for stopping things, though probably considerably less effective than 14.7" British armour (KGV) which should, theoretically, have been proof against 16-18" guns... theoretically. (Apparently USN point blank range tests agains a 26" plate – read a Yamato turret front – post war showed that it cracked surprisingly easily when hit by heavy shells. Szimanski shows some nice pictures of such plates shattered by 16" shells at point blank range... But the USN apparently concluded that such plates were proof to their 16" guns at most battle ranges... but obviously belts and decks of much lesser thickness would not have been...) ]</p><p><i>Theoretical thickness is way less important than actual strength, particularly if the armour is layered and/or poorly 'cooked'.</i> </p><p>Which means that the supposed 16.1" main belt of Yamato was almost certainly vulnerable, at least to the 16", 15" and probably modern 14" shells of possible opponents, even if the turret faces were 'proof'.</p><p>As usual which armour type you would prefer to have depends what you are doing. British or Italian cruisers facing each other would have loved to have USN Class A, but American and Japanese battleships facing each other would no doubt have preferred to have British or German armour. </p><p>So in practice the 12.1" plate on the North Carolina and Iowa classes (apparently equal to about 9" or perhaps 10" of British armour) were considerably weaker (at certain ranges) against 16", 15", or even 14" battleship gunfire, than: the 12" plate on the Hood or Nagato; 12.6" on Bismarck; 12.9" plate on Richelieu's – or indeed than the 11" plates of the Littorio's – and obviously appallingly inferior to the 13.8 plate on the Scharnhorst (which was more realistically equivalent to 16" of US class A). </p><p>Given that even Scharnhorst's 13.8" main belt was penetrated by a modern British 14" shell from Duke of York at the Battle of North Cape, the inferior 12" belts of the vast majority of 'battleships' were probably not really good enough to face anyone else's 14", 15" or 16" guns in sustained combat.</p><p>Given that technical superiority in British armour production, even the Renown class's slightly upgraded 9" belt was apparently pretty close in effectiveness to the 9.8" - 10.8" of the older French, and Japanese ships, and the new build Littorio's, and perhaps more like 10.5"-11" in effectiveness compared directly to the 12.1" of many of the American and Japanese battleships. (Though the Admiralty - which did consider Repulse to be 'just a battlecruiser', would still have liked to keep the Renown's clear of anything with even WWI 14" or better, and Repulse's only half modernised deck armour was definitely weak for WWII conditions.) </p><p>Still Renown's slightly more modernised armour stood up well to 2 hits from Scharnhorst's modern high velocity 11" guns in 1940, and there was probably not much greater risk in facing the 12.6" shells of the Italian rebuilt battleships.</p><p>I also note that, under the definition of Renown being a battle-cruiser because her 9" armour was not really good enough to face her own 15" guns (which I completely accept): then presumably you would have to say that the South Dakota's or Iowa's 12.1" Class A, (which works out at only about 10" effectiveness in British armour equivalent terms), was <i>definitely</i> not up to facing their own 16"/50 cal guns with super heavy shells? </p><p>Szimanski repeatedly states that as a rule each inch of armour is required to meet each inch of gun (and that is without him discussing some nations inferior plate strengths). It is amusing to note that by his own definitions the Iowa's were most definitely Battlecruisers rather than Battleships!</p><p>Nonetheless, I would largely dismiss that, and say that just about any of the ships with 12" armour or better, in any reasonable layout, met the practical battleship standard for WWII – as opposed to battlecruiser vulnerability – when tested in actual combat. Frankly, with the exception of what Szimnski calls a 'golden beebee' shot – like the one from Bismarck that Drachinifel suggests lucked into a trough of water from Hoods bow-wave at just the right moment to get under Hoods belt – the common theme of battleships battered into submission in WWII is that they were usually reduced to floating impotence, with wrecked upper works, no fire control, and disabled main batteries, but still stubbornly afloat, and needing to be finished with torpedoes or scuttling charges. A sufficiently strong 'citadel' usually kept the ship afloat and the magazines protected, even whne the ship was battered beyond resistance. That defines a battleship as opposed to a mere cruiser killer. </p><p>Which is why I go against Szimanski's self confusion here, and accept that 12" armoured ships like Hood and Iowa and Nagato are proper battleships even though their armour was actually pretty marginal against their own guns. (Not least because I don't fancy the shit-storm it would kick up to point out that only British battleships from Nelson on – and the Scharnhorst's of course – probably meet the test of being able to stand up to their own, or approximately equivalent, guns during WWII.)</p><p>To explore that a bit further.</p><p>Even the 13.5" plate of the USN 'standards' and the newer South Dakota's (equivalent to perhaps 11" of British armour) was probably still inferior protection to the 13" of the WWI Queen Elizabeth or Revenge class (equivalent to say 14.5"-15" of Class A?). Let alone inferior to the 14" on the Nelson or Scharnhorst (equivalent to almost 17" of USN Class A), or 15" on KGV (say 18" of Class A... that's <i>50%</i> more effective armour than a South Dakota or Iowa).</p><p>[Though please note, again, that we are just comparing plates thickness, not layout, and the more modern ships usually had a 'more modern' armour layout, and sometimes angled belts, to help mitigate some of this. In theory the USN could drop the 13.5" thickness of the 'standards' and the North Carolina's to 12.1" in the South Dakota's and Iowa's because – like the 12" Hood and 14" Nelson designs – an angled belt gave slightly better protection than pure numbers... <i>at some ranges</i>. Against this of course the RN dropped the angled belt as technically dubious after the Nelson's, and the only real test of the 12" angled belt of ships like the Hood, Washington and Iowa, saw Hood sunk... Wonder what would have happened to South Dakota had Washington not snuck up behind Kirishima...]</p><p>In fact the 14.7" belt of the King George V was probably considerably superior to the 'poorly cooked' and brittle' 16.1" plate on Yamato. The Vanguard actually dropped to a 14" belt, but still probably still had superior armour protection to any other nations battleships, Yamato included. (Again, only the Scharnhorst's 13.8" belt really came close to modern British belts, and it is possible the Scharnhorst's too had better functional armour than the Yamato's? Though I probably wouldn't want to try taking on a Yamato with Scharnhorst's original 11" guns!)</p><p><i>Again, theoretical armour thickness is way less important than the quality, and layout, of the plate.</i></p><p><b>Speed.</b></p><p>In September 1939, or indeed in December 1941, Britain's 5 only partially modernised Revenge Class battleships, like the entire US 15 ship battle-fleet, and all the older French ships, would still be only 21 knot designs (if that, most older ships maintained a bit less real speed in practice). </p><p>But I do not believe that this comparatively slow speed made them all 'useless'?</p><p>It is fair to say that all the older 12" and 13.4", and even many of the 14" ships still in service: were all outclassed by most rebuilds (I will cover this further in the next post), and certainly by any new builds larger than Duetschlands and possibly Dunkerques. </p><p>But the USN's Big 5 (2 of them 14" and 3 16"), and the RN's 5 Revenge's (15") were all quite capable of standing up to most later battleships in a slogging match, particularly at closer ranges... </p><p>As long as the faster ships wanted to engage...</p><p>All these 21 knot ships were simply too slow to have any say in whether they got to engage or not. Except for radar assisted night-time ambush (the battles of Cape Matapan, Gaudalcanal and Surigao Strait spring to mind), that was pretty much the choice of the faster enemy ships (Calabria for instance). However time and again all these slower ships still caused their faster juniors to beat a retreat rather than engage. </p><p>From Atlantic convoy escort to Mediterranean fleet actions to the final battle of the Surigao Strait, the older slower ships repeatedly fulfilled their defensive missions despite their vastly inferior speed: by making faster Scharnhorst's and Littorio's and Kongo's back off rather than risk the sort of damage that might endanger their survival.</p><p>For comparison the 'mid range' speed Nelson's, Queen Elizabeths, Fuso's and Ise's were about 23-24 knots. (Modernised Queens dropped half a knot, due to greater weight and draft, and the Ise rebuilds increased a knot, mostly because they, like the Kongo's, only got limited armour increases... but all remained somewhere in the 23-24 'mid' range, except that apparently the Fuso's were down to about 18 knots by the time of their loss at Surigao Strait.) </p><p>Only the Nagato's and rebuilt Italian ships of the pre-30's designs could get to 'a bit fast' 26+ knots, except of course for the very fast 32+ knot Renown, Repulse and Hood. </p><p>Of the new build 35,000 ton treaty battleships - KGV, Washington & South Dakota were 'fast' 27-28 knots. The Nelson style Richelieu design actually allowed a good balance or guns, speed and protection (actually 32 knots despite considerably better armour than Washington & South Dakota). The much heavier (ie: not Treaty compliant) Littorio's (41,000) and Bismarck's (42,000), all hit the 'very fast' 30+ knots, without managing such a good balance. And the super-heavy Yamato's (63,000) even dropped back to the 'fast' 27 knots. </p><p>The 'Treaty Escalation Clause' upgraded <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-class_battleship" target="_blank">Lion's</a> (40,500) would have been 'very fast' 30+ odd knots too, and the post treaty <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa-class_battleship" target="_blank">Iowa's </a>(48,000) of course threw all treaty limits out the window, but stayed fairly lightly armoured, to get to 32+ knots. (At least in good weather, or for short bursts. No USN battleship could manage it's 'Pacific' designed speed in heavy 'Atlantic' conditions, and Szimanski is clear the the Iowa's in particular suffered too much from excessive vibration in the long narrow bow to maintain top speed for long even in light conditions. Apparently there were proposals to rebuild the Iowa's with shorter bows to solve some of this, even at the cost of lower top speed.) </p><p>Amusingly the Iowa's finally come quite close to matching the stats of the WWI designed Hood in a new iteration of a balanced fast battleship with size, speed, armour and firepower. for about 6,000 tons extra the Iowa's finish up with slightly bigger guns, similar speed (in good weather), but slightly weaker armour protection. (Given that both had the interwar experimental angled belts... though the Hood's deck armour and torpedo protection definitely needed its planned modification by WWII, which would have lifted it to closer to the Iowa's final tonnage, to match the Iowas in those areas. Fascinating comparison.)</p><p>Unsurprisingly the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_(23)" target="_blank">Vanguard</a> also came out with almost matching stats to the Iowa's... except that the British ship had considerably better armour, as well as superior seaworthiness compared to the American ships. (Meaning Vanguard's theoretically slower speed in flat calm actually became slightly faster speed in rougher conditions - see Vanguard and Iowa on post war NATO exercises!). </p><p>Interestingly, like the 63,000 ton Yamato's, the design for the 62,000 ton Montana class would also have dropped to about 28 knots due to a 4th triple 16" turret and heavier armour. (Armour more akin to the Vanguard's in effectiveness).</p><p><b>Realistic Comparisons</b></p><p>It is interesting that the WWI Revenge's only received one interwar modification, not two, and are almost always referred to by British writers as 'old', 'obsolete', or 'too slow and vulnerable for modern conditions'. Many call them 'ships the admiralty tried to keep out of the front line'. </p><p>Presumably this is what people's biases encourage them to think? Ships of this class engaged German, Italian and even French battleships and cruisers – both individually and in line of battle – on many occasions during the first 4 years of the war, and 4 of them working as a squadron actually came within a couple of hundred miles of engaging the 4 Kongo's in a squadron in April 1942. But the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Royal_Oak_(08)" target="_blank">Wikipedia article on Royal Oak</a> for instance actually states...</p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">"Attempts to modernise </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Royal Oak</i><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"> throughout her 25-year career could not fix her fundamental lack of speed and, by the start of the </span><a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World_War" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Second World War">Second World War</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">, she was no longer suitable for front-line duty."</span></p><p>This is amusing as they had the same speed as any of the French veterans, and as all of the American pre-30's 'standard' battleships. In fact the Americans did not get any battleship faster than 21 knots into service until the 2 North Carolina's arrived in mid 1941! Every American 'standard', and even the old 12" dreadnought Arkansas, were apparently considered suitable to face German raiders in the Atlantic, and they did face the IJN at Leyte Gulf. What supposedly made the Revenge's less capable?</p><p>In fact even relatively unmodernised Revenge's – which frankly the Admiralty didn't consider worth the investment of rebuilding in any major fashion – still matched speed with most potential rivals, and actually outclassed most of their foreign 'contemporaries' in both protection, and armament.</p><p>[Admiral Cunnigham was certainly right to say that the slower speeds and unmodernised elevation/ firing ranges of the Malaya and the Royal Sovereign made it impossible for them to catch the Italian ships fleeing at the Battle of Calabria (where most people apparently agree that Warspite's hits on Guilio Cesare that slowed her considerably would have left the Italians at his mercy had they been able to come within range). If he had had a Hood, Renown or even Nelson in company instead of those two, he probably wouldn't have decided to circle twice to let the slower ships catch up, and thus given the Italian fleet time to escape. Fair enough. But the key word is 'fleeing'. the two Italian cruiser killers were effectively being defeated by Warspite alone, and Admiral Campioni certainly could not risk letting the other two British battleships get close enough to destroy his fleet. Too slow to allow a decisive win, didn't mean too useless to make the enemy flee. Obviously Cunningham would have done better with a couple of faster ships in support, and he appealed for – and received – more modernised Queen Elizabeth's. But it's a bit unfair to rail against Royal Sovereign for this inadequacy of speed when there was still not a single US or French battleship that would have done any better in the same circumstances. In fact the new Dunkerque cruiser killers were still – 9 July 1940 – the only other ships in either the US or French fleets that could have gone any faster... (though Richelieu was within a week of commissioning by then...)]</p><p>With the possible exception of deck armour (where only Royal Oak had completed a second upgrade pre-WWII designed to make their deck protection equal or superior to any likely foe), the 13" belt Revenge's were simply more heavily armoured than any foreign battleship until the quarter century later Scharnhorst, and Yamato classes. That armour superiority included advantages over every French or Italian battleship; over most USN ships including the latest South Dakota's and Iowa's; and over the Japanese Fuso, Ise or Nagato class (the last two named classes the only other navies WW1 designs actually 2 and 5 whole knots faster respectively than the 'too slow' Revenge's). </p><p>The Revenge's 8 15" guns were also superior to the 12", 12.6", 13.4", and most 14" designs in other navies (though the 12 14" gun designs of the latter USN WWI vets had theoretically heavier throw than 8 15"), and probably outclassed in effectiveness everything except the 8 16" guns of the post war Nagato and Colorado classes (and arguably, there was simply not enough difference there to warrant expensive works). The fact that their main elevations was never raised is the main issue the Revenge's faced, but they were still quite competitive in the many Mediterranean sea battles they fought. The Wikipedia article on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_15-inch_Mk_I_naval_gun" target="_blank">BL 15" Mark 1</a> /II –used on the Revenge's, Queen Elizabeth's, Renown's and Vanguard – states:</p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"><i>"According to an American report produced after World War II, the British 15 inch Mk I was the most reliable and accurate battleship main armament of the war, though other guns and mountings had superior individual features."</i></span></p><p>Which means, again, that the issue is really the ability to hit the enemy when they possibly can't hit you at the same range (or perhaps even see you). And here British/American style radar superiority over most likely opponents also gave even the 'obsolete' Revenge's a clear advantage over likely Italian and Japanese opponents in the Mediterranean and Indian Oceans. (Even over their German opponents after 1942.)</p><p>So I think you can dismiss the 'obsolete' argument about the Revenge's with the same contempt you can show for the argument that the Iowa's and Bismarck were really only battlecruisers not proper battleships... Even the Scahrnhorst's light 11" guns don't exclude her from being a proper battleships (though the planned upgrade to 15" guns – that Gneisenau actually started to receive in her mid war rebuild after damage – would have helped a lot, particularly if they needed to face a Nelson, KGV or Yamato).</p><p>But you can't dismiss the problems with the Renown or Kongo's or Courbet's or Dunkerque's armour; or the Conte de Cavour's or Arkansas' guns; or the overall inferiority of the Deutschland's and Alaska's to any real battleship. These ships were simply not capable of facing any proper battleship in sustained combat, and do not belong on a list of proper WWII battleships.</p><p><b>Real Battleships in WWII included:</b></p><p>4 German - Bismarck's and Scharnhorst's (though the Scharnhorst's need the planned 15" gun refit to be really competitive); but definitely not the Deutschland's.</p><p>3 Italian - Littorio's, but not really any other Italian rebuild. (See next article again.)</p><p>4-5 French - Bretagne's perhaps, and Richelieu's; but not the Courbet's, and probably not even the Dunkerque 'cruiser killers'.</p><p>8 Japanese - Fuso's, Ise's, Nagato's and Yamato's; but certainly not Kongo's.</p><p>19 British - Queen Elizabeth's, Revenge's, Hood, Nelson's, and KGV's (and Vanguard); but not the Renown's.</p><p>22 US - Nevada's, Pennsylvania's, New Mexico's, Tennessee's, Colorado's, North Carolina's, South Dakota's and Iowa's, but probably not the New York's, and definitely not the Arkansas.</p><p>(Note that comes to about 45 real 'Allied' battleships versus about 15 'Axis'...)</p><p><br /></p><p>But the interesting thing is which of these battleships was actually still <i>competitive</i> in WWII?</p><p>That will be covered in the next article, which looks at the value of the interwar and wartime re-building some of the WWI vintage ships.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-36311725724683000742020-10-19T03:26:00.000-07:002020-10-19T03:26:56.010-07:00Brexit - a No Deal is an inevitable result of EU 'democracy'<p>I drafted an article 10 days ago predicting that the next week or two would see the breakdown of the Brexit talks. </p><p>Wish I had got around to publishing it.</p><p>Amongst other things I suggested that the EU would finally have to face the fact that the failure of their system was nothing to do with xenophobic little countries in the Balkans, or corrupt east European dictatorships, or incompetent Mediterranean democracies in permanent crisis. </p><p>No this disaster - the disaster that finally reveals just how impossible the European 'project' is - will be at the hands of the morally superior, self righteous goody two shoes of Europe... principally France and the Netherlands.</p><p>And it will be for the obviously domestic partisan, (and completely ethically unfathomable), reason, of protecting the unnatural rights of a few fisherman who have had the unlikely and unreasonable benefit of unfettered access to British fishing waters for the decades that Britain has been in the EU. </p><p>(An unwarranted privilege for which they probably should pay compensation... Certainly if Britain was an 'unjustly persecuted' Asian or African country instead of an 'obviously evil' European one, compensation for this unnatural practice would be a demand of every new age propagandist of any colour.)</p><p>Nonetheless I have been amazed at the number of column inches wasted in the last week as some journalists try and pretend that it must be the British who are being unreasonable. Or indeed that there is even a remote possibility that the EU could ever come to an agreement, no matter what the British do. (Short of the British admitting that it was all a ghastly mistake, and submitting to total and permanent subservience to the benign dictatorship of the Brussels bureaucrats of course.)</p><p>The truth is that the EU is completely incapable of accepting any agreement, because that presumes that 27 individual nations can agree to overcome the drag of their own domestic policies to agree on a common good. (Or on a common decency that would require even the slightest domestic discomfort in one or more of their members.)</p><p>Realistically, if you give 27 disparate political entities a veto on the behaviour of a group like the EU, you are creating a 27 to 1 bet that nothing will ever be achieved.</p><p>In fact I doubt that the odds are really as good as even a 3.7% chance in 100!</p><p>If any Euro politician or bureaucrat had an inkling of past European history they would know exactly why this can't work.</p><p>it is a repeat of the political structure of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.</p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth_(1569%E2%80%931648)#Sejm_and_sejmiks" target="_blank">Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth</a> was an early attempt to block the Divine Right of Kings problem, and varied from the British and French versions - Constitutional Monarchy after beheading a King who went to far, or Republic/ghastly dictatorship/empire of the most bloodthirsty conquorer Europe had seen since the fall of the Roman empire after beheading a king who went too far.<br /><br />The Polish-Lithuanian solution was a 'Sejm' or parliament (just of the nobles at the start of course, it takes centuries to add knights and commons, burghers and yoemen). But in their system <i>every single person </i>in the Sejm had the right to stop all proceedings (and even nullify any legislation passed already in the whole session) by simply uttering the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto#:~:text=The%20liberum%20veto%20(Latin%20for,in%20the%20Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian%20Commonwealth.&text=In%20the%20period%20of%201573,because%20of%20the%20liberum%20veto." target="_blank">veto "I do not allow"</a>. <br /><p></p><p>Unsurprisingly, many an insignificant but pompous (or scheming) petty nobleman had enormous fun with the veto; or made their fortunes selling it to interest groups; or indeed to foreign powers.</p><p>(Or all 3, but I think Macron fits in the first of those three options... just where he and his self righteous ilk claim their beleaguered contemporaries in Hungary or Poland or Greece have always been...)</p><p>Of course the veto system caused the inevitable stagnation and collapse of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. </p><p>Just as it will of the EU.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><br /><p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /><br /></div><br /><p></p>Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-26572508699603196342020-06-06T03:15:00.004-07:002021-09-10T23:35:11.640-07:00Comparing the economic ‘SuperPowers’ of the ‘Pax Brittanicca’ versus the not so ‘Pax Americana’<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Comparing the economic ‘SuperPowers’ of the ‘Pax Brittanicca’ versus the not so ‘Pax Americana’<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
(For the record, I hate the term ‘SuperPower’ s a military misnomer, but it serves a point here…)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
I have been amused, and bemused, in the last few days of rioting and protests to see the pro-Republic set in Australia finally admit their shining beacon of hope is a blundering buffoon with feet of clay.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Whenever anyone points to the US as a political system greatly to be admired as somehow being superior to our nice safe Consttitutional Monarchy, I admit to stunned incomprehension.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
99% of Republics have been applling disasters, with the mjority of even federal Republics falling ot dictatoship, civil war, and/or genocide of their own people, within 20 or 30 years of being established. But Presidential Republics like the US are by far the worst model. As one chareacter in the West Wing bluntly put it ‘only a few Presidential Republics make it even a few years…’<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
What is it that people imagine is worth copying from the appalling system of government of the Republic of the United States? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Is it a vague attraction to the idealistic fantasy of Rebellion/America Independence/Civil War number 1 - based on a combination of hanging on to slavery (that the Southern States wanted to keep while the British were trying to stamp it out), and subjugating the Indians (that the Northern States wanted to conquor but who had treaties with the British). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
A Constitution written by a bunch of slave owners who hypocritically declared that everyone was equal (save yellow’s, reds and blacks.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Or is it the idealistic fantasy of Rebellion/Confederate Independence/Civil War 2- based on a combination of hanging on to slavery (that the Southern States were trying to keep while the North were tyring to stamp them out), and subjugating the Indians (who the Northern States wanted to conquor while the Southern States were desperate to see no further creation of ‘anti-slave’ states as a result…). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Is it the ridiculous federal structure that keeps Peurto Rico and other places as unofficial colonies – literally no representation despite taxation - subjugated states in the same model as most of the origianl 13 colonies were pretending to complain about? (Note - the pre-War of independence parliament in Virginia had considerably greater power and rights than the current Peurto Riccan set up...)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Is it the written constituition with its idiotic and disastrous attempts to enshrine the courts as arbiters of power (leading ot endless politicla fights over and between political party partisan judges)? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Or perhaps the hopelessly anachronistic ‘right to bear arms?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Is it their unrivalled ability to lead the world from minor economic crisis to major Great Depression, or from imagined threats of weapons of mass destruction to major wars? (Fair is fair, I think that last was the correct decision given the uncertanties… but I am not the hypocrites who simultaneously want the idealised American Republic system, while decrying it’s practical results…)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Is it the race riots, the lack of universal health care, the AllanTown referred to by Billy Joel?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Or is it the unrivalled political leadership they manage to assemble, from George 'Dubya', and Bill ‘I did not have sex with that woman’ Clinton, to Donald 'pussy grabber' Trump?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
What in God’s name would anybody want to copy about the US Republic?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The only practical answer of course is that it was economically successful for about half of the last century, and that this ‘American Dream’ represents some goal to strive for.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Of course the American Dream is really a combination of two things. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The first being that the US was – like Australia or indeed Argentina at the turn of the last century - a frontier society – with literally vast expanses of opportunity still to open. At least up until the last few decades. (Where it has quickly become apparent that the US is no different from any other society once the frontier is filled up, and that the fantasy of ever better living standards for the next generation is an unforgivable illusion).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Reality…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The other thing the American Dream really reflects, is the unexpected, and unrepeatable, bounty of reaping the harvest of a war that left everyone else on their knees.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The mythical Pax Brittanicca was the unexpected, but clear result of the Napoleonic Wars.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Britian’s experience during those conflicts led to a rapid expansion of industrialisation, fuelled by the war, and turbocharged by the concentration of capital available when Britain became the arsenal of all Napoleonic resistance to most of it’s erstwhile competitor states in Europe. Most of those states (including the US, which briefly and disastrously joined the conflict on Napoleon’s side in 1812), had their economies shattered by the Napoleonic war, leaving Britian with almost no competitioin while opening a march on it’s competitors that lasted most of the next century.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Similarly the mythical Pax Americana was very obviously the result of the World Wars.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The American experience during those conflicts led to a rapid expansion of industrialisation, fuelled by the two wars, and turbocharged by the concentration of capital available when the United States became the arsenal of all Fascist resistance - or ‘arsenal of democracy’ if you want to follow the fantasy a bit further - to most of it’s competitor states in Europe. Most of those states (including Britain, who suffered the full brunt of having been world policeman for over a century), had their economies shattered by the World Wars, leaving the United States with no competition while opening a march on it’s competitors that lasted a fair bit of the next century.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The brief period of exceptional opportunity that the US achieved post war, which allowed it to achieve such economic dominance post war, is directly comparable ot the similar experience Britain received the previous century.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the US system of government being superior to the British one.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
