Winter 2008 Free

A quarterly newsletter devoted to AWORLD AT WAR, GMT Games’ strategic simulation of II. To order AWAW, go to www.gmtgames.com or phone 1-800-523-6111. ALTERNATE WARS A Review of the Literature by Bruce Harper

Introduction technical, institutional, political and psychological reasons, they feel the war could not have unfolded in We all play A WORLD AT WAR and hopefully enjoy any way other than the way it did. Needless to say, from the challenges and excitement of a complex and the game design point of view, this view has to be demanding game. While doing so, however, we are also rejected, as otherwise any deviation from history is generating alternate histories of World War II, with each merely a flight of fancy, rather than a realistic game following a different path. Some games are possibility which didn’t happen to materialize. From the “historical”, in the sense of roughly following the course historical point of view, of course, it is risky to argue of the real war (although with many tactical that “only what happened could have happened”, while differences), while others diverge from history early on, at the same time being unable to predict what will and result in wars which can scarcely be imagined. happen. Other forces must be at work, besides the ones The theme “what might have been” in relation to the used by historians to explain what happened after the Second World War has intrigued many authors, and has fact. generated a substantial body of literature. In this issue of Other historians accept this and are more ULTRA, for a change of pace, I will review some of this adventuresome, recognizing that the participants in the literature, which many A WORLD AT WAR players may war had choices, on the strategic, operational and find interesting. Needless to say, it’s impossible to even tactical levels. Once this is accepted, there are many try to cover all the books, essays and articles which have possibilities which can be discussed, just as in a chess been written on this subject. game there are many variations in the notes which never The writings on this subject fall into several appear on the board, except by influencing the moves categories: which were actually made. Most commonly, these take the form of opportunities missed, although it is again Military Speculations important to remember that we know more now than did At one end of the spectrum are analyses and the participants in the actual war – including what went speculations by military historians as to how the wrong. The apologetic “it seemed like a good idea at the participants in the war might have “improved their time” has some validity to it, as many actions taken play”. These cover a wide range of topics and reveal a during the war really did seem like good ideas, and are great deal about the authors. only questioned now because, for one reason or another, Some historians adopt a deterministic, almost they didn’t work. fatalistic, approach to the history of the war. For But, as every A WORLD AT WAR player knows,

Alternative Wars A Review of the Literature...... Front Cover Fiction ...... 15 By Bruce Harper By Bruce Harper Military Speculations...... 4 What About Harry?...... 16 By Bruce Harper By Bruce Harper Counterfactual Histories ...... 11 By Bruce Harper Next Issue: Ground Tactics 2 Winter 2008 there is another factor beside player choices which survived, some evolved into intelligent beings, and man sends the game down different paths. That factor is evolved as well (the name of the book escapes me, chance, which many feel plays an important role in which to me indicates that the concept did not history as well. necessarily result in a work of lasting value...) As mentioned, counterfactual histories depend to a Counterfactual histories considerable extent on the premise that history is The term “counterfactual” in relation to history was determined by key events. The opposing view is that coined fairly recently, and is used to refer to the analysis history is more like a broad, flowing river, which will of unrealized historical possibilities. Its premise is that overcome obstacles and go wherever it is going, the flow of events often depends on key, and sometimes regardless of specific events, or specific people. This seemingly insignificant, events which, had they not has given rise to the debate as to whether great men or occurred or had they occurred differently, would have women create history, or whether history creates them. changed everything that follows. Would there have been a Second World War without An example arises out of the generally accepted Hitler? Some argue no, but others would say that if it view that the extinction of the dinosaurs was caused, hadn’t been Hitler it would have been someone else, as either entirely or largely, by an asteroid hitting the earth the explosive material awaited only a match to set it off. 65 million years ago. The dinosaurs were unable to This is certainly the view that many historians take of survive the catastrophe (bad luck for them), but the . smaller mammals did (good luck for us). The term It is easy to see why historians tend to the view that “luck” is used loosely in this context – scholars use the single events are less important in shaping history than more precise term “contingencies”. But the social, economic and other larger forces. Otherwise counterfactual is easy to postulate. If the asteroid misses history becomes a series of flukes, and can scarcely be earth, the dinosaurs survive, and what then of humans? explained at all. “Counterfactuals” are therefore treated On the one hand, it is easy to dismiss such existential somewhat dismissively by many historians, and the speculations as pointless, but the possibility was no less literature in this area contains many disclaimers. The real because “things are what they are”. But there are view that “only what happened could have happened” is philosophical implications to the counterfactual addressed by the concept of “second order (including that mankind is not entitled to rule and counterfactuals”, which postulate “correcting” events destroy the earth, but instead should treasure its lucky which take history back to a more familiar path. find). And the idea is sufficiently interesting that All these concepts are found in A WORLD AT WAR, someone in fact did write a fairly lengthy novel based which provides for countless counterfactual events, on the premise that the asteroid missed, the dinosaurs while at the same time assuming historical trends (most notably the expansion of the Allied economies and force

