Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle of Hong Kong

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Now that everyone has a chance to make sure all the posts are here.

    I shall continue. I am NOT argueing that Allied defence plans were realistic. History proved just how inadequate those plans were. What I am stating outfront and outright is that their plans fit with their thinking. ANZAC brought up MacArthur. He is perhaps the best example of the thinking at this time. No one makes General without some sort of military education and in case of Mac, he was also a combat veteran.

    Did his plans make sense? To him, it did and reading up, he truly had confidence in his plans. All sides knew that war with Japan was coming but the Allies assumed it would be the US taking the lead or at the very least, they could have held the initial thrust. That confidence was wide and while a large part was hubris, a larger part was simply Allied military thought did not keep up with Axis military thought, let alone experience. However, that does not mean that Allied Officers were less dedicated to their art nor did they ignored their own education and training.

    Anzac, your point about the US deciding on Europe failed on one point. Had Hitler not declared war, Japan would have received the full blunt of the American military machine.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      Anzac, your point about the US deciding on Europe failed on one point. Had Hitler not declared war, Japan would have received the full blunt of the American military machine.
      Not sure that 'what if' invalidates anything OoE.

      The reason that Japan could not have received the full brunt of the American military machine was that the Japanese obliterated the US Pacific fleet at PH, meaning the US wouldn't be at peak strength for about eighteen months or so.

      And I think it's safe to say the US would be up to their necks in the ETO well before then.

      And unfortunately that means the end of HK, Singapore & Manila.

      But 'what if''s' are interesting, guess a 'what if' thread on WW2 would be the way to go, the one recently on Stalin attacking the Japanese if he lost the war to the Germans was a good example.

      Personally I think the most interesting 'what if' is what if the Japanese didn't attack PH or any US bases & did their best to placate the Americans while gobbling up European colonies.

      Could have been a bit scary down here.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Merlin View Post
        This is about Battle of Hong Kong against the Japanese? I was there. But I was only a small child at that time.

        But somehow I remember seeing airfights across the Hong Kong harbour, and planes being shot down with dark smoke billowing behind. I also remember seeing a vessel in harbour being bombed until it overturned. It remained overturned in the harbour for a few years after the War.

        These incidents must be near 1945, perhaps to try to drive the Japanese away, not the battle in 1941.
        I checked on the dates. It should be earlier than 1945.

        The US forces in the Philippines or nearby were trying to bomb the Japanese vesels in the harbour and the naval dockyard originally built, for some reason, right next to the Central district of Hong Kong.
        Last edited by Merlin; 23 Nov 09,, 02:01.

        Comment


        • #64
          Merlin

          Thanks for sharing.
          “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

          Comment


          • #65
            This naval dockyard has since been moved and the site has since been developed into a prime harbour-front district. It is called 'Admiralty' to remind people of its past.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Merlin View Post
              This naval dockyard has since been moved and the site has since been developed into a prime harbour-front district. It is called 'Admiralty' to remind people of its past.
              Been there a few times when I was a kid, the HSBC funded development was very nice.
              “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by ANZAC View Post
                And I think it's safe to say the US would be up to their necks in the ETO well before then.
                Are you serious? Had Hitler not declared war, do you actually think FDR got the political clout to go Europe first? Actually, let me rephrase, do you actually think FDR got the political clout to declare war on Germany without Hitler declaring war first?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  Are you serious? Had Hitler not declared war, do you actually think FDR got the political clout to go Europe first? Actually, let me rephrase, do you actually think FDR got the political clout to declare war on Germany without Hitler declaring war first?

                  Hell, no. Hitler cut his own throat by declaring war on a country that was out of his "reach".

                  (My own civilian/historian opinion, mind you).

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Gin Drinkers Line.

                    Wouldn't the defense of that line have been necessary in order to prevent observed fire falling on Kowloon, Victoria, and Hong Kong harbour?

                    If the harbour were subject to accurate bombardment, Hong Kong's value as a base would be negligible in any event, and besides it would be hard to resupply or reinforce the garrison.


                    Re: German declaration of war on US. The Germans knew that it was undesirable to go to war with the US, but by mid-late 1941 there was some logic to their declaration of war.

                    By 1941 American naval forces were already clashing with German submarines in their self-declared "Neutrality Zone," which extended halfway across the Atlantic Ocean.

                    Without any declaration of war, and with very little deployment of US forces, Roosevelt was considerably reducing the effectiveness of the German blockade of the UK--simply by exploiting the German reluctance to go to war.

                    Meanwhile, shipping laden with supplies for Britain were sailing with lights ablaze up and down the US Atlantic seaboard, and convoys organized at leisure in US waters.

                    Raeder and Doenitz were chafing for a declaration of war on the USA. They argued:

                    1. A real state of hostilities already existed.
                    2. The USA was already massively rearming--why allow the USA to prepare at leisure for their eventual entry into the war? It was obvious that the USA and Britain were already allies (Atlantic Charter, Destroyers-for-bases, Lend-Lease). "They're coming for us no matter what, so let's at least get some good licks in now" would be the line of thought.
                    3. Since Germany needed to win the war within the next couple of years, why not seek to maximize the near-term effectiveness of the submarine war? Even if it proved impossible to knock out Britain with a blockade, an effective submarine war would at least retard the development of a Western Allied threat.
                    4. Once Japan was at war, that would put more strain on US naval resources and reduce the relative near-term penalty Germany would pay for belligerency.