In fact, arguably, the resulting period of 'dominance' was far less successful than the British example BECAUSE of the inferiority of the US system of government.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Britian, with a tiny fraction of the world’s population, managed to dominate the world both economically and militarily for most of century… despite her still evolving and somewhat chaotic system of government. The US, with a much higher percentage of the world’s population, and an even better starting point compared to potential competitors, failed to achieve even half as much for even half as long.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
It might be drawing too long a bow to suggest that the American awakening of the true costs and horrors of being stuck as the world’s policeman took only a quarter of the time Britain’s did… After all it wasn’t just World War One that gave the British voting public the same distaste for having to do the hard stuff for everyone else that the US experienced in Vietnam… The South African, Sudan, and even Crimean campaigns had given the British ‘Korean like’ pre-tastes of what fun it wasn’t to take the blame for everything from everyone who likes to sit back and complain…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
So it is possible to look at the current challenge to the fantasy that there is some sort of American Exceptionalism, and draw the inevitable conclusion. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Exceptional circumstances might give any system of government a brief and unrealistic boost above their competitors… but that is not necessarily a reflection of a superior system… in fact how fast it goes away again, might be more a guide to an inferior system.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
(Taking bets on who might be the unexpected beneficiary of the next great global conflagration… India anyone? Or perhaps Brazil? i can absolutely guarantee it won't be China...)<o:p></o:p></div>
Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-69660220331703065532020-05-23T00:43:00.000-07:002020-05-23T00:43:18.872-07:00William the Marshall… the Greatest Of All Time (Athlete and Sportsman) <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
(This is a bit of tongue in cheek fun, but I wanted to sneer a the idea that the world’s best athlete ‘obviously’ has to have been around within living memory… what self satisfied twaddle.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The Australian newspaper is having fun at the moment with a debate over who should be calledthe GOAT – Greatest of All Time – of professional athletes.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
As with most such polls, it concetnrates almost exculsively on people from the last century, and mostly from the last 40 or 50 years, and completely fails to consider anyone not in those narrow bounds.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The current top 10 list includes:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Michael Jordan<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Don Bradman<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Muhammed Ali<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Pele<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Serena Williams<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Usain Bolt<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Roger Federer<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Tiger Woods<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Jack Nicklaus<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Babe Ruth<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Now Don Bradman I can almost understand. Cricket is one of only a few genuine world sports (soccer being the only better standout). They are both played as ‘national sports’ by countries ammassing up to a third of the world’s population. Those two games are also played by people of all classes from a wide variety of cultures, from the playing fields of Eton to the slums of Bombay. And Bradman has a genuine claim to top his game, being statistically about 50% better in his record as a batsman than his next nearest competitor from any period… a percentage advantage no one else on the list could come close to in their sports.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
In fact my problem with much of the rest of the list, is the paucity of competition within those sports. Baseball is basically still an American sport, and can’t be considered a proper world game. Who else plays it seriously? Japan and South Korea I think… Of the other place the American have conquored and occupied in the last century I don’t think Afghanistan is any more likely to adopt it as their national sport than Germany? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Tennis and particularly golf are even worse. The words ‘pretentious middle class games’ spring to mind, and it is hard to take them seriously as competitive sports, no matter how much money some of those people have made. Even in the countries that do play them, only a fraction of the population would ever get involved. They will never be ‘national sports’ anywhere.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
When I present to school groups on where the Olympic Games came from, I always get the students to nominate which were the original competitive sports. Usually they come up with boxing, wrestling, javelin, athletics, and perhaps discuss or shotput. They also tend to identify swimming and horseriding, which weren’t original olympic sports, but certainly fit the pattern of proper ruling class sports in an age of warrior cultures… who can run, jump, hit, and shoot, harder and more successfully… Real competitive sport began, in all cultures, with warrior games… not with dancing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
When asked to identify modern additons to the Olympics that the Greek military aristocracy would probably be happy with, they identify shooting (even the ski and shoot version), fencing, judo, even wightlifting etc.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
When asked to identify what the Greeks would think is ridiculous about modern Olympics, they focus on the completely unnacceptable… rhythmic gymnastics (the ribbon and ball stuff), beach volleball, table tennis and sychronised swimming! Sports? Games?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
But some of them also identify that the Greeks would have thought that any team sport is irrelevant… (paritcularly sports like basketball and baseball which have only been shoved in to the modern Olympics to give the Americans more medals). Again I note that soccer or cricket would be far more acceptable additions.. if any team sport could be considered acceptable… which they probably can’t.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
So I note that although Pele and Bradman and Jordan might stand out from the crowd in their team sports, they and Babe Ruth are awarded points for being the ‘hitters’ in a group game… You can’t actually imagine the goalie or shortstop ever being nominated as GOAT, despite the fact that the above 4 ‘stars’ would have got nowhere without powerful teamwork required to support them. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
So having written off the pretentious middle class ‘game players’, and everyone in the team sports. What it left?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
One of the writers in the Australian – Will Swanton - notes that on pure winning grounds Pakistan squash player Jahangir Khan, with 555 wins in a row, would outshine everyone on pure results. (Who? What sport? Pretentious middle class anyone?) I am sure he is better than Michael Jordan at his limited exposure little game, but I can’t take either of them seriously as a GOAT athlete.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Muhammed Ali and Usain Bolt are the only ones left. One a truly worthy fighter, with a possibly unsurpassed record, and a reputation for competitiveness that apparently makes him an outstanding joy to watch. The other a short term freak of performance, who has briefly held a few world records (but at least in one of the proper olymic showman event… though Michale Phelps can claim the same…)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
So here’s my candidate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
William the Marshall is almost universally recognised as ‘the best knight that ever lived’, by all those who consider his extraordinary career as a fighter, warrior, war leader, political leader, guardian, and shining light of courlty and knightly achievements at the height of the chivalric and troubadouring shift (that moved culture from adoring thugs who hit hard, to adoring all round ‘renaissance men’ who could dance, sing, write poetry, play chess, fight, and negotiate treaties that bought peace to generations). He was one of the men whom the word ‘paragon’ - a person or thing regarded as a perfect example of a particular quality - was invented for.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
But he was also the GOAT athlete and sportsman.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Tournament fighting and jousting were the Olympic Games of the medieval world, and – far from being an elitist sport, or an act of middle class pretention – tournament fighting in both it’s foot and horseback forms is a sport common to all classes from all cultures throughout most of human history… From the Olympics and Gladiatorial combats, to the foot combat of Fencing and Kendo and Judo, to the horse archery of most of the nomadic tribes of Asia and Africa and even the American Indians: combat games are virtually the only universal human sport there has ever been.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
William the Marshall was competing at a sport – armed combat – that is universal, worldwide, and largely classless. Admittedly he was competing at the most elite level (only the Sumarai or Persian or Eastern Roman Cataphracts really come close ot European kinghts for an equivalent dedication to a lifetime of training and specialist equipment and expense). But you can confidently say that here was a sport whose experts could face any other expert in any other combat sport in the world without confusion or fear.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
And you could confidently predict that William the Marshall could defeat the equivalent character in any of those other combat sports… (As he apparently did when he fouht Muslim horse archers or Mameluke foot soldiers in his brief years on crusades.) <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
As a man whose prowess in his chosen field could adapt to all equivalent fields, he certainly outranks Muhammed Ali: who is the closest competitor on the above list to a world class showman and rough and tumble performer for the crowds.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
As a person who statistically outperformed even Donald Bradman in comparison to his competition. He comes out in front there too.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
As a winner above all others – his deathbed comment that he had bested more than 500 knights in hs career from all over Europe and the Middle East is not something that a squash player with 555 wins is likely to compare.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
And as an athletic freak, even Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps – with their scant decade or so of dominance, could dream of competing with.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
William the Marshall won his first international class tournaments in his teens, and was still winning them in his 60’s. His unsurpassed competitiveness lasted not a few years, but several decades. He beat the GRANDCHILDREN of his previous conquests. And did so in a deadly serious full contact sport, not a namby pamby game like tennis or golf!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Even in terms of prize money, the modern ‘sports stars’ who make tens or hundreds of millions in their life are put to shame. In a period where defeated opponents in tournament had to pay ransoms… perhaps the equivalent of a war horse or a suit of armour (read nice Ferrari or Porsche for cost comparison)… William often defeated a dozen opponents in an afternoon. On the battlefield the ransom could be immeasurable greater, and in some case might bankrupt nation states like England and France when the king was captured.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Some estimates suggest that William the Marshall’s winnings over his career would properly translate into the billions today. Let alone the fact that his mastery of his trade got him the ultimate prize, the grant of the hand in marriage of one of the greatest heiresses in Europe…. Whose estates across England, Wales, Ireland and France easily outclassed all but a half dozen European kingdoms at the time. Williams prize money over his career are more comparable to a major nation states’ GDP, than to some golfers private jet.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Finally there is sheer class. William the Marshall was SO dominant in his sport, that just one of the hundreds of unbelievable anecdotes about his career should put him above the list of parochial competitors above.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
As a loyal follower of Henry II, William was a bit vexed when Henry’s unruly son the Count of Poitou – later to be known as King Richard the Lionheart – tried to revolt against his father. The next time they met in a (real war ) skirmish, Richard – who was never defeated by any other knight or warrior in his long career – was so easily overcome that William made a point of killing his horse in a clear statement of who he might have chosen to kill instead. Richard later had the grace and humility to welcome William to his service, and to entrust him with the vital safegaurding of the kingdom while Richared himself went on crusades..<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Both of them behaving not only as world class athletes, but world class sportsmen.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
When it comes to choosing an athlete whose range of ability, breadth of achievement, longevity of competitiveness, and unsurpassed affect on his entire peergroup, cannot be equalled (let alone surpassed by any of the people on the above list): then there is only one choice.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Wiliam the Marshall was the Greatest Of All Time.<o:p></o:p></div>
Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-57341860976052715572020-05-02T00:34:00.005-07:002021-09-11T00:04:37.152-07:00Types of Empires: Security, Conquest, and Trade <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
(A reflection on the nature of empire, actually bought on by China's current aggressively imperialistic stance... which I will discuss at another time. But this goes to a light rumination on the purposes of empire... Enjoy.)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
I once made a joke, at a gathering of historians, that the most <i>successful </i>post colonial states could be considered a tribute to the Protestant Work Ethic. A very earnest lady tried to point out that there had been many Catholic Colonies as well, (which I thought was my whole point).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Nobody commented on <i>post</i> Muslim Colonies of course… as there aren’t any.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
What I didn’t do was go into the issue of the Catholic Colonies being largely ‘robber baron’ states (see most of South and Central America and the Catholic belt of Africa such as the Congo for instance), whereas the Protestant Colonies were largely ‘trade’ states (see most of North America and Asia, and the more Protestant bits of Africa). But it did cause me to reflect on the different reasons Empires develop, and the different results.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
So let's look at the difference between Empires founded for different reasons...</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<b>1. Security Empires<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The earliest ‘empires’ were Security oriented. A band of hunter-gatherers - who had no concept of individual property, and just took whatever they needed from the environment - finally settled, and became farmers. Fencing and cultivating and irrigating, and building surpluses which could be traded for items that would improve living standards. (Farmers in areas that CAN’T store surplus – mainly tropical areaswith year round crops – never made it further than village level agriculture, whereas farmers in areas with storable annual crops like grain – which can be stored and TAXED – went on to found empires…)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Unfortunately the initial problem with being farmers surrounded by hunter-gatherers who don’t understand property, is that such hunter-gatherers look at those nicely fenced grains and enclosed cows and sheep and goats as wonderfully convenient places to hunter-gather… (There is a reason the boundaries between hunter-gatherers and farmers are violent places, and all the crap written about ‘frontier wars' and extermination and the rest is just a shorthand for - these two cultures cannot co-exist peacefully… Nomads are different.. they trade, therefore they understand property, therefore they can co-exist with farmers – though they will still raid where they can, be they Mongol or Viking!)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
So farmers immediately face a law and order issue, which can only be solved if there is enough surplus available to provide a tax base that will allow an authority figure (chief, king, emperor, etc) to employ people to provide protection. At village level that is usually a warrior caste who can keep the competition at bay, but once surplus gets to a level that allows higher tech, that will mean states or empires.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
To put that in perspective, if your local community collects a surplus, and can afford a local chief/lord/king to provide protection, the resulting tax system is almost always (in recorded human cultures) based on a percentage of production. (In fact the earliest versions of written communication are almost always record keeping for crops and taxation.) This means that the local lord immediately has both the majority of excess funds locally, and a strong incentive to increase local production so his take will increase.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
When I ask the average class of secondary school students what sorts of things the local lord could invest in to improve productivity, they get the idea pretty quickly. Irrigation for fields; animals for farm work; blacksmiths for tools and axels; wheelrights; roads; bridges; mills; markets; guards; etc. This list is common to most parts of Europe, Africa, Asia, Central and South America and Australasia. The only places it never developes are the very early farming communities in places like New Guinea that have no storable or taxable food items to allow such a development.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
So all early farming societies that can tax – without exception – become tax based hierarchical cultures. Some are even referred to as kingdoms or empires. And they are based on the idea of keeping the farmers safe, so they can be taxed. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
These early empires are all Security empires. In the Middle East they are often shown as large sprawls across the map, but such sprawls are fairly fanciful. In practice they usually refer to rich farm based river valleys, with an extended hinterland based on nomadic tribes that are trading with/employed by/or paid tribute to by the ‘imperial authority’ simply to keep other outsiders at bay.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Traditionally they fall when their hinterland nomadic allies are not strong enough to keep outsiders at bay, or become strong enough themselves to try a bit of conquest. At which point of course the conquerors find that they have to adopt the systems of the despised lowlanders they have just conquered if they are to keep the loot coming in and the system going. (One of my favourite historical analogies is the nomadic conquerors crucifying the old king on the walls of his palace and sneering that he could watch his city burn, only for him to point out that it isn’t his city anymore, it’s their city that’s burning…)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
But such empires are limited. Even in cases like the Aztecs and Inca’s, they are empires limited to communication systems that can be walked, and to people’s that have no technology suitable to challenge the sheer numbers of warm bodies that can be provided by the ruler.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<b>2. Conquest Empires<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Empires can turn to becoming conquest empires on any scale only with the development of technologies that can overcome sheer numbers. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Specifically, metal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Soft metals are not for conquest empire. Gold, silver, copper, tin, etc, may be used for plates or posts or jewellery or skin scrapers, but they are not war fighting metals. Even the lightest leather armour or layers of feather padding makes them practically valueless for war fighting. Metal only becomes an imperial material when it can be made hard enough for combat purposes.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The first such metal is Bronze, which is made by combining different metals in compounds. Copper compounded with enough tin (usually 5%- 10% percent) makes Bronze. Bronze can make armour and weapons and even axles and bearings. But copper (mined in mountains) and tin (usually from swamps) and the charcoal needed to melt them (from forests) combined in sufficient quantities for mass production (cities supported by taxed farmers), require extensive trade routes, and probably a stable currency of some sort. But once these elements can be combined, empires can give up on mere Security, and enter Conquest.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
All the early Sumerian, Egyptian, Hittite, Persian, Greek, Roman, Indian and Chinese empires that we now scrawl across maps with lines to show how they conquered the territories of other empires are based on this simple concept. The Hittites with their Bronze, Egyptians with their chariots, and Romans with their Steel: being only different developments from the same basic 'metal technology' roots.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Yet this is where motive becomes uncertain. All these empires got into conquest, but in many cases they did it either to continue their security (by pushing the dangerous boundaries ever further), or to protect the trade that made their system work. Conquest for the sake of conquest was certainly an element – particularly with rulers like Alexander the Great – but the original reason why Phillip of Macedon and his predecessors had developed the world’s most efficient fighting machine had more to do with constant threats from Persians and Greeks and other ‘barbarians’ than with any desire to get into the conquest game itself. Sometimes things done for security lead to expanded boundaries <i>for </i> security, which then lead to expanding further for conquest. (Often because the system developed for paying those fighting for security requires conquest to pay them off… See Julius and many later Ceasar’s!)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<b>3. Trade Empires<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The final (and possibly ultimate) sort of Empire is the Trade Empire. These develop more because exploring traders have a need for safe bases and secure lines of communication to make their trade work. Theoretically trade empires could be land based (and both the American West and the Chinese spread down the Silk Road argue the case that they started as trade security rather than conquest… no matter how they finished). But in reality the main casue of and reason for trade empires is the devleopment of water transport. Specifically ocean transport.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
So let us consider the motives of Empire in a few cases.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The Phoenicians had a magnificent trade empire, though with a few elements we find familiar from the more recent Viking version, or indeed the Venetian ‘Republic’ – namely a bit of raiding, and quite a bit of slave trading. All three broadened into a bit of conquest – Carthage, Normandy and the sack of Constantinople in the 4<sup>th</sup> crusade come to mind – but all those offshoots were by products of the original cultures, and none of them became the norm for the ongoing home culture (each of which faded away as circumstances changed and they failed to adapt). So we could say that they were essentially trading empires.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Greece and Carthage and Rome were also trade empires, initially letting their security concerns drag them into a bit of conquest on the side. The difference in their cases was that the conquest element became dominant and completely changed the ‘homeland’. The city states of Greece becoming the world conquering hordes of Alexander, and completely undermining the vibrant city state cultures that had proceeded them. The Phoenecian trading city of Carthage becoming an expansionary conquest state that eventually pushed Rome too hard. And the Roman's overseas campaigns in Spain and North Africa completely undermining the independent farmer/citizen/soldier class of the Roman Republic, and replacing them with a system of professional troops whose loyalty could only be bought by ever increasing conquests by the emperors.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Naturally every expansion eventually reaches limits, and the concern reverts to trying to secure what you have, and hold the outsiders further away. Which is why, amusingly, people like the Romans and the Chinese came through their expansionary conquest phase, and then found themselves back in the position of having to protect the fringes through deals with tribes that can be traded with/employed by/or paid tribute. Cue Attila the Hun and his ilk.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
So empires on the way down may also be considered trade and security empires I suppose, though many still had a conquest impulse (for fame or fortune or simply to pay the defenders off) built in, or tried to act as if they were still conquering hordes. Cue Constantinople and Belisarius.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
In fact most empires will go through a variety of stages, though I think it fair to say that most empires have a core purpose and attitude, no matter how they tinker at the edges to deal with specific circumstances.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The Portuguese Empire for instance can be considered predominantly a trade empire for most of its influence on the world, though its possession of Brazil certainly would count as conquest. Though it could be suggested that Brazil was the aberration, as both before and after Brazli the majority of Portuguese effort went into trade, and most of their imperial possessions could be best described as trading posts, with minimal control of the hinterlands, and minimal interest in changing the social structures of those it was trading with in Africa and Asia.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Similarly the Dutch Empire was largely a trade empire, with its eventual domination of the Indonesian archipelago being more a consolidation of the many trading posts servicing the many different tribes and kingdoms of the area than a conscious plan to conquer a large part of the world.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The British Empire is similarly placed, and the description of one 19th century historian of it having been acquired “in a fit of absent mindedness”, is quite fair. The endless trading posts led to endless relationships with local tribes and principalities that eventually consolidated into states. But the British system of empire through treaties and arrangements with local governments and principalities bears little relationship to a serious conquest empire. The endless efforts of the British central government to avoid further responsibilities; diminish those they already had; and offer (abandon to) independence any state they thought might make it on its own: is not the usual perspective of a conquest empire.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The real conquest empires are as obvious as those of Alexander and the Ceasar’s. The Arab Muslim Empire is straight conquest, as was the Russian empire, and of course the American Empire.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The United States is a particularly good example. The ‘Declaration of Independence’ was in opposition to two things the British government was keen to enforce. An end to slavery, and an end of expansion into the land of the Indian tribes that the British had treaties with. In other words, the primary motive for the northern states was expansionary imperialism, while the primary motive for the southern states was slavery.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The expansion across the north American continent can be considered no less imperial than the Mongol or Russian expansions of similar vast areas in their time. An emphasis on imperial conquest that is not diminished by the insistence of re-conquoring the Southern States after the ‘Confederacy Declaration of Independence’. (Either both the 1776 and 1860 declarations of independence are reasonable and should be justifiable, or neither are. Only idiots can imagine that there could be any logic to the proposition that the first is acceptable and the second unacceptable. In both cases the arguments by the individual states remained exactly the same – with the Northern states expanding into Indian Territory and the Southern states wanting to keep their slaves, being the cause of both conflicts.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The US expansion to Hawaii by coup, and the Philippines by conquest, is straight expansionary imperialism in anyone’s language.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Interestingly the ‘opening’ of Japan by the US by force is more familiar to Trade Empires, and directly comparable to Britain’s ‘Opium Wars’ against China. But the repeated tendency for the US to invade its Central and South American neighbours and set up puppets (sorry democracies that would inevitably become dictatorships, usually requiring further intervention within a decade or so), set a bad precedent for indulging in the ‘gunboat diplomacy’ that has always been a fatal attraction to trade empires.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<b>Trade becomes security.<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The eternal problem for trade empires is that they almost inevitably reach a point where they become security empires wether they like it or not.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Britain for instance inherited responsibility for a century of the ‘Pax Britannica’ by the simple expedient of being the strongest economy standing after the Napoleonic Wars. (The United States – the only potentially economically healthy rival post the devastation of Europe – having shot itself in the foot by joining in briefly on Napoleons ‘anti-British coalition’ movement in 1812, and having it’s trade smashed and most of it’s ports and the capital reduced to smoking ruins as a result. Bad timing.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The British government spent most of the next century being dragged – reluctantly – into being arbitrators of conflicts they wanted nothing to do with. Finishing with being stuck with the Great War, and then responsibility for some of the most hopeless basket case states handed over to ‘Mandate Powers’ by the Versailles peace… As one British minister presciently pointed out, no one wanted Palestine, and it would be nothing but a disaster for whoever gets stuck with it… (Fortunately for the US, their Congress repudiated Wilson’s ridiculous League of Nations before the plan to lumber the US with the Mandate for places like Georgia – the Russian bit on the Black Sea that is! – could be put through.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