EDITOR: Bruce Harper pools) which operate as second order counterfactuals. ASSOCIATE EDITORS,ARTICLE DEVELOPMENT: Markus Kässbohrer, The development of these concepts in the game tended Ed Schoenfeld, Eric Thobaben to predate the more scholarly approaches and, as we will PROOFREADERS: Bryan Brinkman, Todd Dunnavant, Tim Schroeder BUSINESS MANAGER: Maurice Buttazoni see, often may lead to more credible results. In short, the ULTRA BOARD: Bruce Harper, Don Moody, Eric Thobaben, Markus game may be a better engine for generating Kässbohrer, Mike Crowe, Vic Hogen. counterfactual histories than are scholars. Still, it is ULTRA would like to express its gratitude to GMT Games and ULTRA Publications without whose cooperation and support this newsletter interesting to compare the two. would not be possible. ULTRA is available at no charge to all A WORLD AT WAR players either Fiction by direct e-mail or from the website www.aworldatwar.com. Fiction, or at times , might be termed a The entire contents of this issue are copyright 2007 by ULTRA Publications. All rights are reserved. No part of ULTRA may be more extreme type of “counterfactual” analysis – if any reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by analysis is involved at all. A number of fiction writers any means electronic, mechanical or otherwise without the prior written permission of ULTRA Publications, other than for non-commercial have used an Axis victory in World War II as the purposes and the promotion and play of A WORLD AT WAR. Published premise for their works. The most common theme of opinions are solely those of the authors. these books is the exploration of absolute, AWORLD AT WAR is available from GMT Games, www.gmtgames.com institutionalized evil, as a reminder to us what might Tel. 1-800-523-6111. have, and perhaps may yet, be. A more subtle theme Winter 2008 3 also emerges in some of these novels – a discussion of Will it help my play? how one can survive in the type of world which would have resulted from a German conquest of Europe or the This is an interesting question. The answer depends world. largely on whether you trust the game (and the game With topics of such weight to confront, fiction designer!) to realistically represent the possibilities that writers are usually not unduly concerned with just how were open to the various warring powers. the Axis achieve the victories necessary for the Certainly this issue of ULTRA will not directly unfolding of the plot. The Axis victory is often a matter elevate the level of your play in the same way as an of historical record, predating the events of the novel by issue devoted to, say, the intricacies of the attrition rules many years. Because of this, the and how attritions can be most effectively conducted aspects in fiction is usually fairly vague and often (which I think would be a great topic for an issue, “unrealistic” – if one can use that term in this context! incidentally). However, A WORLD AT WAR is also a strategic level game which is supposed to be based on Why the Axis? history, and it stands to reason that a familiarity with the literature on the subject of alternate and counter-factual The literature in all these categories tends to focus on histories may benefit your play, although the case may the missed opportunities for the Axis, rather than those be stronger that a familiarity with A WORLD AT WAR for the Allies. There are several explanations for this. would benefit authors in this area even more! Firstly, as we know, the Allies did in fact win the Be that as it may, A WORLD AT WAR players have to Second World War, and any speculation as to other make some strategic decisions almost every turn, and possibilities for the Allies can only amount to variations also have to plan for and make grand strategic decisions on a theme. But the Axis lost, and because the effect of at key moments in the game. Some players may find an Axis victory would have been so great (and so that this issue of ULTRA expands their horizons and instructive, in moral terms), this is a tempting area to gets them thinking in unconventional directions. explore. Secondly, the Axis seemingly let victory slip through References their fingers. The Germans achieved successes of which they could only dream in the First World War, and this While I certainly know how to cite legal decisions, comparison alone made an Axis victory seem to be a it’s been a long time since I’ve cited books. I diligently very real possibility. It certainly was at the time, and checked a style guide, then decided to ignore what it after the Allied victory it was difficult not to ask, not so suggested, since this is a gaming newsletter, not a much “how could the Axis have won?”, but rather, dissertation. The goal is to help readers find the books “how could they have failed to win?” being discussed, so with that in mind I used the A cynic would add to this the natural human following approach, when I had the required tendency to inflate the threat from a defeated opponent, information: as a way of increasing one’s own accomplishments.  Title of the book (in italics); Muhammad Ali, the boxer, was a master of this. Before  Author (first name, then last name); a fight he would ridicule his opponent, in order to throw him off his game and unnerve him. After the fight,  Place of publication; though, he would have nothing but good things to say  Publisher; about his opponent (“I’ve never fought someone who hit  Date of publication; that hard...”; “I can’t believe the punches he could take...”; and so on). Revisionist historians have attacked  Number of pages. these views, and have argued that the Axis never had a Where references are made to specific chapters or chance to win World War II, and the amazing thing was essays in a book, this is indicated in the subsequent text. that they kept it going as long as they did. I have included the number of pages, which is In any case, many people have found this to be an unusual, so that readers know what they might be interesting topic, and A WORLD AT WAR players getting into if they pursue the matter by reading the presumably will too. Otherwise this issue of ULTRA book in question. will have misfired! 4 Winter 2008

MILITARY SPECULATIONS How Could the Outcome of World War II have been Different? by Bruce Harper