                    Remember that Germany's most important front, and best chance to win, was against the USSR. If the USSR collapsed, then defending the Western seaboard of Europe against the Anglo-Americans would be a manageable problem (imagine the D-Day prospects if the Germans had a dozen more armoured divisions, and two more air fleets, deployed in France).

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      Are you serious? Had Hitler not declared war, do you actually think FDR got the political clout to go Europe first? Actually, let me rephrase, do you actually think FDR got the political clout to declare war on Germany without Hitler declaring war first?
                      Are you suggesting in your 'what if' that until Hitler declared war on the US, the Americans would not enter the war in the ETO?

                      Originally posted by cape_royds View Post
                      Re: Gin Drinkers Line.

                      Wouldn't the defense of that line have been necessary in order to prevent observed fire falling on Kowloon, Victoria, and Hong Kong harbour?

                      If the harbour were subject to accurate bombardment, Hong Kong's value as a base would be negligible in any event, and besides it would be hard to resupply or reinforce the garrison.

                      And there was another very important reason to defend the line.
                      HK's main water reservoirs were situated in Kowloon, lose them & HK would soon have a serious water problem.

                      The Brits, decided that the Gin Drinkers Line would be their mini Maginot line in the East.
                      Although considerable time & money was spent on it, a mini Maginot line it wasn't, & the Japanese rapidly over ran it.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Harper to pay tribute to Canadian war dead in Hong Kong, Korea; visits DMZ

                        (CP) – 7 hours ago

                        HONG KONG — Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Asian adventure will take on a decidedly military air starting Sunday, a change from the focus on diplomacy and human rights during his four-day visit to mainland China.

                        The prime minister is scheduled to take part in a ceremony at Sai Wan War Cemetery in Hong Kong, where 283 Canadian soldiers lay buried.

                        On Monday he'll visit demilitarized zone between the two Koreas, making a visit to the Bridge of No Return.

                        The ominous name came about because prisoners of war who voluntarily chose to go to North Korea instead of staying in the South would be unable to return.

                        Harper is also scheduled to lay a wreath at the Seoul National Cemetery to honour Canadians killed during the Korean war.

                        Squeezed in between the two events, Harper will deliver a speech to the South Korean national assembly, the first Canadian prime minister to do so.

                        Harper's visit to China brought some concrete results, particularly a deal intended to boost Chinese tourism to Canada, but will be most remembered for rebuke from the Chinese premier for letting relations deteriorate.
                        The Canadian Press: Harper to pay tribute to Canadian war dead in Hong Kong, Korea; visits DMZ
                        Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
                        “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by ANZAC View Post
                          Are you suggesting in your 'what if' that until Hitler declared war on the US, the Americans would not enter the war in the ETO?
                          At the very least, FDR could not have commited the majority response to the ETO. I thought you were the historian.

                          Originally posted by ANZAC View Post
                          And there was another very important reason to defend the line.
                          HK's main water reservoirs were situated in Kowloon, lose them & HK would soon have a serious water problem.
                          Did you even read the plan? TWENTY-NINE DAYS!

                          Originally posted by ANZAC View Post
                          The Brits, decided that the Gin Drinkers Line would be their mini Maginot line in the East.
                          Although considerable time & money was spent on it, a mini Maginot line it wasn't, & the Japanese rapidly over ran it.
                          Again, the plan was TWENTY-NINE DAYS. How many times do I have to say this. TWENTY-NINE DAYS. Get it through your head. TWENTY-NINE DAYS.

                          The entire point was NOT a succesful defence but cause enough damage that Japan would lose the war before it really began. That the fact that the Brits misread the IJE does NOT dispelled the fact that the Defence of Hong Kong reflected the British military thinking of the time.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            At the very least, FDR could not have commited the majority response to the ETO. I thought you were the historian.
                            ........ ... Historian, when did I claim to be an historian?

                            Besides it doesn't take an historian to know where the U.S stood on the matter, all I can do is repeat what I posted before on the US RAINBOW war plans on post 57.....

                            Rainbow


                            The US Joint Chiefs of staff, including Marshall & Stark, plus President Roosevelt all had the same view on Europe vs the Pacific, it was Europe first..........

                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post

                            Again, the plan was TWENTY-NINE DAYS. How many times do I have to say this. TWENTY-NINE DAYS. Get it through your head. TWENTY-NINE DAYS.

                            The entire point was NOT a succesful defence but cause enough damage that Japan would lose the war before it really began. That the fact that the Brits misread the IJE does NOT dispelled the fact that the Defence of Hong Kong reflected the British military thinking of the time.
                            Are you seriousily trying to tell me that 'if' HK was held for TWENTY-NINE DAYS instead of the eighteen days that they actually held out, that, in your words.....'it would cause enough damage that Japan would lose the war before it really began'???

                            BTW, If you could provide a link to this 29 day plan/idea it would be appreciated.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X