It is unsurprising that the British taxpayer spent the next 50 years trying to get out of international police-keeping obligations. With the sole exception of reluctantly agreeing to fight against the expansionary dictatorships in World War Two, British taxpayers voted for disarmament and de-colonisation whenever they could. (Abandoning some states – particularly in Africa – that might eventually have developed into safe and secure states, way before they were ready for independence… Much to the cost of world peace and security since…)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The United States has had a similar experience more recently. Having inherited responsibility for maybe 50 years of the ‘Pax Americana’ by the simple expedient of being the strongest economy standing after the Second World Wars. (Their only potential rival being the British Commonwealth of Nations – who between them had 5 of the next 10 biggest and healthiest post war economies - being more than happy to let the dumb Americans have a go at being world policemen for a time, and see how they liked being blamed by everyone else for absolutely everything.).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The Americans discovered pretty quickly that the things they had been complaining about the British doing for the last 200 years were exactly what they had now signed up for, and finding even quicker that their taxpayers simply weren’t willing to carry the can, and take the blame, for very long at all. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Arguably the US’s fun with being world policeman was already pretty much over after Korea, and certainly after Vietnam. It is notable that the first Gulf War was NOT paid for by the US taxpayer… the US troops turned up, but only if Saudi Arabia and Europe paid for them to do so. (And preferably with a British Division on one flank, Australian warships on the other, French special forces leading the assault, and NATO fighters overhead…) none of this ‘we will carry the can and our taxpayers will just cope’ crap for post Vietnam American taxpayers.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
But the interesting point is the results.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Security Empires come and go. While they serve a purpose, their citizens are willing to pay the cost. When they become too expensive to maintain, they simply fold, or get ground under. They work to purpose, or stop.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Conquest empires rarely outlive their founders, or only last a few generations. Alexander’s generals, or Charlemagne’s children and grandchildren, dividing and subdividing into smaller and smaller units, is the norm for such empires. (If not straight collapse when the dictator holding it all together vanishes.) <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The only ‘conquest’ empires that have held up are those that send settlers into the lands of hunter -gatherers or nomads. The United States, Russia and Australia being good examples. (But the only reason they can hold up is if the captured territory can be converted into a functional part of the state and society.. something the US and Australia have largely managed… Russia’s attempts to enforce this unity by repression of it’s more developed conquored peoples have not been so successful over the last few centuries, and it is unlikely that China will do much better long term no matter how much repression it introduces into its recent conquests of established societies like Tibet and the Uyghurs.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Which leaves only trade empires as potentially successful long term options. And only because their success is not measured by sustaining the political unity of the ’empire’, but by sustaining its economic goals.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The most successful empire in world history is the British empire, which could delightedly declare itself obsolete in the 1920’s, and again (after having to work mostly co-operatively to fight World War Two) in the 1950’s. Both times it encouraged the member states to go look after themselves (some successfully and some less so), and yet it still managed to leave an almost completely secure legacy for its existence… relatively safe international free trade routes. (The almost complete elimination of both piracy and slavery world wide just being minor side benefits of the British Empire.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
For an empire developed ‘in a fit of absent mindedness’, and as a byproduct of trying to develop free trade around the world: the measure of success has to be the Commonwealth of Nations – comprising 54 nations with about 1/3 of the world’s population, getting together to play cricket every year and hold a Commonwealth Games every 4 years.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
This is not an empire that collapsed, or was destroyed. This is an empire that over a century or so (from granting independent Dominion status to Canada in 1886, Australia 1901, New Zealand and South Africa pre great War, Ireland and Egypt interwar, India and Pakistan post war, large parts of Asia and Africa in the 60’s and 70’s etc); nonetheless developed and secured the international free trade system that the world has embraced. (Including a re-integration by an early exit-er from the empire… the 13 out of 35 British north American colonies that became the United States… and who finally inherited the title of world policeman when the rest of the Commonwealth nations had got sick of the whole thing.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<b>In praise of trade...</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
In fact trade empires have really been the only successful basis for empires over time. Conquest Empires like that of Alexander or the Mongols cannot work unless the underpinnings of trade make them functional enough to do so. The reason that the Roman Empire(s) lasted so long was that their borders were the logical trading boundaries of the Mediterranean littorals, and they never really tried to incorporate the German forests, African deserts, or Persian plains which simply would not work into the trade and tax structure of their society. (Even the Rumanian plains or British forests were too isolated to work in their Mediterranean shipping grid structure long term.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Trade empires work because their structure relates to the logic of real world interactions between peoples, and usually in a mutually beneficial way. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Which means that while it is possible to be dubious about the long term effects of conquest empires; and simply accepting of the long term failures of security empires: it is impossible to be dismissive of the long term achievements of trade empires. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Cambria, serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Without trade empires in human history, we would not have such world order as does exist.<o:p></o:p></div>
Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-6698586664854228442019-04-22T00:31:00.002-07:002021-09-10T23:49:58.992-07:00Which Powers could afford to ’do it all’ in World War Two<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">There’s an old saying that David and Leigh Eddings paraphrased in one of their fantasy books: “any fool can raise an army, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #545454; font-family: Palatino;"> but you start running into trouble around suppertime.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #545454; font-family: Palatino;">(Which is just a simplified way of saying that amateurs discuss tactics, but professionals think logistics.)</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">So let’s consider World War Two from the ‘who can afford what’ perspective.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Any fool politician can promise Lebensraum, or a Mare Nostrum, or a Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere: the problem comes when your nation lacks the resources to buy the equipment you need to make your plan stick.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">It would be correct to suggest that the most rag-tag of ‘governments’ can raise and equip an infantry force, and possible give it some artillery support. Mao and Tito spring to mind, but the Hungarians, Bulgarians and Iranians wouldn’t be far off. (One particularly entertaining description of the vast Operation Barbarossa - the Axis invasion of Russia – describes hundreds of gaily painted peasant carts masquerading as the Rumanian logistics column.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Perhaps your government is a bit more advanced in both your tax collection and your industrial base, and you can manage a few armoured cars or tanks, and maybe even a nominal number of fighters and bombers. Think Nationalist China, Finland, Belgium, Greece and Turkey. That still doesn’t mean that you can also manage more than a token number of destroyers or coastal defence ships to manage defensive support. Frankly Canada, Australia, India and possibly even South Africa were greater 'powers' than any of those.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">The actual capacity to project power to other parts of the world in your own right – rather than under the auspices of your allies - requires not only a developed army and air force, but a naval element of – at a minimum – a good balanced cruiser force with adequate resources to back it up. Think Spain and Brazil... and, again, Australia.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Actually protecting far flung imperial possessions requires even a bit more than that. (Spain had discovered this while losing a brief war with the United States - which had run out of land to imperially conquer from the French, native Americans or Mexicans, and – after a couple of abortive attempts to invade Canada - therefore turned a quick takeover of overseas bits. Mainly Spanish possessions like the Philippines, but also including otherwise independent states like Hawaii.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">In fact the best defence of a far flung empire if you couldn’t match other people’s battle fleets was a good submarine force. Think the Netherlands, and particularly it’s half dozen cruisers and two dozen submarines protecting the Netherlands East Indies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">But it is a big jump from a token overseas empire, to being able to play with the big boys. The financial and industrial resources necessary to developing military forces capable of fighting other major powers is simply beyond the resources of more than half a dozen nations at any time. Which is why the term ‘Great Powers’ has always come down to those capable of standing their ground against other great powers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Personally I have always found the idea of a ‘Superpower’ to be complete bunk. Even Alexander, Octavius, Genghis and Napoleon had their limits. Admittedly there was a time post the Napoleonic war when the British could use the brief economic and industrial break they had managed to open on everyone else to pretty much do what they want. But that was only if what they wanted didn’t conflict with the goals of any two or three of the other Great Powers of the day. (The Crimean War being an excellent example of the limitations of power projection regardless of your economic and naval superiority…) Britain was ‘Primus inter pares’ (first among equals) rather than a super-power. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Similarly the idea that either the United States or the Soviet Union were able to dictate to each other during the Cold War (when the stupid term 'suerpower' was invented) is obviously laughable. More recently I remember one US Admiral - visiting the University where I was doing a ‘Strategic and Defence Studies Scholarship’ - stating that the days when the USN could influence India on it's own by parking a carrier battle group off the coast were long gone…. that was in 1991!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">At this point the US would be hard put to face challenges simultaneously from China, Syria, and Iran. Throw in issue with Russia, Libya and North Korea, and the US position would start to look like Britain alone facing the three Axis powers in 1941. But in fact the Vietnam war (US), and 1980’s Afghan war (USSR) proved what Britain had known since the previous centuries Afghan war… that the idea of a superpower has always been a bit of a fantasy. (Or as France had known since Napoleon; or the Ottomans had known since Vienna; or the Romans had known since Emperor Valerian was captured by the Persians at Edessa and spent the rest of his life as a footstool to his captor… I could go on…). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Frankly, if you can’t beat a third world peasant force, you should stop pretending to be anything other than merely ‘Great’.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Being ‘Great’ in the ‘Great War’ just meant being powerful enough that it would take two or three other great powers to push you around… and by that I mean militarily defeat and forced to surrender. By that definition the Turks were clearly no longer a great power (joining the Spanish in the ‘ex’ league). Meanwhile the Russians, Italians and Austro-Hungarians were hard put to make a convincing case, all of them needing significant propping by their allies to even hold their ground against a single other great power. France too struggled to hold the line, but arguably managed to contribute on land, sea and in the air in a way that the first three could not.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Which leaves Britain, Germany, and the United States as the undisputed great powers, with France a shade behind, and – interestingly – Japan overtaking the collapsed Austria-Hungary and Russia, to have a chance of overtaking Italy…possibly even France… in the Great Power stakes. (I hope everyone has seen the prophetic cartoon from the Versailles conference where the ‘Class of 1939’ baby is heard crying in the corner…)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">So let’s have a look at what it took to be a truly ‘great’ power in the Second World War.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">The great powers have always had an interesting balance of land power versus sea power. But if you take ‘great’ to imply ability to project power and influence from a distance , it is clear that there needs to be elements of both. Britain was a great power in Europe for centuries because her navy allowed her to interpose her small (pre- Great War) army, or to supply allies armies: not because she always had large land forces. Russia was always a great power because she had large land forces, regardless of usually having weak naval forces. But only a few powers could attempt it all.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">So let’s assess.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Russia (the Soviet Union if it makes you feel better), deployed large and technically advanced land forces during the World War II, and backed them up with a tactical air force second to none. But its naval forces were almost insignificant, and it didn’t even attempt a strategic air arm. As usual, it’s claim to be a great power was based on almost limitless supply of poor bloody infantry to throw into the meat grinder. As such it could threaten other continental powers, but had no ability at all to threaten sea powers like Britain and the United States, except in as much as they wanted to fight in mainland Europe. Realistically, it survived more due to vast allied support. (Not just the planes and tanks to survive in 1941, but the trucks and fuel to take the offensive in 1944. Up to half the food being eaten in Russia in the second half of the war was provided by the Allies.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">In practical terms Russia was the World War Two equivalent of Italy in World War One. An also ran that could not have survived without significant support.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">In WWII by contrast, Italy tried to have an army with tanks (fail), a balanced air-force (not too bad),and a powerful navy. But again Italy lacked the scientific resources to keep up in the air; the economic resources to make her army competitive; and the overall industrial resources to build aircraft carriers or strategic bombing forces on top of what was already straining her abilities beyond breaking point. Italy could not compete with real great powers – even when supported by Germany - and had to give it up. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Italy, was the Turkey of World War Two.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Japan made a better fist of it. With surprisingly limited resources, Japan militarised its economy to the point where they had a first rate army, navy and air force, and could genuinely compete with everyone else. Japan even got aircraft carriers off the ground as well as battleships, a more impressive achievement than France or Germany could manage – in that one limited field where their interests were more actively involved. But the army could not get proper tanks off the ground, let alone mechanisation; and the air forces only attempt at strategic bombing was hot air balloons armed with incendiaries released in the general direction of US forests. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Japan’s air-force and aircraft-carriers make it look more impressive than it really was. The Japanese economy and industrial base was not really up to the kind of war it attempted, and it was clear to many apart from Yamamoto that if the dice throw didn’t go perfectly, there was no chance of long term success.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">France is more interesting. France had one of the best armies on earth, with probably the best armoured equipment on earth (though bad tactical development of its use, that was not corrected in time.) Shame about the collapse of morale amongst the conscripts that didn’t allow such development to take place. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">France also had a fast developing air force with good technical abilities, and certainly the fourth strongest navy. France even had an aircraft-carrier in service, with another couple on order. Only strategic bombing was not on France’s agenda… (hardly surprising since tactical bombing would work just as well against her two most immediate threats, her next door neighbours…)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Had France withstood the initial assault, she remained capable of giving at least as good account of herself as Japan. Indeed France was probably still a better representation of a ‘great power’ than Italy – which collapsed as soon as two allies could concentrate their efforts for a moment, or Japan… ditto (though Japan had used it’s huge initial conquests to delay this collapse longer than could have been expected.). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">So France could be considered unlucky. Which is not to say that France in the Second World War was any better off than Russia or Italy in the first, or than Russia or Japan were in the Second. But France did have the potential to stay in the great power club, had that potential been properly applied.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Which brings us to Germany. Germany is an interesting contrast. Certainly had the energy to be a great power, even if the economy was not a shadow of the potential that their Great War economy had brought to the table. The Third Reich simply could not afford the same army, high seas fleet, and air-force, that had been within its grasp in the Great War. As one You-Tube reviewer comments on the Z plan for a naval build-up, the kind of High Seas Fleet that Germany possessed in World War One was beyond Germany’s power in World War Two, no matter how often Hitler got away with Anschlussing other people’s economies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">It was not just the fact that the Germans could not get aircraft carriers to happen, let alone get a strategic bombing force off the ground (pardon the pun). They couldn’t even get a balanced cruiser and battleship force to happen while simultaneously producing an adequate submarine fleet…it was an ‘either-or’ situation. Worse, despite some of the best armoured and mechanised units of the war, the Germans never got the vast majority of their army beyond foot slogging, with horse drawn artillery! Their successes came from the 20% of their high tech or elite (read Panzer, or Para, or Mountain, or SS) troops. Their 80% standard infantry troops finished up bearing the brunt of the failures, particularly on the Eastern front. (Interestingly the Japanese had the same breakup of numbers, and the same results- just replace the word ‘Eastern front’ with ‘Chinese front’…)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Germany lacked the resources, even with most of Europe to loot, to get it’s army adequately mechanised, or it’s air-force adequately modernised, or it’s navy competitive: let alone to master all the scientific experiments in jets and rockets and atomic bombs it was pursuing. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Which brings us to the real big boys. Britain and the US.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">These two countries were the only states that could, and did, do it all. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">First rate fully mechanised armies, where every single front line division (with a little bit of combat experience) could face the absolute elite any enemy might muster with a reasonable chance of success.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">First rate air forces with every category, including strategic bombing and strategic air-lift, being developed to it’s full potential.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">First rate navies, with every category: including aircraft-carriers and submarines, fully resourced. Navies with logistical support to potentially enable long term operations across the entire surface of the world (though it took a long time to turn the tide and get everything moving properly). Navies capable of power-projecting major invasion forces to any point on the planet. (It is notable that they also managed the only proper development of landing craft, with Germany and Japan unable to manage more than a few inadequate specialist craft that were really only acceptable against unopposed landings. Neither Germany or Japan could have mounted a D-Day style operation, or even a smaller opposed landing against anything resembling a proper defensive force... and Britain in 1940 was only marginal on that level of defensive force!)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Britain and the US also both had a range of Research projects not only outpacing every opponent except Germany in jets and rockets, but opening entirely new areas like cavity radars, proximity fuses and atomic weapons. With the resources to bring every project into action, rather than the one or two Germany could manage if she shut down her major fleets and cutback her bomber production…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">To be honest, no nation could really do it all. Britain was happy to send her radar and atomic weapons equipment to participate in the US program, just as the US was happy to receive both to get her own programs bootstrapped. Either alone would have taken much longer. Likewise there was a lot of sense in some specialising. Britain dropped most of her transport aircraft production for most of the war on the assurance of adequate US supplies. (Only getting back into it with the Avro York and similar after the concentration on fighters and bombers had achieved complete air superiority.) While the US let its jet-fighter program lapse until post war in the comfortable knowledge that Britain was covering that element. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Meanwhile Britain slowed it’s escort carrier program to concentrate on surface escorts once the US committed to mass producing jeep carriers, and later slowed her fleet carrier production to produce more landing craft in the comfortable knowledge that the US was producing carriers to spare. Another sensible decision was to let the expanding new US yards mass produce the basic ‘Liberty’ design the British had prepared, leaving some of the more skilled of the British workforce to produce more specialist ships.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Just because they <i>could </i>pretty much do it all themselves, certainly didn’t mean that it wasn’t more sensible to share resources more effectively. In fact they compromises they did make were far more about efficiency than incompetence. Though arguably Britain’s relying for too long on the barely adequate Sherman tank instead of pushing the development of the Centurion a bit faster could have ended badly. Or the United States relying on the barely adequate British Meteor as adequate effort in the jet space, while dropping the jet fighter ball until post war. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">(Actually the American P-80 was in service during the war, it just never saw combat. To me this makes it a wartime design, but I get constant claims that the contemporary Centurion was NOT a wartime design, because -- although they were in Belgium when the German surrender was signed - they didn’t see combat,. So I presume the same people would argue that the P-80 - which was in Italy at the same time - wasn’t a wartime design either? Mind you if neither they – or the Type XXI and XXIII U-boats were ‘wartime designs’, I still wonder what time designs they were supposed to be?)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Which brings up what Britain and the US couldn’t do… Manpower.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Every single nation ran into a manpower crisis after 3 or 4 years of conflict, and every one of them had to make hard decisions as a result.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Germany and Japan were operating on slave labour for much of their workforce by 3 or 4 years into the war, and from then on the decline in quality of front line troops was noticeable. Towards the end of the war the Russian combat units included substantial numbers of women, and conscripts from newly conquered parts of eastern Europe, and their industry could not have coped without basic supplies and finished equipment like trucks and aircraft from the western allies. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">The British and Americans were better off, but both had infantry crises during the advance on Germany, with the British stripping anti-aircraft units to make up numbers , and the Americans having to resort to using black troops stripped from logistic units! (The ever practical Patton was in favour of using black troops of course, but the unreconstructed racists like Eisenhower and Bradley were appalled at the idea of black troops in the front line.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">This manpower shortage is something that many people consider a sign of weakness. (In fact the encroaching US manpower crisis is only marginally recognised by many historians, as the US was only just pushing 3 or 4 years in the war, so what it was facing was no-where near as obvious as to those nations who had fought harder – Russia - or longer – Germany and Britain). </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Nonetheless many so called historians make much - inaccurate – commentary on the fact that the British lack of infantry in Normandy was a sign that they lacked the resources to be a great power any more? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">In reality of course Britain still had 115,000 fully trained replacement infantry in camps in Britain in late 1944 that could have been used to keep numbers at the front line up. But Britain was reluctant to use them up when it still looked like a long war ahead. No one knew at that point that Japan was only months from collapse. (And the smarter Allied leaders – Churchill, Brooke and Patton amongst them - were already nervous about what Russia might do after the German defeat, and already considering how to husband resources to be on the safe side.