A number of books have been published critiquing 2. Hitler was also monstrous and insane, and his the performance of the political and military leaders in basic policies of genocidal expansion and race World War II. In the pages that follow, I consider war were irrational and led to fatal strategic what I hope are representative samples of the decisions. literature, which analyze the issues from a variety of 3. Had Germany taken advantage of its strong different perspectives, some of which may prove at position after the collapse of France by following least of interest, if not of some value, to A WORLD AT an “indirect strategy” of attacking weakness, the WAR players. Axis could have conquered the Middle East and secured its oil supplies. 4. This would have created an empire which “not only would have been unassailable from the outside, but would have put [Hitler] into the position, in time, to conquer the world”. Let’s examine these assumptions. The first two are seldom disputed and A WORLD AT WAR assumes the first to be true (although GATHERING STORM will allow players to contest this) and ignores the second, opting to hard-wire the Axis war aims into the game. On this note, the various tension tables, which always lead to the eventual outbreak of war between the Axis and Allied powers, represent the Allied reaction to the Axis (and especially German) expansionist and racial policies. The third assumption is open to question. The author assumes that four German armor divisions (of the twenty available, “none being used” prior to the How Hitler could have won World War II. Bevin attack on Russia) would have been sufficient to Alexander, New York, Three Rivers Press, 2000 (337 capture the Suez canal, which would in turn have pages). collapsed the Middle East and the Balkans, forced This might be considered a classic (or perhaps Turkey to align with the Axis, and so on. While this typical) exploration of the subject. The basic thesis of might well have been the outcome of a Mediterranean the author, an “acclaimed military historian” and the campaign, it is much easier to ignore logistics when “author of five books on military history”, is evident writing about the war than it was while fighting it! In from the subtitle of the book: “The Fatal Errors That AWORLD AT WAR itself, Axis players are generally Led to Nazi Defeat”. In Alexander’s opinion, the war able to overcome these logistical issues more easily was Hitler’s to lose once France fell, and lose it he than might have been the case in reality. did. It is the fourth assumption which is more In the broadest terms, Alexander’s analysis is as questionable. Even had the Axis achieved all they follows: might have hoped for in the Middle East, would both 1. Hitler was a skilled politician and strategist, who Russia and the United States have stood by idly? The “played perfectly” from the moment he took author assumes so, but the game does not. In reality, power until the attack on France in 1940. the Soviets were reorganizing and re-equipping their Winter 2008 5 armies, while the U.S. had already embarked upon a investment, and in any case additional infantry in massive military build up. Russia usually won’t be decisive. Activating the The Mediterranean option (or, when followed by a Ukraine as a German ally is another component of the 1942 attack on Russia, the “Struckman vise”, in A “liberation” strategy, but the extra Ukrainian infantry WORLD AT WAR terms) is a favorite of authors. It are also of limited value. could hardly be otherwise, since one of the main In this area, I think the game more accurately alternatives (a direct attack on Russia) was actually represents this option than does Alexander. It is easy tried in the war, with ultimately disastrous results. The to conjure up images of divisions of highly-motivated, failure of Barbarossa invites second-guessing. German-armed Russians, recruited from the millions In How Hitler could have won World War II, of prisoners taken in the first few months of the Alexander reviews the history of the war. He only German invasion. But in reality the Germans had touches on the possibility that Hitler’s (in)famous made no provision to even feed, much less arm and “halt order” saved the BEF by allowing the Dunkirk organize, their prisoners of war. In fact, just the evacuation, and terms the Luftwaffe’s switching from opposite was the case – the German starvation of the the airbases to London as “Hitler’s Russian PoWs was intentional and was part of a larger first great error”, categorically stating: German plan to decimate the conquered regions as a If he [Hitler] had allowed the Luftwaffe to continue its prelude to German . blows to the second stations, Sea Lion could have been Nazi ideology, which while evil was sincerely carried out and Hitler could have ended the war with a believed, precluded a liberation strategy in Russia, and swift and total victory. the last thing Hitler wanted to do was to replace This is far from clear, and there is considerable Stalin’s dictatorship with a viable, popular anti- controversy as to how close the British were to communist Russian government. There would have “losing” the Battle of Britain, and what might have been no guarantee that the Nazis could have happened if they had. Sea Lion, even assuming the controlled such a government, and no assurance that Germans were ever serious about even trying (Hitler the German public at large would have been prepared issued his Directive to prepare Barbarossa well before to try to do so by force once Stalin’s regime had been the Battle of Britain began), was at best a gigantic destroyed. But most of all, it was simply not possible gamble, just as the game portrays it. for Germany to launch a racial, ideological war, then After dealing with the Battle of Britain in a act as though it was something completely different. somewhat cursory manner, the author turns to his An irrational attack could not be carried out by main thesis, supporting Admiral Raeder by advocating rational means. a Mediterranean strategy. One element of this was to The author then turns to the usual military attack Malta, rather than Crete. A second element was criticisms of the Germans (the halt for a month in the to reinforce success, by taking advantage of summer of 1941, which was caused as much by the Rommel’s unexpected initial victories in early 1941. depleted state of the German armor units as by But these topics wouldn’t fill an entire book (and Hitler’s vacillation; the diversion to Kiev rather than in fact they take the reader only to page 80), so the driving for Moscow). These are imponderables, and it author next turns to Barbarossa. After disclaiming that would be just as naïve to pretend the Germans were “Attacking Russia head-on was wrong to being with”, beyond reproach for their operational handling of the Alexander goes on to say that Hitler still could have Russian campaign as it would be to think an obvious won had Germany adopted more enlightened policies opportunity slipped through their grasp. once the invasion began. This raises some interesting With the American entry into the war, Germany questions. First of all, from a strictly logical point of had a difficult choice to make. Since the German plan view, if Germany could have won, how can attacking to resume the offensive in Russia ultimately failed, it Russia be “wrong” (in the strategic, as opposed to the is easy for Alexander to suggest the alternative – a moral, sense)? Secondly, could the Nazi tiger have defensive stance in Russia, coupled with the really changed its stripes? reinforcement of the Afrika Korps, the capture of the AWORLD AT WAR allows for this type of strategy, Suez canal and the breakthrough into the Middle East, but it is hardly a war-winning plan. To get more than and an intensified submarine campaign in the Atlantic. one Vlasov infantry factor each turn is a major Would this have really changed the outcome of the 6 Winter 2008 war? Most A WORLD AT WAR players would have end of 1941 already signify the final portent for the Axis their doubts. powers; or was there still a chance, even then, for a The rest of the book is something of an anti- strategic turn-about, or a least a strategic “draw”? climax. As we all know, at each stage of the war, the Hitler’s War is a very interesting book, not least Germans had better options (as did the Allies), but in because of the interesting way in which a German the end a more exactly German defence would only historian handles the moral aspects of the war. have delayed the inevitable. Essentially, Magenheimer admits that German Despite its intriguing title, How Hitler could have policies lacked morality, but points out that the won World War II struck me as a rather shallow policies of the other powers did as well, and that analysis – more Monday-morning quarterbacking than understanding strategic decision-making requires us to anything else. Still, it seemed like a good place to put morality in perspective. There is some validity to start, as it touches on most of the most common this, and certainly A WORLD AT WAR takes this themes in the literature. approach, but one can also argue that Nazi “morality” was so extreme that it must be considered to the be defining aspect of German strategy during Word War II. Or does it? Magenheimer deals cursorily with the German campaign in France ( isn’t even mentioned), then addresses the critical question of whether the war could have ended with a negotiated settlement in 1940. He concludes it couldn’t have, and AWORLD AT WAR agrees. The game requires a British surrender, followed by an American reassessment of its commitment to the European conflict (using the U.S. election mechanics) for Germany to achieve anything decisive against Britain. This meant that the first key decision in German strategy involved the course to be taken after the fall of France and the British refusal to surrender. Magenheimer lists five possible German strategic options: Hitler’s War. Heinz Magenheimer, London, Option 1: Invading Britain (decisive if Casselk, 1998 (352 pages). successfully, but very risky); The same topic is analyzed from a different perspective in Hitler’s War, which was originally Option 2: A strategic air war against Britain written and published in Germany in 1997. Subtitled (Germany’s capabilities were too limited for this to be “Germany’s Key Strategic Decisions 1940-1945; decisive on its own); Could Germany have won World War II?”, this Option 3: A naval blockade of Britain, augmented interesting work looks at the question from the by close cooperation between the Germany navy and German point of view. air force (a compelling strategic option, but one which In the very first paragraph of his book, the author would a involve a serious restructuring of Germany poses the key questions: priorities and had to be weighed against the likelihood Was Germany doomed from the very beginning to lose of additional American intervention or entry into the the European war of 1939? Was there no realistic war); opportunity for her to decide the issue in her favour during the early stages? Are we really justified, from the Option 4: A Mediterranean strategy (advocated by vantage point of the present, in accusing the German Raeder, although not Doenitz, and not on its own higher military command of having contributed to the capable of forcing a decisive result); outbreak of, or even of having unleashed, a war it could not, under any circumstances, expect to win? Did the Option 5: A “continental bloc” consisting of escalation of the European war into a world war at the Germany, Italy, Japan and the (a Winter 2008 7 superficially attractive option, but inherently unstable destroyed this policy, but the increasing involvement and temporary). of the United States as a more powerful British ally revived the possibility on a global scale. Once the It is interesting that in the actual war Germany United States was at war with Germany, either by flirted with several of these options, but in the end proxy or directly, Russia would not only be safe – it chose a completely different one – the invasion of would be the arbiter of Europe. All that remained was Russia. for Russia to find the time to increase its military With the exception of the diplomatic attempt at an strength so that it had complete security... Axis-Soviet alliance, A WORLD AT WAR permits I found Magenheimer’s arguments that Barbarossa players to try variations of these themes, which is was really just a conventional, and almost justified, reassuring when assessing the historical accuracy of campaign, as opposed to an aggressive war of the game. It follows that reading the author’s analysis extermination, unconvincing. But this does not reduce of these options, and the role the Battle of Britain the value of his book as a whole. He concludes that played in them, can be relevant to the game. the German failure to commit resources to the Germany’s defeat, or at least failure to achieve Mediterranean in 1940, before Italy’s reverses in victory, in the Battle of Britain led inevitably, in the North and Greece, constituted a missed author’s view, to a confrontation between Germany opportunity for the Axis to strengthen their overall and Russia. Magenheimer again avoids the moral position at Britain’s expense, whether in anticipation issues involved in the German-Russian showdown, of a showdown with Russia, a continued air/naval and perhaps rightly so. He poses the question whether campaign against Britain or whatever else might have Barbarossa should be considered a “preventive war” ensued. In this he disagrees with Alexander, who or a “war of two aggressors”, essentially accepting as argues that had Hitler seized the “low hanging fruit” proven the somewhat doubtful premise that the Red in the Mediterranean, the war would have been Army was deployed for an imminent attack on decided in Germany’s favor. Germany when the Germans struck first on June 22, AWORLD AT WAR sides with Magenheimer, not 1941. Alexander, on this crucial issue. Veteran players will Magenheimer devotes considerable space to this remember the gradual evolution of the game to ensure issue, even though he considers the question that a “Mediterranean strategy” is by no means a sure ultimately to be relatively unimportant. It makes for road to an impregnable fortress Europe, as “perfect interesting reading, and I cannot help but be curious as plans” (even those which lead to draws) cannot be to how he would view the game’s treatment of this allowed. So the Mediterranean is important and Axis subject. In A WORLD AT WAR, there is no question of results there are helpful, but the Mediterranean can be a Russian attack in Summer 1941, but a Soviet drive a trap for the Germans, just as China can be a trap for to become the dominant European power, or at least a the Japanese. A disproportionate effort on either front counterweight to the Reich, is assumed. Russo- is likely to be counter-productive elsewhere. German tensions inevitably rise, and at a certain point All this take only the first 71 pages of Hitler’s a Russian attack on Germany is permitted. In the War. The remaining 200+ pages are devoted to the game, which sometimes has to handle such issues eastern front, and here, it seems to me, we are again crudely, Russia will always be a good Allied partner reminded that we are dealing with a German author. and will declare war on Germany. In reality, one can The focus on operational issues, rather than grand picture a more subtle cold war between the contending strategic questions, is consistent with the German Nazi and Soviet empires, which in many ways would approach to war. A number of western authors have drain as many German resources as a shooting war, taken the more comforting, deterministic view that the and in any case would have seriously constrained Germans and Japanese were doomed to lose the wars Germany’s freedom of action, especially with respect they chose to fight, so that any attempt to avoid the to the United States. verdict of history must focus on whether they could In my view, it was this threat which lay behind the have fought different wars, rather than whether they German decision to attack Russia. Stalin’s original could have fought the wars they did differently. idea was for Russia to hold the balance of European The game more or less forces the Axis to fight the power after Germany had exhausted itself against the historical war, at least in some form. Germany will Anglo-French alliance. The quick collapse of France 8 Winter 2008 have to fight Russia, and Japan cannot avoid a The Germans were getting hammered in Russia in military confrontation with the United States. To a 1943, just as they were in 1944, so why not invade certain extent, the Axis powers can determine the France a year early? timing of these clashes, and certainly have many Given that the Italian campaign turned into a options as to how to prepare for and fight these wars, greater diversion for the Allies than for the Germans, but it is really only GATHERING STORM which will the argument for a 1943 cross-Channel invasion seems allow us to explore different wars. But A WORLD AT compelling. Throw in an instinctive prejudice against WAR does not assume that the Allied productive the British and their quaint affection for “indirect superiority guarantees an Allied victory, especially in strategies”, together with a more sinister suspicion the time frame of the real war. Magenheimer’s focus that the British were not displeased to see the on operational issues will therefore be of considerable Germans and Russians bleed each other white, and the interest to A WORLD AT WAR players, as he deals with case seems to have been made. the same sort of questions as we do on every turn. Every A WORLD AT WAR player has confronted Magenheimer also discusses what he considers exactly the same issue. If 1944 is good, shouldn’t secondary questions, such as the German response to 1943 be better? For many years this was the case, but the Allied bombing campaign. The German now the game finally addresses the issue of the timing perspective on these peripheral issues (and the very of Overlord in what I think is a historically correct fact that they are considered peripheral) is intriguing. manner: All in all, Hitler’s War is an excellent book, and it  The strength of defensive air support flown against is hard to read it without wanting to set up the game seaborne invasions is tripled; and try to do better.  invasion bridgeheads are not immune from attrition occupation;  to prevent attrition occupation of a hex, a player must either eliminate all the units in the hex (no change) or take the largest ground units if some units remain in the hex;  if all units in an attrition zone are eliminated, the attritioning player may occupy hexes adjacent to his attritioning units; The combined effect of these changes, together with the smaller Western Allied invasion capability in 1943 resulting from the need to convert destroyers to ASW in order to defeat the German submarine campaign, makes a 1943 Western Allied invasion of France a risky venture. Provided the Germans don’t ignore the Western Allied threat, a skillful German defence in France will 1943 The Victory That Never Was. John Grigg, give the Axis a reasonable chance of either attritioning London, Penguin, 1980 (255 pages). a small invasion into the sea or forcing the Western For a change of pace, let us consider a book which Allies to eliminate their strongest units in order to hold discussed a supposed missed opportunity for the their bridgehead. The only way for the Western Allies Allies. In 1943 The Victory That Never Was, Grigg, a to avoid this is to invade in sufficient force that they popular English historian, makes the case for a 1943 can exploit from the invasion hex and gain a larger Overlord. In this he adopts the same position as did foothold in France. This is more easily said than done the American military leadership during the war. in 1943, because of the limited number of destroyers The argument is not new, and doesn’t require which are likely to be available and because there often detailed elaboration. The Western Allies had the just aren’t enough American ground and air units for military capacity to invade Sicily, so why not France? such an invasion. Winter 2008 9