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Britain had been fighting for years longer than the US, Russia, or Japan - or even France (which had taken a 4 year break, and was back in the game with more than 20 divisions deployed before Germany surrendered.) Conserving and making the most of available manpower was just as vital to Britain as to Germany or Russia. So Britain’s real priority was enough skilled factory workers to arm and equip the millions of Russians and now French troops that could take some of the load. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">In fact – of course - the idea of using skilled workers as cannon fodder is the height of stupidity. Those countries that were forced to do so - particularly Russia, Germany and Japan – automatically conceding that they could not ‘do it all’.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Actually for both for both Britain and the United States, prioritising factory production over PBI (poor bloody infantry), is a sign of strength, and a sign of sensible choices. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Britain’s contribution to the ‘Balance of Power’ in Europe for centuries had been concentrating on arming and equipping her allies (with a limited number of elite troops under Marlborough or Wellington or Montgomery to work with those allies). Only during World War I had Britain made the mistake of providing a mass of cannon fodder to hold, and then win, a major land campaign or three. The appalling cost to skilled labour and leadership of that over the top effort had demonstrated why it was a stupid idea to provide mass PBI when you are better providing mass equipment to arm other people’s PBI. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Which was why Russian infantry entered Germany wearing British boots, and riding in US trucks, which were supplied by American built Liberty ships escorted by British built escorts. And why Chinese troops used British Middle Eastern fuel resources and American ammunition to play games with the Japanese using their American supplied planes and vehicles which had come via the same ships and escorts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">That’s the sensible way for countries with highly skilled workforces to assist countries with large numbers of poorly skilled and under-equipped peasants.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">(To be fair Germany had done her best to equip the peasant levies of Italy and Hungary and Rumania, just as the British and Americans did with the Russians, Chinese, Indians and Free French troops from North Africa… It’s just how technically advanced countries maximise the effect of working with less advanced ones…)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">But still some historians don’t really understand this process… Partly because some of the countries concerned don’t seem to have understood (or perhaps aren’t willing to admit) that this is what they were actually doing? British historians still understate the idea that it has always been a better idea to provide equipment for other people to die using, and US historians still pretending that the US had no limits on how many soldiers they were willing to sacrifice.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">In fact the pretence that the US could do all the industrial tasks and also provide the sort of mass conscript force the British Empire had used in World War One is still inherent in much of the literature. (Despite Marshall’s appalling ‘replacement’ system of ‘slot in’ soldiers, which was perhaps the most manpower wasteful system ever devised by a Western Democracy.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Still, by late 1944 it was apparent to anyone with sense that the United States could not throw unlimited cannon fodder around either. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Marshall’s original design for an expeditionary army had been about 300 divisions! This was a fantasy based on his vague understanding of PBI, and not understanding the resources required for a modern industrialised and mechanised force. His more realistic follow up plan was for about 150 divisions. The final plan fizzled out at less than 100, and in fact only 88 made it overseas (and half of those only in the last few months of campaigning on their respective fronts in Europe and the Pacific).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Again, this is pure sense. Better to have 80 odd top end highly mobile units to take on the enemy’s elite forces while letting other people’s PBI distract the mass of the enemy’s PBI, than to pretend that you can do both at once.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">In fact, by 1944 the British Commonwealth had already joyfully reduced the 100+ divisions – many of them garrison troops of course – from their defensive low point in 1942, and were only fielding about 50 elite divisions for offensive purposes. (Almost all of them fully mechanised, and some - 78th<sup>th</sup>Armoured Division with over 2,000 specialist armoured vehicles for instance - equipped to standards unimaginable by any nation that could not ‘do it all’.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">So the correct definition of those who could ‘do it all’, really comes down to those who had the potential to do almost everything, the resources to be able to pick and choose, and the smarts to concentrate their efforts to best effect.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">The Anglo-sphere powers – Britain, her Commonwealth of Nations, and the United States - not only had the ability to do it all, they also had the interoperability and trust to choose the best places to specialise to maximum effect. Britain sending her radar research and atomic bomb project to work with the US team was sensible when the US was relying on British PBI to hold the line and British escort production to stop the slaughter in the Atlantic. The US concentrating on aircraft carriers and Liberty ships while Britain slowed its carrier production to concentrate on escorts and then landing ships also worked for both. Likewise the US providing airlift while the British worked on sea lift. Etc.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino;">So really the Great Powers break into 3 ranks. The two that could do it all – Britain and the US; the 4 that could struggle, and almost succeed, against the odds – Germany, Russia, France and Japan – but could in no way ‘do it all’; and the inevitable also ran – Italy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-52637569576025286292018-04-01T23:11:00.002-07:002021-09-11T00:12:50.016-07:00The problems with 'wargaming' history. (Particularly WWII.)I had a good comment on my '<a href="https://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/ten-myths-about-phoney-war-new-quadrant.html" target="_blank">Ten Myths about the Phoney War</a>' post from a Swedish respondent called DIREWOFLx75.<br />
<br />
He makes some fair points, and of course some that I disagree with. I think he is oversimplifying some things, but that's fair, he thinks the same of many of my points.<br />
<br />
His arguable points include, for instance, the idea that a British 'intervention' might forcing Sweden and Norway into Germany's arms. (Not convincing I'm afraid... I note that the German invasion didn't automatically sweep Sweden into Britain's arms? Or into Germany's arms?)<br />
<br />
But most of what he said was just interesting commentary that is worth reading.<br />
<br />
However he did say that one of my points (about Russia staying on Germany's side for the rest of the war) could only be held by "<i>an arch idiot who left his brain behind</i>".<br />
<br />
He justified that statement with the line: "Analyse it, war-game it, the conclusion is..."<br />
<br />
Now I love a good war-game, and have played many versions of World War Two boardgames: from the stupendous <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(wargame)" target="_blank">Europa</a> (so large scale, with so many pieces, that you need hundreds of hours to play a single front), to the more manageable World in Flames (where a game can take merely scores of hours, not hundreds...) Though I admit I haven't had time to play for years, so some of the following is possibly dated... but I digress.<br />
<br />
All of them had the same problem. The rules pre-suppose certain outcomes, and force certain responses to make sure you can't avoid those outcomes.<br />
<br />
In World War Two games the most obvious problem is that they force the sides to fit the way they actually worked out, regardless of the fact that far more realistic alternatives were in fact more likely.<br />
<br />
For example:<br />
<br />
1. Who would believe that Yugoslavia would voluntarily join the (currently losing) British team in 1941? Yet it happened.<br />
2. That Hitler would attack his best ally and supply source - Russia -while still fighting on 2 other fronts in 1941? Yet it happened.<br />
3. That Japan would suddenly attack the US in 1941? Yet it happened.<br />
4. That Hitler would voluntarily declare war on the US two days later? Yet it happened.<br />
5. That Italy would side with its WW1 opponent Germany, to attack it' long term ally and protector Britain in 1940? Yet it happened. (With the same results for Italy as when Turkey had made the same poor choice a war earlier...)<br />
6. That Brazil would decide to enter the war at all? Yet it happened.<br />
7. That fascist Spain - in huge debt to Italy and Germany - would sit out the war? Yet it happened.<br />
<br />
I could go on and on, but please note that all these unlikely things are built into the structure of every major World War Two game. The rules are written to force such things to happen 'correctly'.<br />
<br />
Even the <i>Days of Decision</i> pre-game for <i>World in Flames</i> only allows minor things like Spain changing sides (if you can get the Republicans to win instead of the fascists). It never considers the infinitely more likely case of Italy NOT changing sides and <i>remaining</i> in the British camp. It never even considers the option of Japan joining Germany in conquering Russia (the plan when the Japanese army was dominant) INSTEAD of the much stupider Japanese attack on the United States (when the IJN was dominant).<br />
<br />
I sometimes managed to talk some other players of these games into trialling <i>more realistic</i> scenarios. (I am being quite serious, the things that actually happened - Yugoslavia for instance - were hardly logical, let alone inevitable.)<br />
<br />
Italy joining the allies against Germany was actually not only reasonable, but even very likely during the Finnish crises. (Mussolini had threatened war with Germany in 1934, and all Italy was incensed at Germany having a treaty with the hated Soviets in 1940. Italy was working hard to get military supplies to Finland, and Britain and France were seriously trying to engage the Italians. Talk of a deal between France and Italy to reclaim the old Baku oilfields that had been nationalised by the Soviets saw stocks in the old company's rising on the Paris Bourse. The American ambassador to Russia cabled that the Russians were desperate to get the Finns to negotiate to get troops down to the border with French Syria where a large French army was gathering. The German's were helping the Russians put mines in to defend Black Sea ports. The British and French despatched a large force of bombers to Syria to prepare to destroy the Baby oilfields... The Japanese army was showing interest in getting revenge for the only recently failed campaign in Mongolia against Russia... None of this is fantasy...I can go on extensively!).<br />
<br />
The German/Soviet alliance of nasty dictators versus everyone else in Europe (possibly including Italy and Japan on the allied side) is actually very realistic.<br />
<br />
Japan co-operating with Germany to squash Russia is far more realistic than wandering off to attack the US! (In fact Japan NOT co-operating with Germany to pressure the allied position in the Middle East in 1942 was not even unlikely, just plain dumb!)<br />
<br />
These are just some of the things that you can easily war-game to see how it might have worked. And despite DIREWOLF's assumptions, Germany and Russia in 1940 were not a lay down Mozaire over Britain and France supported by... Finland, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Rumania, Turkey and Japan (with the US still in the background).<br />
<br />
That combination was in fact quite possible, and indeed, much more likely, than the eventual campaign that saw even Finland (Finland!) forced into the Axis camp against Russian aggression! (Finland was the allied hero of 1940, and the League of Nations expelled Russia and urged all nations to support Finland. Italy was one of the strongest supporters! Yet in 1945 one of the first actions of the UN was to accuse Finland of being the aggressor against Russia! Let's discuss inevitability?)<br />
<br />
Unfortunately many gamers believe that the rules that force certain sides to develop in certain ways reflect political inevitability. Crap.<br />
<br />
I have even had gamers insist that I follow the exact letter of the way the rules are set up, and only do what the rules let me do, with no discretion at all.<br />
<br />
I found a fun way to screw such over-simplistic stupidities over. (Or I could 20 years ago... hopefully some changes have taken place since.)<br />
<br />
If you ever want to test the stupidity of following the rules of a game that pretends everything can be fixed, then give World in Flames (say version 4 or 5) a go from the British players role.<br />
<br />
Turn 1, rebase most British forces to Canada.<br />
<br />
Turn 2 & 3, invade and conquer US.<br />
<br />
Turn 4 & 5 rebase all British forces to bolster France before European spring.<br />
<br />
Rest of war Britain only has to protect the 4 sea links to the US (and link up Australasia with India) to beat the U-boats and have effectively unlimited US resources to share with it's allies. (Which can include Russia if you keep following the stupid rules? The allied supply route to Russia also becomes much easier to defend under this scenario.)<br />
<br />
Even if France can't be saved (unlikely the way the rules are set up, unless a lucky coup in Yugoslavia and a couple of sacrificial air drops or invasions to undercut German factories are successful), Britain can still build a factory somewhere in the Commonwealth every turn for the rest of the game, and have the resources to use them. By the time Japan is supposed to enter the war in late 1941, you can have some real fun with the fact that there are not enough pieces in the British forces mix, and you have to co-op pieces from their new colony... the US... to continue playing. (In fact the best chance for the 'Axis' under this scenario is to have Japan attack Britain in 1940, which of course the rules are working to prevent...)<br />
<br />
This utterly stupid and wildly unrealistic scenario nonetheless fits within the letter of the rules of the game.<br />
<br />
I have played it that way a couple of times mostly to demonstrate the stupidity of playing purely by using rules written specifically to get a fairly unlikely historical outcome.<br />
<br />
But it's bloody good fun if you like playing with history!<br />
<br />
So when I "analyse it, war-game it, the conclusion is..." I find that the conclusion is far more affected by assumptions about how things must have worked - because people are assuming that such a route was inevitable... than is is by historical realities.<br />
<br />
Dear DIREWOLF. Game it by all means... just check your pre-assumptions at the door, and REALLY look at all the possibilities.<br />
<br />
The deeper you go into what might have happened, the less what actually did happen will seem 'inevitable'.<br />
<br />
And it can be really fun.<br />
<br />Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-58912885559036171822018-04-01T21:17:00.000-07:002018-04-01T21:17:11.312-07:00New Quadrant article: Republics - The least stable form of GovernmentIt's a bit embarrassing to note that the last post I did was announcing an article in Australia's Quadrant magazine over a year ago.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately my wife had a serious injury last year, and many items have consumed by time since, meaning that I have not even had a chance to reply to the many excellent comments I have had during the year.<br />
<br />
Can't promise much, but will try to be better.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile my latest article, also in Quadrant (March 2018, Volume LXII, Number 3, No 544) is another little discussion about the flaws of Republics as a system of government.<br />
<br />
http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/03/republic-least-stable-form-government/<br />
<br />
Unfortunately it's behind a paywall, so you have to buy the magazine to get the whole article, but Quadrant is worth the subscription if you like magazines that value freedom of speech and expression. Another of my Quadrant articles was re-printed in Canada's Dorchester Review, which has a similar ethos.<br />
<br />
(Amusingly when Quadrant was set up way back in the 1950's - in Australia that is called the Menzies era - it's commitment to freedom of speech and freedom of opinion was considered pretty left wing. Now of course, the same position is regarded by politically correct crowd as being extremely right wing. That is a comment on the way the society has changed, not the magazine...)<br />
<br />
<br />
The articles main points are:<br />
1. 95% of all 'republics' collapse into dictatorship, repression, or civil war, within about 20 years. Very few make it to 50 years. (France has only just got to 50 years under it's fifth republic - plus 3 monarchies and 2 empires - in the last 2 centuries or so, and Germany effectively has a new constitution dating from re-unification 2 decades ago - after 3 republics and a dictatorship causing two invasions in the last century, and is showing signs of being quite Italian in it's 'success' as a system of government since then...)<br />
2. The wold's 44 Monarchies or Constitutional Monarchies - some of them quite new startups - have about a 17 times greater life expectancy than the world's 140 odd - some very odd - republics and peoples republics and soviet socialist republics etc. (Note that the longest lasting republics are mostly 'Soviet Socialist' style dictatorships, with a few limited exceptions).<br />
3. Republics can last for 50 years or more, but apparently only if they are mono-cultures (like Finland and Botswana) or under constant threat of invasion and destruction (Israel, Germany, Italy and South Korea) to focus the mind.<br />
4. The only 'long term' success anyone can identify (ignoring its foundation as a slavery state, it's failure to give much of it's population a vote until 50 odd years ago, and a minor civil war with 600,000 dead) is the one that 90% of the of the PRO-republicans in places like Australia think has completely unacceptable politics, system, or leaders! (Repeat after me, 'Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump... my evidence for wanting a republican system???')<br />
5. More importantly, just note that 70% of the world's richest and healthiest places to live are Constitutional Monarchies, and 99% of the world's most horrible places to live are Republics. (The one monarchy that - barely - makes it into the bottom 100 being Morocco at about 97 from the bottom... Morocco!)<br />
It was a fun article, and has received a lot of good comments.<br />
<br />Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-18630404573695654962016-12-28T02:30:00.000-08:002016-12-28T02:35:40.245-08:00Ten Myths about the Phoney War - new Quadrant ArticleA new one of my articles has just been published in the Australian <i>Quadrant</i> magazine (<a href="https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2017/" target="_blank">Vol. 61 No.1-2, January-February 2017 edition</a>), that attempts to kick the crap out of the historians who write off the 'Phoney War' as a period where nothing happened.<br />
<br />
It is based on the proposed Allied March 1940 plan to move troops through Norway and Sweden to assist Finland against the Soviet invaders they had been remarkably successful in resisting for several months.<br />
<br />
The 10 issues I cover are:<br />
<br />
1, The Myth that the Soviet Union was strong in 1940.<br />
2. The Myth that Germany was strong in 1940.<br />
3. The Myth that the British were flailing for a strategy in 1940.<br />
4. The Myth that Poland's collapse made everyone believe in 'Blitzkreig'.<br />
5. The Myth that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact could not last.<br />
6. The Myth that the sides were already fixed.<br />
7. The Myth that intervention would not improve the Allied situation.<br />
8. The Myth that intervention would be militarily foolish for the Allies.<br />
9. The Myth that the Allies could have chosen <i>not </i>to help Finland.<br />
10. The Myth that Norway and Sweden would oppose an intervention.<br />
<br />
The fun part is the reason behind the story.<br />
<br />
Orders were actually given by the British and French Chiefs of Staff at 6.30pm on March 12, 1940, for the landings in Norway to go ahead the next day. Only last minute duplicity by the Socialist Foreign Minister of Finland Vaino Tanner to hide this information from the cabinet while he forced through a surrender before midnight, prevented the war from developing into a Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact war against Britain, France, and probably their new allies - including possibly Italy, Japan, Turkey, Scandinavia and the Balkans countries...<br />
<br />
If you want the full reasoning, you'll have to get the article.Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-52618074204944186582016-10-29T22:37:00.000-07:002016-10-29T22:37:33.077-07:00The best Carrier based Torpedo Bomber of World War Two?<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Having recently re-read the many comments on an old article in
which I discussed the relative strengths and weaknesses of carrier aircraft in
WWII, </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/comparing-naval-aircraft-of-world-war.html#comment-form">http://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/comparing-naval-aircraft-of-world-war.html#comment-form</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(and having reviewed some of the discussion groups that insist on
misquoting me), I though it might be useful to make a couple of reflections
that show just how silly these debates can get.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First lets make the key point – in the battle between
offense and defence, the pendulum keeps swinging.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When I do a discussion with a school group about medieval
weapons and armour, I point out that the fanciest sword is no good, if it can’t
defeat a new style of armour; and the fanciest armour is no good, if offensive
weapons can defeat it. It is always about ‘does this weapon defeat the defence,
or does the defence defeat the weapon’.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In WWII this means two things. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First: that even spectacularly effective offensive aircraft
from 1939 or 1942 are usually hopeless in the same circumstances against
improved defences two years later.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Second: that technological change will require adapting new
methods.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p><br /></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Third: that the 'best' aircraft at a given time, is not necessarily going to do the job best at that time, if other elements of the offence vs defence balance need to be considered!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There were many torpedo bombers of course – from bad carrier
versions, like the Devestator and the Barracuda, to good land versions, like
the Beaufort and the Condor, but for the sake of the argument, I will stick to
the two contrasting torpedo bombers that make the most interesting point about
what worked best when, and why…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To put that in perspective, lets start with the significant
point that the most successful (in terms of tonnage sunk), torpedo bomber of
the war – the Fairey Swordfish – was a technological relict even before the war
began; while the most successful (in terms of being technologically advanced
and impressive to crews) torpedo bomber of the war – the TBM Avenger – was a
complete failure in its first actions!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Fairey Swordfish is possibly the most amazing/amusing
aircraft of the war. An old style biplane, with a ridiculously slow attack
speed (only 138mph for early versions): it was nonetheless the only allied
combat aircraft to remain in production, and in front line combat squadrons,
throughout the entire war.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Known as the ‘Stringbag’ not because of its old fashioned
wire and fabric construction, but because – like an old ladies string shopping
bag – it could be adapted to an incredible range of loads and tasks: the
Swordfish was as success mainly because it could keep changing its functions.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Operating as a conventional torpedo bomber for the first
half of the war, the Swordfish – despite its antiquated appearance – had
innumerable successes. From sinking the first U-boat sunk, to manning the first
escort carriers, to rocket strikes on miniature submarines in river mouths in
the last days of the war. From disabling the Bismarck and the Italian cruiser
Zara in day actions to allow British battleships to catch them; to the first
radar guided night attacks on ships and submarines of the war. From the
spectacular success in daylight against the anchored French Fleet at Mers El
Kebir, to that at night against the anchored Italian fleet at Taranto. (Where a
mere 21 obsolescent Stringbags sunk or disabled 3 battleships, 2 cruisers, 2
destroyers, several other ships, a dozen seaplanes AND did the sort of damage
to oil an port facilities against a well defended and prepared base during
wartime that the Imperial Japanese Navy conspicuously failed to achieve with
multiple strikes by ten times the number of much more advanced aircraft at an unprepared
and practically defenceless Pearl Harbour during peacetime). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course the Swordfish had many failures too… failures that
point to the fact that it HAD to change its role to survive. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The incredible manoeuvrability of the Swordfish meant that
it was probably the only combat aircraft that could have slipped between the
barrage balloons defending the Italian fleet at Taranto, but the appallingly
slow speed meant it often couldn’t catch fast moving ships (like the French
Dunkerque escaping at Mers El Kebir). It’s success against the Bismarck was
partly due to the fact that it flew so incredibly slowly that the Bismarck’s
anti aircraft predictors could not slow down enough, and constantly fired
shells far in advance of the aircraft. Which was fine if there was no fighter
cover! But a few months later the 6 Swordfish that tried to strike the German
battle-cruisers and cruiser running up the Channel in daylight were sitting
ducks to German fighters in daylight (despite some inadequate attempts at
fighter escort). Both the British and German admirals commented very admiringly
of their amazing courage and determination, but very much along the lines of
the French general who witnessed the charge of the Light Brigade at
Balaclava…”it’s magnificent, but it’s not war!”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
By 1942 the Swordfish, or its successor the Albacore (which
it outlasted in service in the end), simply could not operate in daylight if
the enemy had any sort of air cover. But the fact that they had Air–Surface
search radar from mid 1941 meant that they remained effective strike aircraft at
night, when the enemy COULDN’T intercept them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is where the TBM Avenger must be considered. Certainly
technically the best torpedo bomber of the war, and one that served well into
the 1950’s, it was nonetheless a failure at its first actions. At Midway for
instance, 5 of the 6 available were smashed out of the sky (a much higher loss
percentage than that of the slow and obsolete Devestator torpedo bombers they
were replacing).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is for the simple
reason that even the best and fastest and most advanced torpedo bombers could
not survive against fighter cover in daylight at this stage of the war. (Only
much later in the war when the allies achieved overwhelming superiority could
the Avenger’s operate safely…. But that same circumstance would have mead the
Swordfish or Albacore or Devestator completely successful day torpedo bombers
again, so that is not saying much).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So the Swordfish and Albacore could be considered more
dangerous and unstoppable torpedo aircraft than the much more advanced Avenger
for the two years it took until the Avenger could also operate as a night
bomber. (Or for the 3 years until the Avenger had overwhelming fighter cover to
get it through in daylight.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Meanwhile of course, the Royal Navy had also adopted the
Avenger, and also fitted it for night strikes. But still found jobs a plenty
that the Swordfish could do, and the Avenger couldn’t.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First and foremost, was escort carriers. They were so small
and slow, that a loaded Avenger usually needed them to be sailing full speed
into the wind for a successful take-off, whereas a loaded Swordfish could often
take off from one at anchor in harbour if there was even a moderate breeze over
the deck. More importantly, if the convoys in the north Atlantic faced rough
weather that tossed the ships up and down dramatically, the Swordfish was slow
and manouvrable enough to continue the flying operations and landings that were
inconceivable to faster more modern aircraft.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Next is flexibility. Swordfish operated successfully as
seaplanes, floatplanes, ski-planes, land planes, and carrier planes. They
operated from land bases too short for other aircraft; from fields too rough
for other aircraft; and from frozen fjords too exposed to the elements for
other aircraft. They flew from catapults on battleships and cruisers, from Merchant
Catapult Ships, from Escort carriers and Fleet carriers. They operated as
torpedo bombers, dive bombers, level bombers, rocket bombers, depth charge
bombers; and in conditions ranging from arctic to desert airstrips, and from
tropical cyclones to Atlantic sleet storms. They operated successfully both day
and night (at a time when few other aircraft could), and continued to be
successfully deployed to new tasks when many younger designs (including some
specifically designed to replace them) failed to adapt to new needs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
After that comes survivability. Everyone was astonished how
much damage a Swordfish could absorb and still come home. Rents, tears, holes
in every surface, the Swordfish would just soldier on. (And could often be
repaired with a few canvas patches hastily glued in place, and sent straight
back into action.) The Swordfish was to aircraft what the USS Yorktown was to
ships!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Finally, the Swordfish was simply the most successful
torpedo bomber of the war. It damaged and sank more warships (German, Italian,
Japanese and French!), more submarines, more merchant ships, more torpedo
boats, more midget subs, more just about anything, than any other single type
of plane in the inventory of either Axis or Allies. On one occasion in Libya,
just three torpedoes from three land based Swordfish sank four ships (2
U-boats, a destroyer and a supply ship). In fact a single Swordfish group
varying between 12 - 27 aircraft operating from Malta sank about half a million
tons of Axis shipping in nine months – pretty much equivalent to the wartime
totals of the Condor, or Judy, or Kate, or Beaufort, or B25, or Dauntless or
Helldiver; and not much short of the total for the Avenger.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-AU</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<!--EndFragment--><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, although there is no doubt that the Avenger was a much
better aircraft; or that the Kate had a much more dramatic impact in its few
short months of effectiveness; or the Beaufighter was incredibly more accurate:
the simple fact is that – in so many ways – the best carrier torpedo bomber of
WWII was a slow, lightly armed, almost completely obsolescent biplane, that
just kept on finding new ways to do things no other aircraft could…<o:p></o:p></div>
Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-40401447290013352222016-08-24T18:09:00.000-07:002016-08-24T18:09:15.370-07:00Medal tallies, Great Power Politics, and Angry White Men!One of the most amusing things about the 2016 Olympic Games was that the medal tally bore an astonishing resemblance to a table of post World War Two 'great power' nations.<br />
<br />
Consider this 2016 medal tally list in terms of World War Two and the 1945 peace settlements, and where the various economic and colonial powers stood at the time.<br />
<br />
1. US<br />
2. Britain<br />
3. China<br />
4. Russia<br />
5. Germany<br />
6. Japan<br />
7. France<br />
<br />
Notice anything familiar about the pattern so far?<br />
<br />
Below that, the tally becomes a little more interesting, with a surprise entrance by South Korea at number 8, but only in the last few days of the competition. Up until then the last spots switched a bit between 3 or 4 countries who eventually finished:<br />
<br />
9. Italy<br />
10. Australia<br />
11. Netherlands<br />
<br />
As Australians, we can be amused that we sneak in over the once great colonial power The Netherlands. Sometimes during the competition, we led France and Italy as well! We can also boast that we come in above Canada, which had, and still has, considerably greater population and GDP. (I suppose Canada has never taken sport as seriously as Australia... Do they even have a cricket team?)<br />
<br />
Still, thinking about Canada brings up another interesting comparison.<br />
<br />
Consider the Anglosphere.<br />
<br />
The United States with way more than twice the population and close to three times the combined GDP, of the rest of the 'old' Anglosphere nations* - Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland - still gets less medals (121) than the others (144).<br />
<br />
Would it be fair to say that the US clearly isn't trying as hard as the rest of us?<br />
<br />
Should we also note that the Anglosphere alone, despite consisting of only 6% of the worlds population, accounts for more than 26% of the world's medal tally?<br />
<br />
Does this tell us anything useful about 'great powers' in general? Does it help explain why the Anglosphere has pretty much ordered the world for the last three centuries? Does it contribute to the global dominance of the English language? Or does it suggest that sports dominance equals 'soft' cultural power?<br />
<br />
No idea, really. But someone should be able to get a research grant, even if only on the injustice of the Olympics being clearly a repressive representation of WASP culture. (After all, Catholic Ireland only counts for 8 of the Anglosphere's 265 medals... sort of proves the point really!).<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-AU</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<!--EndFragment--><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Times; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Times;">What it does suggest, is
that all those who claim the West in general, and the Anglosphere in
particular, are in relative decline, had better check their numbers. On these
figures, the Anglosphere will remain at the top of the podium for another
century at least.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<br />
* (321 million US population vs a combined 130 million for the rest; and 17, 348,000 million US$ vs a combined $6,626,152 million according to Wikipedia''s Anglosphere article sourced 22.8.2016)Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-23571298564535571032016-06-24T04:16:00.000-07:002016-06-24T04:16:45.286-07:00Brexit, and a ‘confusion’ of pollsters.<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><i>Well, I drafted
this a couple of weeks ago, but got distracted and didn’t publish it until it’s
too late (at least to be predictive). Shame really, I probably like being able
to say ‘I told you so’, even more than the average egotist. Still, some of the
points still have some relevance…</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">The reason
pollsters get so much so wrong, is that they are just a subset of the
chattering class.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">They are
university educated, inner urban, part of the ‘knowledge’ economy, and try to
look like they are actually trendy. They hang out with the latte set, circulate
mainly within the ‘goat-cheese circle’, and spend as much time as possible
doing media commentary with like minded chattering class loonies. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">The idea that
their privileged, insular existence, leads them to fail to communicate with the
great unwashed, pretty much fails to occur to them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">(Which could be
why the Brussels bureaucrats, British chattering classes; conga line of
international political twats from Obama to Turnball; and big business PR faces:
all worked so hard to convince themselves that British voters would ignore Angela
Merkels unilateral announcement of the collapse of the EU - when she announced
an open door to Europe… NOTE: I have long since been fond of saying that eventually the
Germans would find their third attempt to take over Europe in a century might
end no better than the other two… perhaps worse. Well now we’re going to find
out.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">I occasionally
succumb to curiosity about pollsters, and actually let a cold caller or an
on-line survey through, just to see how unthinkingly biased the questions are.
The sad fact is that I, like most people NOT of the chattering classes (despite
the fact that I am a university educated inner urban professional with no kids)
would usually hang up on such callers. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">The other
exceptions, who will actually answer questions, often being so bored and
lonely, or starving for attention, that they will talk to anyone… often
agreeing with whatever crap the interviewer clearly favours just to get
approval.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">When I do bother
to answer, I am amazed at how clearly the preconceptions of the questioner come
through.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Sometimes it is
just the dreadful phrasing… Instead of saying ‘do you favour Brexit or
Bremain?’, the question is actually more likely to be ‘are you willing to take
the risk of flushing everything you have ever known down the toilet, or do you
prefer stability?’. Amusingly, they usually don’t even realise this might be a
problem.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">I had enormous fun
playing with these sorts of phrasings in first year Psychology class… it was
great how you could – Yes Minister like – order 3 or 4 leading questions to get
any answer you like…”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;">[<i>Sir Humphrey demonstrates how public surveys can reach
opposite conclusions</i>]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001329/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sir Humphrey
Appleby</span></b></a>: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime
among teenagers?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0288621/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Bernard Woolley</span></b></a>:
Yes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001329/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sir Humphrey
Appleby</span></b></a>: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous
training in our Comprehensive Schools?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0288621/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Bernard Woolley</span></b></a>:
Yes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001329/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sir Humphrey
Appleby</span></b></a>: Do you think young people welcome some structure and
leadership in their lives?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0288621/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Bernard Woolley</span></b></a>:
Yes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001329/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sir Humphrey
Appleby</span></b></a>: Do they respond to a challenge?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0288621/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Bernard Woolley</span></b></a>:
Yes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001329/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sir Humphrey
Appleby</span></b></a>: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0288621/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Bernard Woolley</span></b></a>:
Er, I might be.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001329/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sir Humphrey
Appleby</span></b></a>: Yes or no?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0288621/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Bernard Woolley</span></b></a>:
Yes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001329/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sir Humphrey
Appleby</span></b></a>: Of course, after all you've said you can't say no to
that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;">[<i>survey two</i>]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001329/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sir Humphrey
Appleby</span></b></a>: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0288621/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Bernard Woolley</span></b></a>:
Yes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001329/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sir Humphrey
Appleby</span></b></a>: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0288621/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Bernard Woolley</span></b></a>:
Yes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001329/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sir Humphrey
Appleby</span></b></a>: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people
guns and teaching them how to kill?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0288621/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Bernard Woolley</span></b></a>:
Yes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001329/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sir Humphrey
Appleby</span></b></a>: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms
against their will?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0288621/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Bernard Woolley</span></b></a>:
Yes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001329/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sir Humphrey
Appleby</span></b></a>: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0288621/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Bernard Woolley</span></b></a>:
Yes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;">[<i>does a double-take</i>]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #262626; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001329/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><b><span style="color: #1356a2; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sir Humphrey
Appleby</span></b></a>: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">The problem is, of
course, that most modern pollsters don’t even realize that they are biasing the
responses. They are simply convinced that ‘ALL RIGHT THINKING PEOPLE BELIEVE
X’, so their questions are rarely phrased in a way that doesn’t assume that
anyone who believes anything else must be a moron or a criminal deviant.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Even when the
questions are actually better phrased, you can usually tell by the tone of
voice how you are expected to respond. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">I once tried
saying the absolute opposite of whatever the pollster clearly wanted to one of these
phone callers. You could hear the strain in his voice as he tried to sound as
though he was just calmly going through questions while really thinking ‘this
guy is a f******* idiot’. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Try it sometime,
it can be fun... If you're really, really bored.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">So the pollsters
managed to avoid the obvious response of the huge number of people who are sick
of politicians talking down to them, and convince themselves that their
preferred outcome was obvious.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">They managed to
ignore the fact that all the Bremains Chicken Little Act (yes I mean you David ‘the sky will fall’ Cameron), was so clearly manipulative crap, and assume that
people would be scared for it on mass. The obvious response – that people would be so pissed off at the lies they might revolt – apparently didn't occur to them. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">(Amusingly, the only ones to take it
seriously appear to be… the chattering classes! Despite the fact that this is a
tactic they themselves invented to manipulate the unwashed?)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">You might imagine
that the fact that they got last years British election so wrong (or the
Scottish referendum so wrong, etc) by only listening to the feedback their prejudices
demanded, might have had an effect? Apparently not. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">It’s not that they
are too wedded to their <i>failed models</i>, its that they are too wedded to their
<i>pre-conceptions</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">I am irresistibly
reminded of Australia’s referendum on a republic a while back. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Every single
member of the chattering class - every newspaper, every commentator, every
radio program – was absolutely convinced the referendum would walk it in, in a
land slide. The confusion when not a single state supported it. (I don’t count
Hot Air Central as a useful political division, seeing the entire town is
designed and built for the chattering classes to gorge themselves at the
taxpayers trough.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">The only sad part
is that the markets are so prone to gullibly swallow what the chattering
commentators say, that they had their normal panick about the sky falling. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">How dare people do
what their betters have told them is wrong!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">(I am actually
going to the UK in a couple of weeks, and my wife is there now. Wish I had the
organizational ability to jump on the exchange rate when the markets did their
initial panick. Could have saved a fortune on what things will be back to
almost immediately.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Still it gives one
to think about a few other things the pollsters are likely to screw up.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Donald Trump
definitely won’t get anywhere in primaries… Well he won’t win the candidacy….
Well he can’t win the presidency…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Keep talking guys.
The more you put down your own voters, the better he will do.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">(Not saying that’s
a good thing… the man’s a protectionist moron. But Obama and George W and
Clinton and… well you get the idea… are not exactly sensible coherent
internationalists are they? As a side comment, the US now is going through the weariness and
incompetent insularity that led British interwar voters to simultaneously vote
for more action to enforce peace, and disarmament, and believe both were not
mutually exclusive! Possibly with similar consequences long term?)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Pollsters, if they
want to reclaim any relevance, need to stop acting like those sad universities who
actually sack anyone who dares to question the accepted orthodoxy just because
it is based on distorting the facts to fit. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">They have to
actually accept that people who aren’t the elite few might have opinions that
have value.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">But that would
require them to accept that their limited insular clique is not the one true
holder of the truth?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">The nobility
managed it, eventually (well, after the occasional revolution). The clergy
managed it, a bit (after enough child abuse scandals). The Marxists have gone
underground (or to the Greens, or to anti-bullying programs). Perhaps the
chatterers might manage it too?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Or will that
require its own bloodletting?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Let’s ask the
bureaucrats in Brussels? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<!--EndFragment-->Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-20068118208655324252016-02-20T23:44:00.000-08:002021-09-11T00:28:19.515-07:00The General Needs a Break<div class="MsoNormal">
There is an excellent, if somewhat
accidental, section on Generalship in one of Tom Clancy’s earliest and best
books <i>Red Strom Rising </i>(from the Cold
War period he understood, not the post Cold War world he doesn’t have a clue
about).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">His Soviet ‘hero’, Pavel Leonidovich
Alekseyev, the Deputy Commander of the Southwest Front is exhausting himself
preparing troops for battle, when his boss points out that in actual combat,
hard learned experience would ensure that senior officers get enough regular
rest to allow them to make good and clear decisions. Pavel admits the point,
and is fast asleep before his vehicle gets back to HQ. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The implication being
that this common sense approach by his superior is what leaves Pavel functional
at the critical point a few weeks later when everyone else’s responses are
lethargic and doctrinal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">It is an excellent point for short term
command decisions, but equally important for the long term durability of
generals.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Historically, generals can function in the
heat of battle successfully for months at a time… as long as they get
sufficient rest during proceedings, and then a significant break before taking
on the next major battle. But any general, no matter how good, will reach a
point of decline in health, morals, leadership and decisiveness, if he tries to
stay at peak performance for too long. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">In his 20’s Alexander the Great made
himself function for months at a time over several years… but the decline
towards the end was very obvious. His men wanted out and his officers were
revolting (literally as well as figuratively). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Napoleon achieved similar results as a
younger man, but the sick old man who returned to power – lasting barely 100
days before spiraling out of control – was in no shape to command at Waterloo. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Worse is the list of previously great
generals who were far too old when thrust back into command. Petain, the great
hero of France of the Great War, was representative of too many old generals as
a washed out shell in World War Two. Kitchener and Cardigan are other samples,
and I am sure you can think of many more.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The number of generals, particularly junior
generals, who drove themselves to physical collapse, is also well recorded in
history. In World War Two, any numbers of generals were incapacitated at
crucial moments, from Germans on the Eastern front, to Australians in New
Guinea. In North Africa alone, physical or mental collapses by: Cunningham
(General not Admiral), Gott, Rommel, Stumme, Rommel again, Gort, and a number
of lesser generals, were reflective of overwork and exhaustion. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Admiral Pound and General Dill both died in harness, and both were clearly performing far less than optimally towards the end of their service. </span>And then there is Roosevelt...</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Wavell too was
exhausted when he left the Middle East, and his lack of rest before being
thrown into the ABDA command was a large part of the cause of some of the
disasters there.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">In the very short term, days, or at most
weeks: adrenaline can keep most people functioning way beyond normal timespans…
but the term is functioning. Performing it is not. Reactions slow, thought
processes slow, creativity craps out, reflexive action becomes default, deeper
reflection stops. Any sensible soldier would prefer a well-rested and
thoughtful general in charge, which is why even Communist armies eventually
learned to give up on idealistic claptrap and assign batmen and cooks and other
support staff to their officers if they wanted any success at all.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Montgomery’s practice of going to bed at a
reasonable hour and telling his staff not to wake him unless it was an
emergency… and probably not then if there was nothing useful he could do about
it: is an excellent example of a general maintaining his usefulness to his men
in combat . It is particularly relevant to a 3 or 4 star general that someone
commanding a Corps or Army – or even Army Group – should have distance and
perspective.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">On the other hand Montgomery was clearly
emotionally exhausted by the time of the Battle of the Bulge, and in need of
rest at that point. His ever increasing isolation at his forward tactical
headquarters was starting to have a detrimental effect on his control of this
Army Group, and both the failure to concentrate on Antwerp and the inadequate
co-ordination of the Market-Garden operation were not up to the standards he
had set himself in North Africa, Sicily, or at D-Day.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">This leads to the interesting point that
although Eisenhower was right to leave Montgomery in charge for the completion
of the D-Day/Normandy campaign, he may have been right to not leave him as
ground forces commander after the exhausting battle of Normandy was over. (In a
similar fashion, Lee had undoubtedly been right to believe that Slim needed a
rest after the conquest of Burma before preparing the next major operation… a
fact pretty much proved by Slim’s unusually emotional response to being
‘sacked’.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Mind you Eisenhower was wrong to imagine he
could be his own Ground Forces commander at the same time as running the
theatre as a whole; dealing with international and inter-service rivalries; and
negotiating with difficult allies and collapsing enemies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">He was wrong for two reasons. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">First, that no one man could do
Eisenhower’s real job and still be a useful ground forces commander (which is
why every single other theatre – even quite small and relatively simple ones
like Burma or New Guinea – separated the roles).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Second, Eisenhower was already a chain
smoking and exhausted wreck, who himself had failed to cope with the stresses
of the Normandy campaign, and desperately needed a rest.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">When I raise with
people the idea that too much was being attempted by too few for too long, the
initial reaction is, far too often’ ‘there was no choice’!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Poppycock.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Montgomery or
Slim were no more ‘the vital and irreplaceable man’ than Eisenhower or
MacArthur. There were certainly many choices.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Bradley spent the
first part of the Normandy campaign as an Army Commander, and was then promoted
to Army Group Commander. See, simple choice. He could just as easily, and
probably more sensibly, have been left as an Army commander, under Devers or
Patton as Army Group Commander. (He probably would have been better if not
promoted too far too fast).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Or, the invasion
army – 1<sup>st</sup> – could have been rested while 3<sup>rd</sup> and 9<sup>th</sup>
armies did the pursuit, and brought up – reinforced and refreshed – when
the advance ran out of steam a few months later. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Patton's 'sulk' during the Metz stalemate, Hodges apparent physical collapse at the Bulge, and Bradley's increasingly irrational responses there and later: show how even a few months in unrelieved combat can have straining effects. Similarly Crerar's enforced 'rest' allowing Simpkin to excel.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Meanwhile after
the breakout Alexander could have taken over as Ground Forces commander for the
pursuit phase, leaving Montgomery a few months of recuperation to tackle the breakthrough
fighting on the German frontier. Perhaps General Bernard Paget (the commander
of the British Home Army who had trained the units for the invasion) could
have taken over 21<sup>st</sup> Army Group for the pursuit. Or perhaps he could
have been brought in for Ground Forces if Alexander was too vital in Italy? (Or
Wilson, or Wavell, or Lavarack, or Devers, or Slim, or Eichelberger, or….
Plenty of choices.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">The simple fact
is that Ike and Monty were tired, and both were working at less than peak
performance. As Pavel Alekseyev’s superior would have noted, both needed a
break.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">It is an
unfortunate truth that Western Democracies are terrible at giving generals a
break to refresh. The Germans and Soviets and even Japanese rotated Army and
Army Group commanders around all over the place, regularly pulling them back to
‘reserve’, and regularly re-assigning them to a new position a few months
later. The British and Americans however, usually tried to persevere with the
same leader until he failed… and I do mean ‘until’, because even the best ones
– Wavell comes to mind – slowly lose ground over repeated years of stress,
and eventually have to be sacked.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Alan Brooke, on
the brink of being appointed British CIGS, was not opposed to the replacement
of Wavell in 1941, but felt it ridiculous to ‘sack’ him. Brooke wanted him
bought home for a few months rest and recuperation before re-assignment. But
Churchill didn’t want him in London where he might cause trouble, and banished
him to India… Unfortunately there he was thrown straight back into a role as
CIC India, and was barely getting on top of that when he was dragged back into
service against the Japanese WITHOUT the benefit of having had a few months
rest.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">There is no doubt
that if Brooke had given him 6 months off, Wavell would have been in much
better shape for another active role later in the war. Wavell as either Supreme
or Land Forces commander of the invasion of North Africa (or Italy) is by no
means unrealistic. Wavell as Churchill’s representative to Stalin (he spoke
superb Russian) would have been fascinating. Wavell on the Combined Chiefs of
Staff is harder to imagine, but not impossible. But Wavell – unscarred by ‘sacking’
– taking over as CIGS if Brooke had been released for field command in 1944 –
in France or Italy or Asia – was also possible.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Which leads us to
Brooke and Churchill.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Brooke had
carried the can for Allied strategy from November 1941 to the invasion of Italy
in 1943, and both needed and deserved a break. There is no doubt that he had
achieved his greatest impact on the war by steering Allied strategy
successfully to the point where the surrender of Italy and clearing of the
Mediterranean had finally made an invasion of France possible. His strategic
impact was already in decline by that point (partly because most of the
strategy to see out the was already set, and partly because Marshall and and
others just didn’t want to be steered by him anymore): but it is arguable that
this decline in influence was at least as much because of increasing tiredness
as anything else. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Brooke needed a
break, and to be re-assigned to a fresh job where he could do most good.