ULTRA has yet to analyze the German defence of the BEF; France, but it promises to be an interesting issue. The  the failure of the Axis to implement a Mediter- game deliberately does not accept Grigg’s argument ranean strategy; that a 1943 invasion of France was the obvious, optimal strategy for the Allies. Historically, the one  the British victory at El Alamein; factor which he seems to downplay is the almost intangible fighting power of the German army. The  the Western Allied decision to make Italy, rather Germans were a very formidable foe, as was than France, their objective in 1943 (Strawson confirmed in 1944, when the German powers of specifically refers to and discusses Grigg’s book); resistance on both fronts astounded the Allied  the Western Allied policy of unconditional commanders. There is little doubt that the Germans surrender; were worn down considerably during 1943 and early 1944, so a Western Allied invasion of France in 1943  the Battle of the Bulge; would have not only have involved weaker Allied  the “race” to Berlin (such as it was). forces than was the case a year later, but it would have encountered stronger German forces. Some of these topics are outside the scope of A Because of this, I found Grigg’s argument WORLD AT WAR. The emphasis on the Western Allies simplistic, and nothing in his book made me question and the almost total disregard of the Russian front the way the game handles this topic. Still, it is always imbalances this book, although I suppose it makes up worth expanding one’s horizons and his entire book for Magenheimer’s focus on the eastern front. could have been written about a game of A WORLD AT I don’t particularly recommend this book, which WAR. doesn’t seem to add much to the debate on these topics.