Preferably six months off before taking over as Supreme Allied Commander for
the Invasion of France; but also possibly as SAC Med if Alexander continued to
serve as Ike’s Land Forces Commander; or as SAC South East Asia to deal with
Burma, Malaya and the East Indies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Either way
Brooke’s impact on the war might have been increased, and his replacement as
CIGS might have brought in renewed perspectives and energy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">The same applies,
I am afraid, to Churchill. He too needed a break for a few months between the
surrender of Italy and the invasion of France. This would of course have been
much harder for a politician than for a military man, but it is nonetheless
true. One of the reasons Churchill was so shattered by his loss of the 1945
general election was his exhaustion… and in fact one of the reasons for that
loss was his exhaustion. Had he been able to take a few months off in late 1943
or early 1944, he would have faced the end of the war with renewed energy. (And
faced the almost inevitable loss of the following election with far more
realism and stoicism.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">It is hard to
imagine how such a break could have been managed under a system where it was
not understood that generals needed breaks. But it is interesting to imagine
how it might have worked had that principle been understood. If the CIC of the
British military – King George VIII – had been in the habit of accepting rest
periods for his generals, it is easier to imagine him suggesting (or even
ordering) rest periods for his Prime Ministers! An amusing side thought, but
certainly not beyond the realms of possibility in the Westminster system…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Eisenhower is
another person who desperately needed a rest. He went from running the invasion
of North Africa, and the resulting political settlements there (while others
largely dealt with the military issues); to running the invasion of Sicily and
then Italy, and the resulting political settlements there (while others largely
dealt with the military issues); straight to running the invasion of France, and the resulting political settlements there (while imagining he could
simultaneously deal with the military issues): without much of a break. This
was extremely foolish, and arguably had a very negative effect on Allied
operations in France, and on the political outcome in Europe (which saw much of
central Europe unnecessarily fall to the Soviets).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">In fact it is
hard to imagine that anything except exhaustion affecting his judgement could
have led him to imagine he could suddenly combine both the political and
military roles effectively, when his previous history had seen such poor
outcomes when he tried to concentrate on a single job. It is possible that he
had such an outbreak of overwhelming hubris and arrogance that he might have
tried to do the same thing even if rested… but let us be kind and suggest that his
decision sounds more like exhaustion overcoming common sense.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Again, he needed
a good few months break – preferably at home resting in the US – before being
re-assigned to D-Day: rather than being thrown straight back in. He was clearly
approaching an exhausted nervous wreck by the time the invasion began, and his testy
and emotional responses to any delays, countered by his delirious over
confidence when things seemed to be going well: give a poor impression of
someone at their best performance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Paget should have
been left to plan the invasion while Ike rested. If Ike was to command, he
should have taken over fresh a few weeks before operations began, to have a
chance to make it to the end of the war. As it was, he may have been right to
think Monty needed less responsibility after the Normandy breakout, but he was
clearly wrong to imagine he could handle everything thereafter. The
directionless wandering of his broad front ‘strategy’ was only exceeded by his
failures to grasp that the end goal of the war was a stable political
settlement in Europe.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">In that of course
he reflected his boss, Marshall, who was one of the old fashioned ‘just win and
go home’ generals. He clearly had no comprehension that ‘just going home’ might
mean you had to come back again later… He clearly never understood that his
‘political’ solutions would just mean that the US had to ‘come back’ in NATO,
or to in Korea, or Vietnam, or… well you get the idea. (This lack of
understanding was in fact a terrible misreading of his own nations history in
such matters. A 19<sup>th</sup> century British diplomat had once questioned an
American ambassador on the US’s habit of repeatedly invading Central American
countries, demanding open elections, and going home. “What do you do when the
election gets a result you don’t like?”. “Oh, we just invade again.”)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">It is hard to say
whether Marshall’s failings at the crucial ‘make a balanced peace’ part of the
war were just his limited understanding of how international relations worked,
or a sign of him being exhausted too. Charitably, it would be nice to suggest
that it was at least partially caused by over-tiredness and irritability.
Certainly his far wiser approach to the Marshall Plan indicates that he could
do better on international understanding… though perhaps that was a hard
learned lesson. But the problem with ‘resting’ Marshall at any point was that <i>his</i> CIC – Roosevelt – was by that time so sick that he wouldn’t have felt
secure to take the risk of a change even if he had had the insight to believe it
might be useful.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">The real pity of
this is that the Allies did have quite excellent samples of how it could work. On
a small scale, Wavell had lasted as long as he did in the Middle East by making
a couple of trips to London, and leaving another general (Blamey) to run things
while he was gone. It worked fine.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">For the invasion
of Sicily various generals – including Patton – were pulled out of front line
roles to prepare for the next operation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Montgomery himself twice – North Africa and France – pulled Horrocks out of the line for a rest in preparation for future operations... If only he'd accepted the same applied to himself!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">In MacArthur’s
command (partly accidentally given the Australian vs American confusion) this
became a regular practice of a new general overseeing each operation, and the
rested general having a break before preparing the next operation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">MacArthur sort of
continued this pattern even with just American generals like Eichelberger and
Krueger swapping with 6<sup>th</sup> and 8<sup>th</sup> armies respectively
from Buna to the Philippines.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">More
significantly, 3<sup>rd</sup><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and 5<sup>th</sup>
Fleets perfected the idea of one Admiral running an operation while the other
takes a break and then prepares the next operation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">That’s the way to
do it!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">The general lack
of imagination by the Allied command systems in deciding who needed a rest
when, is responsible for two significant issues.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 280.7pt; text-indent: -18pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">Good generals being sacked and
discarded for being overtired, when a little R&R would see them back fresh,
experienced, and continuing to develop. And,<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 280.7pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 280.7pt; text-indent: -18pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">Tired generals making mistakes
that increased casualties and lengthened the war.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 280.7pt; text-indent: -18pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<!--EndFragment--><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 280.7pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">It is simply not
possible to estimate the damage done to the Allies and to the world, by the
unwillingness to give good leaders desperately needed breaks.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-60422346914803703612015-12-30T23:24:00.001-08:002020-10-19T03:45:06.039-07:00Rating Generals Marshall and Dill<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
(This one is going to raise screams of outrage from many people, but, realistically, it is hardly an exaggerated perspective on either of these men. Again, I just want to challenge people's unthinking acceptance of generally accepted shibboleths. Enjoy.)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dill" style="font-size: 14pt;" target="_blank">Field Marshal Sir John Greer Dill</a><span style="font-size: 14pt;">, and </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Marshall" style="font-size: 14pt;" target="_blank">General of the Army George Catlett Marshall</a><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> (for whom that
somewhat convoluted title was apparently invented, on the basis that Field
Marshal Marshall sounded pretty silly), were two of the four great Allied
generals who ran the British and American – and the Combined – Chiefs of Staff
in World War Two.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">(The other two being <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Brooke,_1st_Viscount_Alanbrooke" target="_blank">Field Marshall Alan Brooke</a> who ran the Imperial General Staff from 1941-45 as 'CIGS' - Chief of Imperial general Staff, and
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Maitland_Wilson,_1st_Baron_Wilson" target="_blank">General Henry Maitland Wilson</a>, who replaced Dill on the Combined Chiefs of
Staff after his death in 1944.)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Whereas both
Brooke and Wilson had extensive front line experience during the war to back up
their desk roles later on, Marshall and Dill could collectively be called ‘the
5 star bureaucrats’, because they spent most of the war behind desks, without
ever commanding in combat in the field. (Dill held a Corps command in France
during the Phoney War, but was recalled to be assistant CIGS before the German
attack on France began).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Both of these
lifelong professional soldiers were undoubtedly great men. Both inspired
loyalty and affection from the vast majority of people who knew them. Both were
respected as great thinkers by many of their contemporaries in their respective
armies. Both were superior organisers, and both played an immense
– possibly even an irreplaceable part – in steering the Allies to victory. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Both also
played crucial roles in international affairs during their lives. With Dill's decisions about Greece and Malaya in 1941 both altering the course of the war and world history; and Marshall’s
roles in wartime, post war government, post war China, the Cold War, and in the Marshall
plan for aid to Europe, ranking as outstanding achievements for any soldier.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">But neither had any
experience as a successful battlefield general, and it would be fair to suggest
that neither of them demonstrated skills that would have been particularly good on the battlefield as 3
or 4 star generals.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, given that both demonstrated
significant flaws in geo-political thinking and strategic planning as 4 and 5
star generals, it is possibly a long bow to suggest that neither was a very good
general.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Despite all their
undoubted achievements, were they in fact failures as generals?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><o:p><br /></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">George Catlett
Marshall was distantly descended from the old aristocracy that Americans like
to pretend they don’t have, though his family was relatively minor Virginia aristocracy
(and of course slaveholders), and he came through an impecunious junior line. Many
of his early ancestors were soldiers – like Martin Marshall, the first to enter
the Virginia Military Academy, only to be invalided out after damaging a knee
at the battle against General Segel at Shenendoah river; and Thomas Marshall,
who fought at Valley Forge.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">[One of his
biographers – Robert Payne – commented that the families who fought in the US
Civil War were often fighting a ‘continuation’ of the English Civil War,
because they were largely those same families of Roundheads and Cavaliers who
had fled England in the 1600’s. It is an amusing conceit, to which it is fun to
add the great comment from the classic book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">1066
and All That</i>, roundheads versus cavaliers = 'right but repulsive versus
wrong but romantic'… an excellent descriptor for both civil wars…]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">George Marshall’s
immediate ancestors were lawyers and businessmen – not very successful ones in
some cases – though there were many more significant figures like judges and academic leaders in the family tree. General Basil Duke apparently summed up most of
the Marshall’s as a group, when he commented of Loius Marshall – the first president of
Washington University – “His opinions were frequently inaccurate, for they were
much controlled by his prejudices, but were often profound, always striking and
original”. </span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Many might later have made this same point about George.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Like many young
officers of the time, Marshall served as a platoon commander in the newly
conquered Philippines, and saw some service in guerilla warfare against the
resistance movements. But his first significant posts were in the area that was
to become his life work – as an aide de camp to a chief of staff.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">During the Great
War he specialized in training and planning, particularly helping to plan the
first attacks by US Army troops in France, and then, under Pershing, helping plan the main US parts of the Meuse-Argonne offensive. In the few months he operated
in France, he probably had a more significant planning role in operations than
any US contemporary who was still active in the Second World War.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">His interwar roles
were mostly training and staff duties, except for the 3 years he commanded the
15<sup>th</sup> Infantry regiment in China. (On what every other major nation on earth, except
the US and the Soviet Union, of course, referred to as ‘imperial and colonial policing duties’). Still, between
the Philippines and France and China, he certainly had a wider exposure to the
real world of international affairs than many of his contemporaries.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">By 1938 Marshall
was assigned to the War Plans Division in Washington, and that ended his
association with anything other than desk roles. Still a mere Brigadier,
he soon became Deputy Chief of Staff, where he distinguished himself as one of
the few people who would not just tell Roosevelt whatever he wanted to hear.
Although it was assumed by many that this might end his career, instead it
attracted Roosevelt to nominate this incredibly junior officer to replace
General Malin Craig as Army Chief of Staff – a position he held throughout the
war – on the day Germany invaded Poland. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">To put that in
perspective Malin Craig was a Brigadier General in 1921, a Major General in
1935, and an honorary 4 star General from 1936-9, whereas Marshall was appointed
Brigadier in 1936, and was jumped to an honorary 4 star General in 1939! (By contrast
Dill was a Brigadier in WWI, a Major General in 1930, Lieutenant General 1936,
full General 1939 – with seniority backdated until 1937. Alan Brooke was a Major General in 1936, a Lieutenant General in 1938, and a full
General in 1940. Wilson was a Brigadier in 1934, a Major General in 1935, a
Lieutenant General in 1939, and a full general in 1941. All these 3 were only
raised to 4 star rank after leading a Corps or army in wartime – though Dill’s
front was inactive during his time there.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">It is no exaggeration
to suggest that Marshall was stunningly junior for this promotion, particularly
given the quality of many of the officers he was jumped over. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">It was even more
surprising than the almost contemporary decision of the British government to
promote Lord Gort from Major General to 3 star and then – a few months later – a similar 4 star position, over the heads of many many far more qualified senior
officers. (And we all know how poor Gort turned out! His almost complete
failure as CIC of the BEF being a prime example of the flaws of over-promoting
a man described by his contemporaries as ‘the ideal man to command a
division’.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Dill, although
from a not-disimilar family background to Marshall, had quite a different military
background. He was already a Captain studying at Staff College when the Great
War began, and served as Brigade Major and in many other roles through four hard years of war.
He was Mentioned in Dispatches no less than 8 times during the war, finishing as a
Brigadier and Head if Intelligence at GHQ.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Also considered a
gifted trainer, he</span><span style="font-size: medium;"> interspersed field, training, and staff positions through
the interwar period, serving in 'hotpsots' including India and Palestine (the latter as CIC). He (and Wavell)
were overlooked as potential CIGS when the politicians made that astonishing decision to
appoint Lord Gort as a PR profile exercise (while Adam would be the 'brains' to keep things working behind the scene). So Dill b</span><span style="font-size: 19px;">elatedly</span><span style="font-size: medium;"> received the command of I Corps in the BEF during the Phoney
War, only to be recalled to become CIGS when Churchill took over the
government – just in time for the German attack on France, and the disasters that
led to Dunkirk.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">In contrast to
Marshall, Dill was the man most of his contemporaries had expected to be
appointed CIGS in 1937. His appointment in 1940 was considered to be the
righting of a wrong, and there was considerable relief that one of the most admired
and trusted thinkers in the army had taken over after the twin disasters of the
too junior Gort and the almost fossilized <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Ironside,_1st_Baron_Ironside" target="_blank">Ironside</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">It is perhaps not
surprising therefore to note that between the time of Marshall and Dill’s
respective appointments to the top jobs and Pearl Harbor, Marshall was almost
universally admired for his impressive administrative achievements against all
odds; while Dill was generally considered to be not very successful. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Marshall
was overcoming skeptics who had underestimated his ability, whereas Dill was
failing to satisfy people who had put too much faith in his ability to be the
great white hope to save them from the disasters of his predecessors. (To be
fair, Gort and Ironside may not have been the sharpest stylises in the box, but
they had been given impossible hands to play by the stingy politics that had
gutted their commands and their allies morale for the last 20 years…
Marlborough, Napoleon and Alexander the Great combined would have struggled to overcome
such odds.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">So Dill spent 1940
and 1941 presiding over one disaster after another, while Marshall spent it
calmly rebuilding his forces in peacetime.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Having said that,
Dill cannot be held blameless for the disasters. The great example being his
contribution to the extension of the war when he colluded with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Eden#World_War_II" target="_blank">Foreign Minister Anthony Eden</a> to undermine the early British victories in North Africa, and commit to
the chaos and renewed series of defeats that would result from an intervention
in Greece.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">In 1940-41, the great
British success had been the Royal Navy domination of the Mediterranean Ocean
against the odds, and the successful offensive by O’Connors Desert Force (under
Wilson’s control) in destroying most of the large Italian forces in North
Africa. (In <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Compass" target="_blank">'Operation Compass'</a> O’Connors 35,000 men defeated more than 250,000, smashed 10 divisions
and took over 130,000 prisoners, 420 tanks and 845 guns… similar numbers of troops – if much better equipped – to the British and American surrenders to the initial Japanese attacks the following year in what were generally called ‘the greatest military disasters’ of their respective armies.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">O’Connor was
poised on the Libyan border, ready to make his final assault to clear the North
African shore (and incidentally capture a young German General called Rommel who
had only a few German Reconaisance troops with him as yet), when Dill suddenly agreed to shut
down his campaign, and divert the majority of the available skilled troops to a
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forlorn_hope" target="_blank">‘forlorn hope’</a> campaign in Greece. A campaign that was to end in unmitigated
and completely foreseeable disaster, and lead to another two long years of
bloody and unproductive see-saw battle across the North African shore.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Admittedly the
decision to back Greece was more of a political one than a military one.
Britain had entered the war to meet its guarantees to neutrals like Poland and
Greece. So doing so was probably a moral issue, even if militarily foolish. But
in practice the great Greek leader <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioannis_Metaxas" target="_blank">General Metaxas</a> had rightly felt that
bringing in British troops to his local fight with the Italians would only
inflame the situation, and lead to Germany having to intervene. He preferred
British support in the form of military equipment and supplies, but definitely
no troops! So it was only his unexpected death that had opened the opportunity
for British intervention.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Typically
Churchill was torn between enthusiasm for such a venture, both for its moral
attractiveness, and for its propaganda effects. But he was cautious enough to
issue a last minute warning that the risk should not be taken if it was too
dangerous.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Unfortunately,
with the eternally simplistic Anthony Eden completely caught by the positives,
the dispatch of Dill to supervise the discussions with Greece effectively left
the balancing vote to him alone. He voted 'yes', and effectively
threw away the very good chance to finish things in North Africa, for the very
doubtful chance to have any effect on mainland Europe.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Alan Brooke
records in his dairy his appalled reaction to such foolishness. “Why will
politicians never learn the simple principle of concentration of force at the
vital point, and the avoidance of dispersal of effort?” (It is notable though,
that he placed the blame a the feet of the politicians, rather than Dill.
Later, when himself in the position of CIGS, he would have – and did – fight
tooth and nail against similar proposals!)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Perhaps worse was Dill's practice of appointing fellow administrative staff types to executive combat
roles… the outstanding failure being the appointment of the very good
administrator and planner Percival, to the totally unsuitable role of combat
commander to deal with the inadequate strength and poor moral of the Malayan
defenders. He also acquiesced in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Auchinleck" target="_blank">Auchinlek's</a> appalling decision to let the far too junior <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ritchie" target="_blank">Neil Ritchie</a> assume command of 8th Army in North Africa. (Brooke’s comments on the ‘ruining’ of good officers by appointing
them to totally unsuitable roles are particularly scathing regarding these two, and he was delighted to 'rebuild' and redeem Ritchie later in the war as a very good Corps commander.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">So by the end of
1941, we have the situation where Dill had repeatedly failed to meet impossible
expectations, to the point where a frustrated Churchill referred to him as Dilly-Dally, and
was replacing him with Brooke. Whereas in Washington Marshall had exceeded all
expectations, to the point that when war came Roosevelt would quite happily
ignore the convention that control of the army was divided between the back
room chief of staff – Marshall – and the actual field commanders, and just let
George take control of the whole shebang.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">At this point in
the war, it would seem that Marshall has everything going for him, and Dill is
going to be left as another failed footnote like Gort and Ironside.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">But this is where
it gets interesting.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">When Japan kicked
the United States into the war, and Hitler obligingly declared war to complete
the package, Churchill immediately headed to Washington for a conference with
his new allies… taking the long established Chiefs of Staff for the Admiralty
and Royal Air Force with him, and leaving the newly appointed CIGS
– Brooke – at home to mind the store. Brooke, rightly concerned about what
impossible promises Churchill might make, convinced him to take Dill along as
the army representative. Thus was one of the most interesting, and perhaps
fortuitous accidents of the war.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Dill and Marshall
clicked. Both old fashioned gentlemen of significant intellectual achievement
and high moral codes (and both somewhat fussy bureaucrats at heart): they just
fitted together seamlessly. So much so that the next thing the alarmed Brooke knew
was that Churchill had not only signed up for a ‘Combined Allied Chiefs of
Staff Committee’, he had agreed to it being based in Washington, and to Dill
being the British head!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">On the positive
side, Dill undoubtedly did more to manage good communications between fractious
allies over the next few years than just about anyone else could possibly have
achieved. He became a close friend of all the other Chiefs of Staff, including Marshall, and even King. (The US Chiefs of Staff were his coffin bearers, possibly the only time in the war they all walked in step without argument!) </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Dill's personal intervention
repeatedly headed off or defused many tricky debates. In fact it is the years
1942-1944 that have set the seal on Dill’s reputation as a great man, and
someone to whom the Allies owe a great debt. This period is when Dill’s status
as a failed leader was completely revised, and his immense qualities finally
accepted by all concerned.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">(On the negative
side, Churchill’s delegation of split control of operations between different competing
sets of Chiefs of Staff institutions caused most of the fractions that Dill had
to paper over, and was a constant source of frustration to Brooke. He would
clearly have preferred the co-operative staff approaches of the previous wars,
with a good communication team run by Dill, to a conflicting set of Chiefs
causing constant irritation and endless conferences that never quite agreed…)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Still it is not
Dill’s fault that Churchill and Roosevelt’s ‘Combined Chiefs’ became such a convoluted mess.
Rather it is largely to his credit that he almost single handedly made the
hodgepodge of conflicting prima-donnas function as well as they did. (His
eventual replacement, Wilson, later commented that just getting Marshall and
King to work together, let alone get a united team result from the whole group, was a truly amazing achievement…)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Dill did superb
service in those years, and is now almost universally considered one of the
great Allied leaders of the war.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">By contrast,
Marshall was clearly considered a super performer at the time of Pearl Harbor,
and was now in the invidious position that Dill had held earlier... the great hope, expected to
achieve impossible results. But, despite the peons of praise thrown at all the
leaders who were involved in winning the war, he never again showed such
outstanding results compared to expectations. (Until, post war… when his most
spectacular achievement was the truly inspirational Marshall Plan to rebuild
Europe. Undoubtedly the most impressive achievement of his very impressive
life).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Part of the
problem was that Marshall’s Roosevelt approved takeover of complete control of
the US Army – relegating his supposed equal/combat superior/whatever in charge
of actual combat units to second place – suddenly meant his bailiwick expanded
from mere staff duties to executive control of the armies military operations.
Worse, to the position of making all strategic decisions for the US Army… a
role he was arguably not particularly well trained or suited for. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Given that
Roosevelt effectively delegated his ‘commander in chief duties’ to his chiefs
of staff too, that meant that there was little check on Marshall’s preferred
directions. Indeed the Combined Chiefs of Staff for the next 4 years became a
battle ground between Marshall’s strategic fantasies, King’s arrogance,
Brooke’s caution, the other members frustrations, and Dill’s flexible – but possible not too well directed – attempts to get everyone to compromise in the same direction... sometimes. Into this mix
both Roosevelt and Churchill would periodically drop unexpected, unwelcome, or
plain foolish, directions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Marshall’s first failed
test was his fantasy that an invasion of Europe could happen in 1942.