If By Chance. John Strawson, London, Pan, 1980 (260 pages). Military Misfortunes. Eliot Cohen and John Gooch, The subtitle of If By Chance is “Military Turning New York, Vintage Books, 1991 (296 pages). Points That Changed History” – always a favorite topic Military Misfortunes is a general discussion of the of wargamers! Strawson, a military historian, deals with a number of historical “turning points”, but we topic of failure in war, but (not surprisingly) a number of examples from World War II are used. Two case shall focus on the ones he finds in World War II, which studies are also taken from the Second World War: are: “Failure to Learn – American Antisubmarine Warfare  Dunkirk, and the failure of the Germans to destroy in 1942” and “Catastrophic Failure – The French 10 Winter 2008

Army and Air Force, May –June 1940” each warrant a Stalingrad. chapter.  “A Failure to Perform” – Crete; Kasserine Pass. This is a good indication of the limited application The author did not use any examples from World of this book to A WORLD AT WAR. Both the Fall of War II for his fifth chapter (“Misplaced Confidence”), France and the German Happy Time are essentially I suspect because there were even better examples hard-wired into the game, and both sides are limited in from other conflicts! their ability to change the historical course of events. The value of this book, and others like it, is So while the topics are certainly important and their indirect for A WORLD AT WAR players. The game treatment in Military Misfortunes is well worth models some, but not all, of the errors made by reading, A WORLD AT WAR players will only benefit military commanders, and avoiding such errors will indirectly from this book, in that they will better make you a better player. But often these errors are understand the causes of military failure and, to some built into the game. For example, in A WORLD AT extent, they might better avoid such failure in their WAR, Japan almost always captures Singapore, just as games. Germany almost always knocks out France. Without these “easy” Axis victories, there wouldn’t be much of a game, so the design assumption has been made that certain “mistakes” were so inherent that they are beyond the control of the players.

Military Blunders. Saul David, London, Robinson Publishing, 1997 (373 pages). Military Blunders deals with the same topic as the previous book. Mistakes are a popular topic! But David adopts a slightly different approach. Rather Great Military Disasters. Geoffrey Regan, Great than restrict himself to a handful of fairly detailed case Britain, Batsford, 1987 (320 pages). studies, the author spends about ten pages on a larger I have included Regan’s book Great Military number of “military blunders”, which he places in Disasters both for the sake of completeness and several categories. Here are the World War II because it is well written and worth reading, although examples from each category: the author takes a broad perspective and there is little specific discussion of the Second World War. Still, it  “Unfit to Command” – General Percival and the is always educational to understand the genesis of Fall of Singapore. military disasters, if only so that in the next issue of ULTRA it isn’t your came which is being analyzed! I  “Planning for Trouble” – The Dieppe Raid and always find it easy to relate to a perceptive study of Arnhem. real life military disasters, probably because they arise  “Meddling Ministers” – North Africa: 1940-1; so often when playing A WORLD AT WAR... Winter 2008 11

COUNTERFACTUAL HISTORIES Writing Histories that Never Happened by Bruce Harper

In the introduction to this issue, I tried to The essays which will most interest A WORLD AT distinguish between military speculations or analysis, WAR players are: and counterfactual histories. Of course the two are  “How Hitler Could Have Won the War”, by John related, but the latter is in some ways interesting, as Keegan. Keegan makes the case for a Mediterraean authors construct alternate histories which might have, strategy, which appears to be a favorite theme of but did not, happen. British historians. This may be because the Allied The rules to counterfactual history, as I understand victory in the war is even sweeter if the Germans them, are that the chosen alternate history must, up to can be said to have blown their chance against its starting point, be true to what actually happened, Britain; or it may be that British historians are and must be triggered by a relatively minor, but more sensitive to their homeland’s weakness in significant and (more importantly) credible event. 1940-41, while at the same time they What happens once the ahistorical key event occurs is underestimate the logistical difficulties the Axis up to the author. would have experienced.  “Our Midway Disaster”, by Theodore Cook, Jr. Cook postulates an opposite result at Midway – a counterfactual possibility that concerns all A WORLD AT WAR players, and which many have actually encountered...  “D Day Fails”, by Stephen Ambrose. While this usually doesn’t happen in A WORLD AT WAR, the European atomic alternative Ambrose discusses is not at all uncommon in the game.

What If? Edited by Robert Cowley, Berkley, Penguin Putnam, 1999 (395 pages). The term “counterfactual history” first came to my attention when I read What If?, edited by Robert Cowley. The book consists of a series of essays, and the list of contributors is impressive. I recommend What If? without hesitation, with my only reservation being that the publishers purport to trademark the words “what if”, nearly ten years after the back cover of ADVANCED THIRD REICH posed a series of alternative histories using just this term! But What If? 2 Edited by Robert Cowley, New York, I liked the book so much I didn’t sue them. Putnam, 2001 (427 pages). 12 Winter 2008

Clearly What If? was a hit, as it was followed by a second volume along the same lines. The topics relating to World War II are a bit more esoteric this time around:  “Prime Minister Halifax”, by Andrew Roberts. Roberts speculates as to the form a British surrender might have taken had Halifax, rather than Churchill, become the British Prime Minister in May 1940.  “The Boys Who Saved , 1942”, by James Bradley. This of course assumes that the Japanese had both the inclination and the capacity to invade Australia.  “Enigma Uncracked”, by David Kahn, in which the Allies fail to break the German codes.  VE Day – November 11, 1944, by Caleb Carr. Carr explores the possibility of Patton and Montgomery ending the European war “several turns” before the Third Reich Victorious. Edited by Peter Tsouras, historical German surrender. London, Lionel Leventhal, 2002 (316 pages). The counterfactual torch appears to have passed to  “No Bomb: No End”, by Richard Frank. Just how Peter Tsouras, a military historian and former difficult would an American invasion of Japan intelligence officer. He has written and edited a have been? number of other books, including a number of What If? 2 also contains some non-A WORLD AT alternate histories. WAR contributions relating to the Second World War, At the outset, let me be clear: what A WORLD AT including speculations about a 1938 war after failed WAR player could not want to read Third Reich Munich negotiations (GATHERING STORM), Pope Pius Victorious? As we shall see, the “ten dynamic XII protesting , a post-war trial of Hitler scenarios” are intriguing and a number of them may and Henry Wallace being selected by FDR, rather than arise in the game. Harry Truman. The format of the book is also intriguing. They are Many of the counterfactual histories explored in written as histories, complete with imaginary What If? and What If? 2 could well have come right footnoted references and a series of photographs out of A WORLD AT WAR game, although the majority which depict the ahistorical events detailed in the of counterfactual possibilities deal with other eras. It essays. Someone who was unaware of the history of was clear that the contributors enjoyed themselves, the actual war (i.e., who didn’t know that the Allies and both books are well worth reading. won...) could be completely convinced that Germany In writing this issue of ULTRA, I discovered that in was indeed victorious. I thought this approach to the 2003 another volume of What If? was published. topic was clever and, when completely successful, Cowley third book bears the intriguing title What Ifs? very entertaining. In addition to presenting the topics of American History. Two essays deal with the Second effectively, it gently satirizes many real histories, with World War (“No Pearl Harbor? FDR Delays the their almost smug sense of inevitability. It is War”, by John Lukacs; and “If Eisenhower Had Gone refreshing to see the same sense of inevitability to Berlin”, by Anthony Beevor). Cowley clearly had employed in relation to events that we know didn’t not lost his ability to attract star contributors, as both happen. authors are eminent in their field. But since 2003, My only real criticism of the book is that I am not sadly, there seems to have been nothing new from a big fan of Tsouras’ writing. I found myself unable to Cowley. But “counterfactual history” as a genre had finish his alternate history of D-Day, because of his not yet run its course, emphasis of technical details and the minute aspects Winter 2008 13 of innumerable tactical encounters. I realize that these with the Western Allies. This frees Rommel to engage are meant to add realism to his counterfactual the on equal terms and bleed it white. In analysis, but an author also has to induce the reader to very unusual circumstances, the game might allow for want to read... this scenario (a pro-Axis U.S. election result, followed That said, Tsouras edits, rather than authors, this by the reinforcement of the eastern front by the book, and contributes only a single (and entertaining) Germans). essay, so my criticism of his writing are incidental. The remaining scenarios are well within what is So how to the contributors see Germany as permitted by the game. While I might be prejudiced, winning (or at least not losing) the Second World this strikes me as a big plus for Third Reich War? Here are the ten scenarios: Victorious. This collection of essays seems to me to be the best generator of alternate or counterfactual 1. The Little Admiral: Hitler and the German Navy, history that I’ve seen – except for A WORLD AT WAR 1939. itself. After all, the game is intended to be just that, 2. Disaster at Dunkirk: The Defeat of Britain, but it’s great fun to see some of the game outcomes 1940. with which are familiar described as “history”. 3. The Battler of Britain: Triumph of the I definitely recommend this book. Luftwaffe, 1940. 4. The Storm and the Whirlwind: Zhukov Strikes First. 5. The Hinge: Alamein to Basra, 1942. 6. Into the Caucasus: The Turkish Attack on Russia, 1942. 7. Known Enemies and Forced Allies: Sicily and Kursk, 1943. 8. Luftwaffe Triumphant: Defeat of the Allied Bomber Offensive, 1944-45. 9. Hitler’s Bomb: Target: London and Moscow. 10. Rommel versus Zhukov: Decision in the East, 1944-45. Without going into detail about all ten essays, some of them are more extreme than others. For example, “The Little Admiral” postulates that Hitler served in the German Navy in World War I, and Rising Sun Victorious. Edited by Peter Tsouras, on his ascension to power emphasized a German naval London, Lionel Leventhal, 2001 (296 pages). build up and an anti-British foreign policy. In this issue of ULTRA, I have followed the convention of first dealing with the German GATHERING STORM anyone? possibilities in Europe, then the Allied options, and “The Storm and the Whirlwind” assumes that the finally with the Pacific. I thought this would work out Soviets attacked Germany in 1941, just as some well here, with the “sequel” to historians argue Stalin intended. The results, perhaps Third Reich Victorious not surprisingly, are ultimately catastrophic for the being Rising Sun Victorious, also edited by Peter Tsouras. What could be more natural than following Russians. Again, GATHERING STORM may allow us to up a successful treatment of German possibilities in explore this possibility, but A WORLD AT WAR does not. Europe with a similar book on the Pacific War? But I was surprised to discover that Finally, “Rommel versus Zhukov” assumes a Rising Sun German victory in Normandy, the assassination of Victorious was actually published before Third Reich Hitler and the top Nazi leadership and an armistice Victorious! That’s like someone learning A WORLD 14 Winter 2008