Considering that he was the one who knew how slowly a US buildup of trained
units was proceeding. This was ridiculous. His follow up insistence on 1943 was
no better.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Marshall was then forced into
North Africa by a deal between his President and the sneaky Churchill. (Intent
on derailing both Marshall’s fantasies and King’s threatened divergences to the
Pacific, and determined to find an alternative to the ridiculous promise of a second front in 1942, Churchill convinced Roosevelt that the only way to get US troops into action in
1942 was in North Africa). Marshall was appalled by this, and effectively entered a sulk about
getting his way that he held for the rest of the war… regardless of the consequences. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">From that point on Marshall appears to have automatically assumed that
Churchill (and the British Chiefs of Staff – he seemed unable to distinguish that the two often differed in thinking), were always trying to manipulate
Roosevelt, and leave him hostage to King. Thereafter he simply refused to
consider any strategic concept, or reaction to changing circumstances, that did
not fit his pre-conceived ideas. General Basil Duke’s description of what was the common attitude of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>all ‘Marshalls’, was pretty
evident.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">As a result his
total contribution to strategic policy for the rest of the war was to pressure
for the approach that a junior Colonel in planning (Eisenhower) had recommended
to him just after Pearl Harbor. Nothing else seemed to enter his thinking, and any alternative that was suggested almost automatically triggered his opposition. He
also showed very little sign of strategic ability beyond the most simplistic…
what has been described as ‘frontal attack by the most direct route with the
most units spread on the widest front possible’. What probably needs to be
added to that is ‘regardless of unnecessary casualties’.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">The strategic low
point came when he used Rooosevelt’s illness towards the end of the war in
Europe as an excuse to ignore the concerns of his supposed Allies
– Churchill and the British Chiefs of Staff, the French, and the many other allied governments who we're providing troops at the front: while letting
Eisenhower play around in a role he was unsuited for – ground forces commander – and largely ignoring his main political duties, and even abandoning most of central Europe to Soviet occupation. The British
campaign to keep Greece out of the Soviet clutches was despite Marshall's opposition,
and he did everything in his power to make sure that no similar efforts were
made in Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia. The physical position of the ‘Iron Curtain’ that
Churchill later described, was decided with Marshall’s very active connivance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Or should we say,
his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">wartime</i> strategic low point was
letting the Soviets run riot in Eastern Europe. His post war
intervention in China has been widely accepted from Chiang Kai-shek's perspective – his ‘cease-fire’ and then gutting of Nationalist China’s capabilities – being a
large part of the direct cause of China, and then much of the rest of East
Asia, falling to Communism over the next bloody 30 years…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">In fact a very good argument can be made (and has been made by many Chinese and others) that Marshall can be held largely responsible for minor things like Communist adventurism in the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the decades of Communist oppression that followed in Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia... should we go on?</span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Marshall’s
selection of leaders wasn’t much to shout about either. Much is made of his
selecting Eisenhower. (I have my reservations about whether Ike was experienced
enough to be a good SAC or ground forces commander, but am still willing to
suggest he was a much better choice to run SHAEF than many of Marshall’s other efforts.) But the list of failures is far longer than the list of successes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Fredendall ("I like that man, he's a fighter" was Marshall's comment),
Dawley, and Lucas are the Marshall beloved failures that everyone recognises.
Much worse failures include J.C.H. Lee (Jesus Christ Himself as his appalled
subordinates referred to him) whose incompetence, and frankly corruption, at
logistics greatly contributed to Germany holding on into 1945. Also Clarke, who
should have got an Iron Cross from a grateful Nazi party for disobeying his
orders at Rome; and such barely competent lightweights as Hodges, whose
poor performance contributed so much to the Germans initial success at the Bulge. I would add Stilwell and MacArthur to his list of 'should have been fired', if he had the guts to take the political flack. It is unclear whether his appointment of Patton, sacking of Patton, then
re-appointment of him at a lower level than his previous subordinates, can be
considered in any way sensible or coherent either! I am sure you can think of many other examples.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">His tactical
thinking wasn’t much better. The entertaining book ‘Dear General’ is the
correspondences between Marshall and Eisenhower over the 3 years Ike was
running campaigns for him. It is notable that Ike’s very humble initial letters
became more strongly worded as he matured in experience, and completely
dismissive (in the politest possible terms) of Marshall’s tactical suggestions
later on. Particularly when Marshall suggested paratroop operations that would
have made the suggested one at Rome or the actual one at Arnhem look like safe
and sensible alternatives! Marshall showed growing signs of not having graduated his tactical
thinking much beyond his interwar training exercises.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">But the real nadir
of his contribution was in his supposed field of excellence – training.
Marshall and McNair between them concocted the appalling and deadly
‘replacement’ system, which ensured that inadequately trained generalists were
dumped into specialist units after months in generic pools with no ongoing training. Many had no clue how to use their own weapons. Casualty rates amongst these replacements were so shocking, that experienced
troops usually didn’t bother learning their names until they had survived a
week or two. Resulting in units of overtired and dispirited veterans being
exhausted and bitter (and quite often deserting to Paris) as their fresh replacements were slaughtered through inexperience. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">One commentator
noted that the German army itself could not have devised a better system for
degrading US forces.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Possibly 20-30% of
all US Army deaths during World War Two can be directly attributed to
Marshall’s failed ‘replacement system’. (And that is before considering the
additional deaths that resulted from the probably lengthening of the war by his
overly simplistic strategy, and his constant refusal to take alternative
opportunities as they arose.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">So it is with some
confidence that we can suggest that Dill’s star rose from failure after Pearl Harbor, but Marshall’s descended slowly into revealing his weaknesses. Fortunately for him,
a descent that only avoided becoming public humiliation due the Germans
collapsing. The war ended before the American public came to realize how
closely Marshall’s policies resembled the unnecessary ‘Lions led by Donkeys’ sacrifices of
troops during the Great War.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">So how do we rate
Marshal and Dill as generals?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Did they make the grade at any level of what I long ago posted as <a href="http://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/essentials-of-generalship.html" target="_blank">'the essentials of generalship'.</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Both had a well
demonstrated leadership capacity at basic levels. Both would have/did make good regimental officers
interwar. Both would have probably made good Brigadiers, and possibly Major
Generals – with strong enough superiors guiding them – had a war turned up early enough. (And had they had the chance to
learn new tactical doctrine to replace the outdated thinking that was too
evident in both of their tactical assessments throughout the war.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">But both seemed to
lack the attributes necessary for Corps or Army command. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Despite Dill actually
commanding a Corps during the Phoney War, his service as CIGS seems to indicate
that he was probably not the right person to maintain ‘grip’ when all around
him was coming apart. Particularly in the heat of the sort of battle that
Brooke excelled in during the French campaign. Frankly, for all his faults, Gort
was probably a more decisive man to make the decision to cut his losses than
Dill would have been. (Though Gort too would have probably gone along with the
Greek adventure, on the belief that the politicians are the boss. It took
someone like Brook to point out that suicide missions are not helpful!)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Marshall had the
strength to say no to things like Greece in 1941, but apparently not the
strategic wisdom to understand that Greece in 1945 was different to Greece in
1941. In fact one looks in vain for any suggestion that he ever let any new information affect his pre-determined viewpoints. Stubborn to a level that makes Churchill look flexible, he actually resembled Ironside far more than any of his fawning biographers should be comfortable with! He never really looked like the right person to command a Corps or Army. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Neither had the
experience or skill to command an Army Group, but would either have made a good
Supreme Allied Commander? Here we are on more interesting ground. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Marshall
would probably have been theoretically better than Eisenhower at SHAEF, because
he would have had no problem delegating a Ground Forces Commander., and sticking to the real job. Having said
that, he also had no recognisable tactical or strategic knowledge of modern
combat conditions, and appalling judgement about subordinates, so parachuting
him into a field command in 1944 might have been disastrous.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Perhaps Dill would
have been better there, but again, the 1941 Greek mistake, let alone his
selection of men like Percival for leadership roles, is not encouraging.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Was either
suitable to be Chief of Staff of their respective armies? Well, no. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Dill understood
the problems, but consistently failed to control things when he was the executive.
Whereas Marshall was all too good at controlling things, he just failed to
understand what he was controlling (and whether he should be controlling it). </span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Both must be considered failures when they served as their armies senior
strategic and planning thinkers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Mind you, both
were supreme administrative bureaucrats. If Marshal had been doing Lee’s job in
the invasion of France (and Patton or Truscott or Eichelberger or any other
real combat general doing Marshall’s), the war would probably have been over by
Christmas 1944!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Frankly Dill and
Marshall were unsurpassed administrative officers. But neither were good
executives.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Their real roles
were administrative support, where they excelled.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Both would almost
certainly have been failures as senior combat generals.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<!--EndFragment--><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">As executive
generals directing strategy, training, and appointing combat leaders, both were
decidedly uninspiring.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-31407684028039417232015-12-25T22:25:00.002-08:002015-12-25T22:25:44.064-08:00The Solution is… European Union/Multiculturalism/Communism… Name your poison!<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
Well, I don't get much time to do quality writing, so I rant instead...)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
Anything can be a good and productive
thing… in moderation. A bit of unity, a bit of multiculturalism, a bit of
socialism, a bit of democracy. But the problem comes when the goal becomes all
encompassing. Too much of anything is… a bad thing.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">It is amusing, and terrifying, to see
successive generations of politicians and theorists fall for successive bad
ideas, which they then defend to the death… long after historical realities have
kicked in to prove that such overly-simplistic guff is in fact
overly-simplistic dangerous guff. Such stupidities have included
Internationalism, European Union, Socialism, Multiculturalism, Communism, and…
Democracy. All overly simplistic solutions, to problems that have been
carefully misread to allow such solutions to seem reasonable.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US">The
European Union for instance, is founded on the ridiculous, and incorrect, 1950’s
assumption that all Europe’s problems can be traced back to Nationalism.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">This was a knee jerk reaction to World War
II, where the problem was supposed to be Fascism, which was supposed to be a Nationalist
version of Socialism (literally the National Socialist Workers Party in the
Nazi case). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">It conveniently ignores the fact that the
Communists were just as territorially aggressive and expansionist – in the name
of ‘internationalism’ – as the fascists were – in the name of nationalism. In
fact Stalin’s deal with Hitler to divide up Eastern Europe under the
Molitov-Ribbentropp pact was what actually started the Second World War. (A
factor swept under the carpet when, at the end of the war, Finland – one of the
victims of Communist aggression in 1940 – was prosecuted for the ‘War Crime’ of
resisting Soviet occupation, by the Soviet Empire that had been expelled from
the League of Nations for its unprovoked invasion of peaceful and democratic
Finland 5 years earlier…)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">So when the delusional Social Democrat
types in the decades after the war were looking for something to blame that
could be phrased in such a way as to hide their share of the guilt: they picked
the term ‘nationalism’ and launched the ‘ever closer union’ concept for Europe
as ‘the one ideal way to end all future troubles’. Possibly the most idealistic
stupidity since… well, since the same type of people launched Communism as ‘the
one ideal way to end all future troubles’ thirty or forty years earlier.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">In fact, so carefully do such people hide
the truth from themselves, that it would probably come as a surprise to them to
learn that European conflict did not start with the modern nation state! <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">You will no doubt be amazed to learn that there
was not ideal peaceful harmony in Europe before the rise of modern Nationalism.
Frankly, Europeans have never needed much excuse to slaughter each other. Some the
reasons over the centuries since the Ancient World have included: forced and
voluntary migration; droughts, floods and famines (most of the above as results
of variants of what we now call ‘climate change’ issues); religious and political
movements; social changes and class civil-warfare; trade issues; international
exploration and colonization and de-colonisation; dynastic conflicts and treaty
obligations; slavery and attempts to end slavery; blatant territory grabs at
other people’s expense; conquests, reconquista’s and ‘liberations’; and plain
simple ‘prestige’ conflicts (such as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins%27_Ear" target="_blank">War of Jenkin’s Ear</a>).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The decision – by people who want to hide
their share of any guilt – to throw all the blame onto something carefully
chosen to exclude them from any blame (and to carefully fit a requirement for a
solution that would require their own preferred world order to save everyone),
is an unfortunately common one in history.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The tendency of such idealogues to then
defend to the death such stupidity, is even more common.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Thus we have Angela Merkel announcing that
‘Germany’ will take all refugees who want to come, and then telling anyone else
in Europe who is unhappy with this idea that European Unity means they have to
accept whatever quota’s her pet European bureaucrats decide to assign. Also, while
we’re at it, that open borders in Europe mean that anyone that Germany does
accept can be immediately encouraged to move to the UK or France or Sweden anyway. Her
defence of such stupidity merely coming down to the European ideal, and to the
concept of nationalism being evil. Therefore anyone who argues her plan is stupid,
an evil racist, and probably a fascist.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Well guess what? Nationalism is going to
save Europe from such stupidity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Unfortunately, because all the Social
Democrat types have spent so long ignoring and belittling such thinking, the
nationalism that the long ignored average voter in Europe is going to turn to
may well be as extreme as the nationalism that the European project was trying
to avoid in the first place. In other word’s Merkel and her idealogues will do
more to bring fascism back into fashion than any number of Beer Hall fanatics.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Which brings us to the problem of
Democracy. The sort of real democracy that European Unionist loonies hate,
because it is expression of common people trying to get their idealogical
rulers to listen to their real world concerns. The sort of democracy that
inevitably leads to dictatorship… (or at least to a different dictatorship than
that of Merkel and the European Union dictats).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Democracy is supposed to be a wonderful
thing, unless of course the majority of your population do not want to go where
the political and chattering classes believe they must take them. In which case
it is something to be ignored, or outflanked. Preferably by non democratic
routes such as the European Union, but if necessary by the simple expedient of
ignoring the electoral result and trying to install someone who fits your
preferences better… see Portugal after the last election.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">So the great ideal of democracy is ignored
by the idealogues, until the electoral swingback gets so extreme that protest
voters start electing people who hate democracy… Extreme parties of the left
and right across Europe come easily to mind, and can be compared with other
popularly elected lashback responses by irritated and frustrated voters<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>– Fascism and Nazism spring to mind.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US">The modern
ideal of Democracy, is founded on the ridiculous, and incorrect, 1700’s
assumption that all Europe’s problems can be traced back to Monarchy.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Thus we get the ‘Revolutions’ in America
and France, where educated and newly politicised chattering classes try to find
a simplistic solution to all the world’s problems. Their solution being to
adopt a system which fits their preferred world order, and seems to give them
an advantage that will allow them to force people into their way of thinking.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Humans being what they are, it didn’t work
of course.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The American Revolution, supposedly about
‘equality for all’ – if you want to fall for idealistic propaganda – was
actually a tax rebellion by Northern states (who also wanted to get rid of the
English governments treaties that kept them out of Indian land), and the
Southern states (who wanted to block the English anti-slavery legislation from
spreading to their nice comfy system). It was never really about equality, and
all the exclusions of people from voting on the basis of colour, race, sex,
religion, immigration status, etc, should have made it clear to anyone that
what was being considered was really an Oligarchy. Similar in fact to the
Ancient Greek and Roman slave based societies, where some special and limited
classes shared rights no one else had.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Actually all ‘successful’ democracies in
history have always been Oligarchies. The 1000 year old ‘Sublime Republic of
Venice’ – on which large parts of the US constitution were based – for
instance, being limited to a certain number of families that had the vote.
Similarly the ‘Republics’ of Ancient Greece or Rome, and modern Switzerland or Israel,
being based on vote by military service – another way of ensuring the voters
might put national interests above selfish ones.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The first few French republics (those
squeezed in around the inevitable dictatorships and emperors that are the
result of such systems) were also based on a limited franchise. In their case
not a race or religion or sex one like the US, but a straight property
qualification that saw a small percentage of both sexes as voters.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Unsurprisingly the Oligarchical Republics
of the 18<sup>th</sup> and 19<sup>th</sup> centuries were some of the most
internally violent (US Slavery, Civil War, Indian Wars, the Terror, multiple revolts and 'communes', Lynchings,
Jim Crow laws, etc), and externally aggressive (Napoleonic Wars, Spanish
–American Wars, ‘Interventions’ in Central America, Occupations of Hawaii,
Philippines, etc) governments in history. Rivaling the Greek and Roman
republics for their aggressive expansionism by land and sea, and certainly
being no less effective than more traditional military (Russia and Germany) or
trade (Britain and Netherlands) expansionist states.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">(And here I would note that the one of the
mitigating factors in the idea that German Nationalism was a problem in WWI,
was that the populist Navy Leagues and Colonial Leagues of the newly
enfranchised voting classes did in fact push Nationalism to dangerous extremes.
The Kaiser was a dangerous loon, but he was a dangerous loon responding to the
fervor of the dregs of the petti bourgeois who had been enfranchised in his
nation, not a man with Napoleonic capabilities in his own right.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Fortunately the idealogues had a solution
to overcome these minor imperfections of limited franchise democracy… universal
franchise.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US">The more
recent concept of Universal Franchise Democracy, is founded on the ridiculous,
and incorrect, early 1900’s assumption that all Europe’s problems can be traced
back to a limited voting Oligarchy.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Clearly if the ‘ruling classes’ in a state
are the rich and powerful – ie, the naturally conservative propertied elements
who make the economy work and provide the productive jobs – then the chattering
classes who want change will need to enfranchise the not rich and not powerful,
so they can ride the wave of demand tor change into their ideal world. In fact
so they can direct it to provide taxpayer funding for non productive jobs…. For
people like them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">It is certainly no accident that the modern
‘ruling class’ is the nouveau-rich chattering classes – and the power base they
have established in the completely unproductive taxpayer supported lawyers and civil servants and
union officials – <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>who lead inevitably to
‘leaders’ who have the right and duty to lecture their stupid populace’s for
not being politically correct enough… People like Merkel, Obama, and the
European Union President. (Go on, name him? He has more practical power to
interfere in his ‘citizens’ lives than either of the other two. Who is he?)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">It is not just the Australian Union
Movement of which we can say ‘they used to consist of the cream of the working
class, now they consist of the dregs of the middle class’. All the petty tyrants
who gorge in the taxpayers trough, and who try and force the ignorant peasants
under their care down the correct path – whether medieval monks selling
indulgences, or modern human rights lawyers banning free speech on issues they
disapprove of – tend to be the dregs. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The dregs, of the intellectual fervor, of
the previous generation, of wrong thinkers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The dregs of any intellectual movement
eventually have to accept that their ideal is hogwash. Even Marxists have
started to admit that after a century of promoting Communism, they can no
longer hide the hideous nature of Communism. Still, they are not going to give
up their world-view just because the evidence against it is so overwhelming
that continued attempts to argue in favour of it become ridiculous. Instead
they move smoothly to supporting another, equally ridiculous ideaology that
they think will support their world view. Say Environmentalism, or
Multiculturalism.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US">Multiculturalism
is founded on the ridiculous, and incorrect, 1970’s assumption that all ‘the
West’s’ problems can be traced back to integrating immigrants into a corrupt
western society, when clearly their pure original society was better. (After
all, that’s why they were trying to move to the West, wasn’t it? To go from a
superior society to an inferior one?)<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Well where’s the point of making integrated
citizens? How can lawyers and social workers (any more than the union officials
of the previous generation), make ever increasing demands on the public purse,
if they can’t create the conflicts that drive the need for their services?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The rule that the amount of social work
needed increases at a faster rate than the number of social workers available
to do it is just the Sir Humphrey Appleby principle of civil service
management. If you want to be overpaid by the taxpayer to do unproductive work,
you have to create a need for the work to be done. This can be best done by
promoting policies that cause the frictions you want to be paid to control.
Simples!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">So we have ever greater education costs
that result in ever decreasing literacy; for the same reason that we have ever
greater family law divorce and settlement processes that result in ever greater
‘family’ violence problems. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The simple fact is that the more incentive
given to taxpayer funded people to do whatever they want to do, the more
problems they help to manufacture that will lead to more funding.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">(Let’s not even talk about climate change
‘scientists’ who need ever greater funding to overcome the fact that their
fancy models do not remotely resemble the facts. If anything was as simple as
‘we can solve the world’s problems by limiting one insignificant natural
chemical by one insignificant %’, then we would not need to pay billions to
explain why none of it adds up. If they could stop defending the indefensible
for a few minutes, we might be able to look at the myriad intersecting issues
that cause real pollution and environmental degradation…. But no, limit carbon
dioxide growth by 1% and all the world’s problems will be solved! Hallelujah!!!)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">So why do the silly chattering classes
fixate on stupid oversimplifications?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Because they are too lazy or limited to
explore wider I suppose.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">But why do they defend them to the death
even when it is proved they are crap?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Well, it would seem, because we let them
make vast amounts from doing so.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Follow the money… that will explain all.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<!--EndFragment--><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">This is even more the case of idealistic
socialists who live on the public purse, than it is for the evil capitalists
they despise.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-27145431122339865812015-11-28T23:06:00.001-08:002015-11-28T23:06:54.134-08:00Fundamentalism (religious or political) is the last refuge of the intellectually incompetent.<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
(Sorry to those who say I don’t post
enough. Afraid I don’t get time to write for the magazines that pay cash, let
alone for my private amusement. But it is – Time for another Rant I think.
Enjoy.)</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Fundamentalism in the modern world has many
forms.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Bad journalists imagine it is restricted to
foaming at the mouth religious fanatics. (And many don't understand that most religious people aren't remotely fundamentalist.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Slightly less bad academics and politicians
concede that there are many forms of fundamentalism, including: radical politicians;
rabid environmentalists; extremist right-to-lifers/euthanasia enthusiasts; foam
flecked global warmers/denialists; anti-smoking fanatics (that last pretty much
includes me by the way); and even natural birth, and ‘people who don’t feed
their baby real breast milk should be publicly shamed’ fascists.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">In fact any position can become a
fundamentalist position, by the simple process of moving it from an ‘I prefer’
statement, to a ‘people should’ statement, to a ‘we must make people do X’ statement.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">There are whole industries of lobbyists in
the world campaigning for governments to ‘make people do X’. Some of them actually believe that they are doing good!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">At it’s simplest level this can lead to a
voluntary vegetarian, who once accepted that most people don’t make the same
choice; becoming an obnoxious Vegan who preaches intolerance of meat eating;
and finishing as a violent lunatic who feels morally justified in poisoning the
food chain elements they don’t approve of. Any intellectual, emotional or moral
position – religious, political, whatever – can become a fundamentalist
position if you believe in it too passionately. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">A fundamentalist position is simply that which
gives you the right, or duty, to walk over other people’s rights.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">In fact the only common thread that unites
fundamentalists of all sorts, is their rock hard belief that their preferred
way of doing things is so obviously to everyone’s benefit, that they should
enforce it on everyone else for their own good.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">It is intellectually very lazy to imagine
that the only version of fundamentalism must be the same as it was in the
sixteenth century when the insular Western European countries with little
exposure to the outside world were fighting religious wars between Roman and
Orthodox and Protestant divisions. Their definition – the Shorter Oxford
definition – ‘Strict adherence to traditional orthodox tenets’ (usually meaning
scripture), was then felt to be specifically opposed to ‘liberalism’ or
‘modernism’.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">In practice of course that converts easily
to Muslim fundamentalism. Fair enough.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">However it converts equally easily to many
other things that are ‘anti-liberal’ and ‘anti-modern’. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">I attended a funeral recently for an
academic who was a proud Marxist his whole life, but who nonetheless always
felt that he was on the side of the angels because he also felt passionate
about ‘Aboriginal separatism’ and ‘Multiculturalism’, and other trendy
anti-liberal and anti-modern movements. Appalling ideological claptrap that
divides and poison societies, and impoverishes the poor benighted ‘victims’ of the
modern world back to the idealised illiteracy and unemployment from which they were
otherwise escaping through the horrors of ‘integration’ into a modern society. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">I have attended other funerals where the Comrades
actually get up and sing the <i>Internationale</i> at the end, and shed genuine tears
about the fact that the appalling mass murdering regimes of the Communist heroes
of their youth still need a bit of ‘perfecting’ before the ‘Revolution’ remakes
the whole world. (Yes they actually still say this stuff, I am not making it
up!)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Of course none of the die-hard Socialists
seem to understand when I point out that their unforgiving (and unforgivable)
extremism is in no way different to that of the Nazi’s (the National Socialist
Workers Party to give it it's full idealist title) or any other version of Fascism. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Lunatic political extremists, whether they
pretend to be Communist or Fascist, or of the supposed Left or of the
theoretical Right (and I still don’t see much difference between them apart form
the quality of their tailors), are just evil. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Even when they imagine they are nobly
campaigning to save us all.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">ESPECIALLY when they imagine they are nobly
campaigning to save us all.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">My occasional writing partner – <a href="http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com.au/" target="_blank">Lorenzo</a> – makes a big
distinction when he talks about the different elements of the Enlightenment. He
points out that there are two types of Enlightenment. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">There is the English style <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Glorious_Revolution" target="_blank">Liberal Enlightenment</a> </i>sometimes called the<i> </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Israel" target="_blank">('moderate' enlightenment according to sceptics like Jonathan Israel)</a>, accepts that people are people, so we can only do the best
we can do to get them to all agree and play happily together.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Then there is the European style <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Era_of_enlightenment" target="_blank">Radical Enlightenment,</a> which believes that the only way to make people play well
together is to change them, by molding them into better people. Into people who
are designed, built, trained, and FORCED, to fit the correct mould.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">If you are a victim of the superficial attractions of the fuzzy idealism of the Radical
Enlightemnment, you probably believe that the state, and its education and
punishment systems, are there to make people fit into a ‘socially desirable’
mould. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">(If so, you are probably very happy with the deterioration of the Australian public school system to the point that political correctness is considered far more important than literacy or numeracy. You probably are appalled that so many parents want to put their children in private schools where they might learn to red and write. You probably campaign loudly against public funding for private schools. I bet you want to make sure no taxpayer money goes to anything that the people who pay taxes might want, but instead only to what reinforces your comfortable ideological preferences... you... you... whoops, time for a cold shower and a lie down I think...)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">If you are such a person, you usually call
yourself by benign titles like ‘socialist’, or a ‘multi-culturalist’; or perhaps
by titles that have gone out of fashion but mean exactly the same sort of state
intervention in people’s lives like ‘Eugenicist’ or ’White Man’s Burden’ worker; or perhaps you even still hang grimly on to the ultimate idealism of sickening movements like Communism
or Fascism. (See any recent European news for samples of both.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">No matter which of these fantasies you are
attached to, you become a dangerous fundamentalist the second you believe that
‘the world would be a better place if everyone thought the same way’.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Or, as the great social commentator of the
modern media – <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joss_Whedon" target="_blank">Joss Whedon</a> – put it, in the immortal word’s of Captian
Reynold’s (in the movie <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_(film)" target="_blank">Serenity</a></i>)…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><i>“Sure as I know anything, I know this. They
will try again… a year from now, ten, they will swing back to the belief that
they can <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_(film)#Themes_and_cultural_allusions" target="_blank">Make People Better</a>…”</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">No matter how many times they fail, or how
appalling the results, 'they' keep believing that their idealistic fantasy just
needs a bit of ‘perfecting’. It is simply beyond their comprehension that you cannot build a stable, or indeed sane, system on Radical Enlightenment
beliefs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The Liberal Enlightenment gave birth to the
dozens of Constitutional Monarchies of the older parts of the British
Commonwealth, or of the Protestant parts of Northern Europe – Scandinavia and
Benelux etc. Countries that, despite their whacky, cobbled together and often
unwritten constitutions, have generally had between two and five centuries of
internal peace and economic development. (Unless attacked or invaded by their Radical
Enlightenment neighbours.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The Radical Enlightenment gave birth to the
– literally – hundreds of ‘Republics’ that tend to break down into political
chaos, dictatorship, civil war, mass murder or genocide of their own people’s,
or just violent attacks on all their neighbours. Usually within twenty years of
being founded. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">From the French Terror to the Napoleonic wars; from the Weimar
Republic to the Nazi state; from the Soviet Socialist Republics of XXX, to the
Muslim Republics of XXX, to almost any post WWII African or Asian republic you
care to name – including most ‘new Commonwealth’ ones; or indeed the interwar
Western European or postwar Eastern European ones. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The four, FOUR, successful republics
out of the hundreds of failures _ that have not been just tiny city states like Singapore – are: Switzerland, Finland, Israel, and Botswana. Three that held together mainly because they were monocultures</span> under constant threat from invaders for most
of their existence, and the third an effective tribal monarchy even if it is not
called one.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">(The United States is the standout weirdo of the modern world… enough English Liberal Enlightenment in its legal structure to keep it
to only a single Civil War – and only 600,000 dead – despite the unstable French
Radical Enlightenment elements in it’s constitution. But if you watch the US Congress – Liberal Enlightenment – and President – Radical Enlightenment – systems in conflict recently it constantly amazes that it works
at all…)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">You cannot build a state purely on Radical
Enlightenment ideals, which is why all such states run in to trouble sooner or
later. Usually much sooner. Which just reinforces why the US hybrid state and other Radical Enlightenment states (even functional Constitutional Monarchy states like Australia that should know better) trying to force
illiterate tribal cultures in Central America and Asia and Africa and – more
recently – the Middle East: to become ‘democratic republics’ has been so woefully
unsuccessful. (And which has also dropped the average survival of modern
‘republics’ to even lower levels, because the ‘imposed’ idealistic republics
are even less successful than the ‘revolutionary’ idealistic ones.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Fundamentalism is not just political
parties however, it is anything, any movement, that leaves no room for debate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Watching once proud Universities completely
give up on the idea of freedom of debate, when they ban an internationally
respected group of free-thinkers from Australian campuses has been very scary. NOT banned for ‘climate
denialism’ you will note, but for merely suggesting that there might be better ways to look
at climate activism than the incredibly, stupidly, simplistic responses: ‘It's
all carbon and only carbon, and nothing else, and there is only one possible
way to reduce that, and there will be no discussion or debate no matter how
much the accumulating evidence shows that all our models are wrong, wrong
wrong…” Very weird fundamentalism. Stupid, dangerous, probably evil,
certainly futile, fundamentalism.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Watching so called ‘Feminists’ loudly
proclaim all the world’s problems as being exclusively the fault of Western White Men, while studiously
referring to the many other repressive cultural practices in the world as 'culturally relevant' is perplexing. When the </span>truly wicked misogynist, slavers and sex exploiters (and sex
slavers) of the Muslim world are referred to as ‘victims', it's incomprehensible.
Stupid, dangerous, definitely evil, certainly futile, fundamentalism.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Watching people who have had a century and
a half of experience of just how appalling and evil Socialist regimes – whether
called Communism or Fascism – are, and how they enslave, impoverish and torture
their own citizens: call for more attempts at the ‘perfect’ socialism, truly
makes you wonder where we could find enough padded cells to lock such
pathetically intellectually lazy loonatics up.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">If years… decades… centuries of historical
evidence proves, PROVES, that you are wrong to keep thinking that this nice
simplistic sounding solution is the obvious way to go… LEARN.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">It is all very well to say that ‘if you are
not a socialist at 20, you don’t have a heart, but if you are still one at 40,
you don’t have a brain’. Children simply do not understand consequences (and
should not get the vote until they are old enough to do so, and can prove they
contribute to the wellbeing of the society… but that’s another post). But
supposed adults who cling to overly simplistic idealistic claptrap because they
are too intellectually limited, or lazy, to see or assess the endless evidence
that they are wrong to believe in such stupidities, are very dangerous. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">If they become fundamentalist believers in this crap, they are
actively evil.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Myself, I am an unashamed Liberal
Enlightenment follower. I think that people, good or bad, are people. We can
attempt the best compromises we can to get them all to play nice. But we have
to accept they are only compromises, and can only be imperfect.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">If you believe that there can be no
compromises, and that there should be no need for compromises, but only the one
true perfect and inevitable solution to every X… then you are a fundamentalist.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">No mater what you think you are aiming for,
you, and concerned, well meaning (and very intellectually lazy) people like
you: are in fact those most responsible for the religious persecution, political
violence, enforced separatism, illiteracy, and empoverishment, that pulls
against the liberal, integrating, and potentially universally uplifting efforts
of the modern world.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<!--EndFragment--><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Or at least, self-righteous smug bastards
like me can believe you are.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-88648788371457805482015-09-19T21:45:00.000-07:002015-09-19T21:45:46.151-07:00The ‘Arab Spring’, 1848, and the 30 Years War/s...<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
When journalists were going nuts a few
years ago about the wonders of the wave of ‘revolutions’ that they decided to
refer to as an ‘Arab Spring’, I was reminded how few modern academics, let
alone journalists, have any understanding of history. None of the political
analysts or professional pundits seemed to have much more of a clue about how
things would INEVITABLY turn out, than babes in a wood.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Which is ridiculous, because you would
imagine that anyone with a pretense of being worth consulting might have at least
a clue that there might be historical parallels worth considering.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Frankly it is terrifying that our modern
‘chattering classes’ honestly seem to imagine that they are above being able to
learn anything from history.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">1848 of course saw a wave of ‘revolutions’
all across Europe, which many people at the time hailed as the inevitable
downfall of the ancient regimes, and the prelude of the rise of true modern
democracy. How sweet. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">In fact, of course, the revolutions led to
a re-imposition of the ancient regimes, or much worse dictatorships: often with
harder edges to prevent such things happening again. In fact it can be credibly
argued that the results of this wave of revolutions was to slow down the democratization
of Europe by at least 50 years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">I suspect the same thing will result from
the Arab Spring.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">‘Revolutions’ tend to kick off way before
the society as a whole is really ready for them. Usually as pre-emptive
takeover attempts by the newly educated middle class ‘intelligentsia’, (or
chattering class as we would call them, or ‘twitteratti’ as I have recently
heard the political ‘pundits’ ruthlessly described). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Unsurprisingly these newly graduated minor
functionaries, petty civil servants, and junior lawyers, want more say in the
power structure of the state than the traditional ruling class has previously
allowed them. Unsurprisingly – I suppose – they want it immediately… Or as
Billy Connelly said in a skit, “We want it now, we want it yesterday, we want
to control half of that, most of that, f….ing ALL of that, and stay awake,
because tomorrow the demands will change!”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The problem with the proto middle classes
jumping the gun and trying to impose their idealized version of democracy
before the working class (read average voter) is even half way down the trail
to a similar level of literacy and political interest and philosophical
conceptualization: is that the resulting mad theories are far too complex for
the voters, and NO imagined safe-guard can stand up to the combined ignorance
and misunderstanding of the newly enfranchised. The result is, absolutely
inevitably, a dictatorship. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Either one of the theoretical loony models
is seized by a corrupt power seeker ‘for the good of the people’, and away we
go to a Mussolini, or a Stalin, or a Franko, or a Goddafi, or a Castro, or a…
well the list would go to a couple of hundred in the last century. Or worse, it
is seized by the much more restricted number of ‘genuine believer’ nutters:
like the Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell, who (like Hitler, Petain and Mao)
honestly believed that the only way to give the people the government they
deserved was “to rule myself!”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Please note that it IS possible to have a
Res Publica – by the people – government, but only as long as it is by the
‘deserving’ few. The worst excesses of these proto-democracies can be undercut
by an extreme limiting of the franchise – preferably to an effective oligarchy
of voters narrow enough to be more self-interested in keeping control against
the uneducated and undisciplines rule of the genuine majority, but this is hard
to achieve. The Serene Republic of Venice achieved it for almost a thousand
years by limiting the franchise to the great and the good families, and the
early United States managed to hold it together for about 90 years by limiting
it by racial profiling as well as property franchise… but note that both were,
like all the Greek and Roman republics, slave based societies: so their claims
to be genuine democracies are hopelessly confused to anyone with a consistent or
comprehensible ideological viewpoint. In their case ‘the people’ simply meant,
the deserving few that we will allow to vote.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">This limiting of the franchise to the
deserving actually continues in very successful – one could even say the ONLY
successful – republics o the modern world. The ancient Greek and Roman
franchises were honestly based on ‘those who contribute get a say’.
Contribution a that time being buying the expensive armour yourself, putting in
the training time, and taking the risk in the front lines of battle: to prove
you put the good of the state and your fellow citizens above your own
interests. (Though it is notable that their Republics almost instantly
graduated to imperialistic and aggressive expansion, which pretty quickly made
republican government unworkable, and inevitably led to such champions of
democracy as Alexander the Great and Julius Ceasar.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The only long term successful modern
Republic – Switzerland – still has compulsory military service; as does Israel,
the only successful democracy ever established in the Middle East.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The other ways to limit the franchise –
Like the first (1770’s), second (1860’s) and third (1880’s) American attempts
of a franchise limited by race/property; or the first (1790’s), second (1820’s)
or third (1860’s) French attempts at a property based franchise (which often saw
as few as 20% of people with a vote): were actually much less successful than
the equivalent slow Westminster style expansions of the franchise under a
developing constitutional monarchy. (No Western Westminster system state has
ever had a coup, let alone a civil war.) France has had 5 republics, 3
monarchies and 2 emperors in less than 200 years; and the United States has
similarly run through several major reformations of their race/property
franchise system since their – 600,000 dead – little debate about their system.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">(The American comparison with France is
amusing. The first American republic was smashed by the Confederate Defection;
the second was an anti-democratic imposition on the South – with no voting
rights for Confederate ‘activists’ – after the Confederacy War of Independence
was crushed; the third ‘republic’ was when the white southerners were
re-enfranchised and promptly disenfranchised the blacks who had been the only
voters in the south for the previous 20 years – and whose elected black
representatives had not been allowed in the front door or the dining rooms of
Congress; the fourth republic… well you get the idea. The US system, with all
its defectioins, jumps and retreats, simply can’t be called a continuously
expanding development the way Westminster systems are.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Which is all a round about way of pointing
out that the ‘republics’ in the Middle East, and particularly in the Arab and
Muslim world, simply cannot work.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The absolutely vital elements of a
successful democratic component of government (note – component of a system,
not the entire system): is that there be a literate population; a free and
enquiring press; a well developed and just rule of law; and a tradition of give
and take being acceptable to the society.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Tribal societies have none of these things.
That is why democracies have consistently failed in African countries where
tribalism is still the most important element. (In fact politics in some of
these places is still largely a competition between which tribal groups served
in the imperial militaries, versus which served in the imperial civil services.
With very bloody competition between the two.) The fact that illiteracy is
rampant; free presses almost non-existent; and the rule of law where judges are
not beholden to tribal interests, or simply threats, doesn’t exist: makes
democracy impossible to sustain.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Muslim culture has none of these things. A
system where a woman’s evidence in court is one third of a man’s – and
dhimmitude is recognized even if slavery officially isn’t – is unlikely to have
these things. And for literacy, free press, or rule of law, see Africa, but
doubled.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">It is also possible to suggest that without
a clear understanding of the logic of natural laws, you can’t have a democracy.
The fact that Muslim scholarship specifically rejects natural law on the basis
that Allah can cause anything, so there are no ‘natural laws’, means you cannot
have these things. The reason the Muslim world lost its scientific supremacy of
the 11<sup>th</sup> and 12<sup>th</sup> centuries relates specifically to their
decision to turn their back on empirical evidence. Without that basic
understanding, I do not believe democracy is possible. (In fact that basic
approach helps explain why democracy is actually anathema to good Muslims, and
why Boko Haram literally means ‘Western education is evil’!)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">So the concept that an ‘Arab Spring’ could
work in the Middle East is a sad indictment on the Western media and
‘intelligentsia’s’ failed understanding about how democracy works.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">In fact the entire deluded Western project
of attempting to impose ‘republics’ on tribal societies as part of
post-colonialism ,is an indictment on the western fantasy that republics are
workable, let alone good things.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Let’s face it, no western republic, even in
the most educated, literate, and rule of law abiding parts of the Anglosphere,
has survived a first century without a collapse and or bloody civil war. The
most ‘successful’ Western republics have included the American (see above),
French (see above), Weimar (heard of the popularly elected Adolf Hitler?),
Italian (50 governments in 50 years), Greek (how’s that brilliant financial planning
going?) and Polish (are they on their 3<sup>rd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, or 5<sup>th</sup>?).
Those are the good ones. 90% of all republics ever founded in Europe, South America,
Asia, Africa, or the Middle East, have collapsed into dictatorship, civil war,
mass murder, or ethnic cleansing, within 20 years of being set up.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">And that’s what we thought would work in
the Middle East?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">To be fair, the British set up monarchies,
in the hope that they would become constitutional monarchies (which were their experience of something that might actually get somewhere). Jordan seems to
be succeeding; the Gulf states are so successful few want to change; and Egypt
was derailed by the Soviets and Americans playing Cold War games. The French
tried to set up republics (god knows why, their's and never worked) in Syria, Lebanon, Tunisia, and other places. In the
words of Dr Phil, ‘How’s that working out for you?’. The Americans successfully
undermined the Egyptian and Iranian attempts to get constitutional monarchies
off the ground, and celebrated the resulting republics... very briefly. The second in particular no longer looks a very clever move.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The latest American attempts to force
republics on Afghanistan and Iraq have been absolute disasters. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Afghanistan might, might… have worked if
the Americans had understood that such a tribalised society required a House of
Lords of all the powerful tribal leaders and major clerics, to balance and
elected representatives. (But of course it would still need some sort of monarch to make it work, because, as Machiavelli pointed out, you need 3 powers in balance, so any two can stop the third from dominating!).) Or they could just have a system where the two major
components completely ignore each other while they compete for control , and
leave an easy opening for the return of the Taliban. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Iraq might, might… have worked with a
federal system of at least a dozen ethnically based states that each had two
representatives to a senate that had the right to block the excesses of an
elected house where a 50% majority could get revenge on everyone else for every
slight since the death of the prophet. Or they could go for a more simplistic
version of a republic, and get what they inevitably got.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Why couldn’t the Americans have kept their
big fat ideologies out of it, as they largely did after the first Gulf War. Kuwait
is no great shining beacon, but it doesn’t suffer from the American idealism
that lead to Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and Iran!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Which brings us to the fundamental problem.
The Western media and intelligentsia don’t seem to have a clue that the issues
in the Middle East are not related to competing political ideologies, but to
competing religious tribalism.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The ongoing conflicts throughout the
region, and in other parts of the world, are not about democracy versus
monarchy; or fascism versus communism; or imperialism versus freedom. Or indeed any of
the other childish ideologies Western journalists fell in love with during
their undergraduate post modernist deconstructionalist courses by failed ex-Trotsky’s, who simply can’t accept that the last century has proven how appalling and basically
evil their over-simplistic ideologies are. (Yes Comrade Corbyn, that’s you and
your gushing twitteratti I am slamming!)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">In fact the problem in the Muslim world is
that they are entering the third decade of the Muslim Civil War. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The Sunni’s and Shia’s are at about the
point that the Roman Catholic’s and the Protestants were at in Europe in the
1620’s to 30’s, and it is only going to get worse. That war was ideaological,
and paid very little attention to national boundaries. This one is the same.
The Christian 30 Years War is about to be repeated in a Muslim civil war, and
30 years might be an optimistic number.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Interestingly the Christian’s split over 3
or four centuries, into Orthodox and Roman, then split again into Albigensian
and Protestant etc. Eventually it got to the point, after 14 or 15 centuries of
slow development, that major conflict broke out. Is it co-incidence that the
Muslims have followed a similar path? Is it inevitable that after 14 or 15
centuries of existence, they too are having a major internal conflict? Or is it
just that a century of renewed prosperity and development (largely brought on
by Western intrusion into their secular affairs) has given them the
semi-educated proto middle class who traditionally stir up revolutionary stuff
they don’t understand?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Whatever the reasons, stupid Westerner’s
are eventually going to have to admit to a few of realities.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">No matter how much you
fantisise about the functionality of republics and democracy, you can’t impose
systems that don’t work in places that don’t have the necessary pre-requisites.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">No matter how much literacy or
free press you do manage to push in, you can’t impose rule of law and
understanding of natural law on societies that have very specifically rejected
such concepts for 8 or 9 centuries.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">No matter how much your
secularist ideologies (developed from safely behind 2 millennium of Christian
teaching that accepts rule of law and natural law) is offended, you cannot
expect a similar acceptance from people whose cultural development of such
beliefs is several centuries behind the West.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">No matter what you want to
believe, the Muslim civil war is happening.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<!--EndFragment--><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Let’s hope we really are at least half way
through the 30 years…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Nigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.com8