AT WAR by playing the Pacific scenarios, then Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the subject of the switching to Europe! But in fact I suspect that the two third essay in Rising Sun Victorious, is often books were prepared concurrently, much as movies considered an American defeat, but it might have and their sequels are sometimes filmed at the same caused the U.S. to avoid an even worse disaster had it time (or as ADVANCED THIRD REICH and RISING SUN executed Plan Orange. But Pearl Harbor could have were designed concurrently). been worse... Whether or not this assumption is correct, there’s “Coral and Purple” deals with the issue of no doubt that the authors’ tasks were more difficult in American codebreaking, while “Nagumo’s Luck” Rising Sun Victorious. After all, as Tor’s famous explores the inevitable alternative result at Midway quote reminds us, “the Japanese aren’t supermen, like (rather pessimistically, from the Japanese point of the Germans!” Did Japan really have any chance to view). win, or even prolong, the war? The next two essays contemplate Japanese attacks The essayists fulfill their mandate and conclude on Australia and India. Once again, A WORLD AT “yes”, at least to some extent, but their efforts struck WAR also allows for these ahistorical attacks, and me as more forced than in the companion volume probably handles them at least as realistically as dealing with Germany, and the resulting histories less Rising Sun Victorious. Try as one might to ignore it, convincing. I can believe that Germany could have the fact remains that only the U.S. could defeat the won World War II, but it is more difficult to believe Japanese Empire, and to that extent every other theater that Japan could have succeeded. Still, that was not so was a side show. obvious in the spring of 1942, so let’s see what the The last three essays return to the main opponent, contributors to Rising Sun Victorious came up with: in each case with an increasing sense of desperation on the part of the Japanese. They were, after all, losing 1. Hokushin: The Second Russo-Japanese War. the war! But it is easy to forget that, despite its 2. Be Careful What You Wish For: The Plan superiority, the Japanese were tenacious fighters and Orange Disaster. that being on the defensive has strategic and tactical 3. Pearl Harbor: Irredeemable Defeat. advantages. At Guadalcanal and in the Philippines the Japanese had opportunities. In the final stages of the 4. Coral and Purple: The Lost Advantage. war, the Japanese hoped to have opportunities, but 5. Nagumo’s Luck: The Battles of Midway and they didn’t materialize. Recent mainstream historical California. thinking is that an invasion of Japan would have been as costly as the Americans thought at the time, but 6. Samurai Down Under: The Japanese Invasion of whether it would have been a pointless bloodbath Australia. (especially for the Japanese) or might have led to a 7. The Japanese Raj: The Conquest of India. different outcome to the war is hard to say. What makes this a difficult issue is that the 8. Guadalcanal: The Broken Shoestring. Japanese, in many senses, didn’t really lose the war. 9. There Are Such Things As Miracles: Halsey They were militarily defeated, but emerged from the and Kurita and Leyte Gulf. wreckage with a stronger economy and a national identity freed of the malignant militarism which 10. Victory Rides The Divine Wind: The Kamikaze reached its peak in the early 1940s. We must therefore and the Invasion of Kyushu. look to Japanese military victory as the alternative “Hokushin” postulates a successful joint German- outcome of counterfactual histories in the Pacific, and Japanese attack on Russia. This strategy is familiar to America’s massive economic superiority made this all A WORLD AT WAR players, and is one of Global highly unlikely. Only a failure of purpose on the part War’s high-risk/high-return strategies. Of course the of the Americans (which was highly unlikely after version in Rising Sun Victorious is slightly sugar- Pearl Harbor) or German victory (which, as we know, coated, but that’s fair enough. has not out of the question) could have changed the “Be Careful What You Wish For” is a very outcome of the Pacific War. interesting treatment of the basic American war plans Still, Rising Sun Victorious raises a number of and what they might have led to in an actual war. The interesting possibilities and is well worth reading. Winter 2008 15

FICTION Let’s Not Worry Too Much About Reality by Bruce Harper

There are so many works of fiction based on Axis perhaps something else altogether? victories in World War II that it is impossible to This book should be mandatory reading for all A mention more than a handful of them. I am also WORLD AT WAR players. somewhat handicapped by the fact that I know of many more such books than I actually own!

The Moscow Option. David Downing, 1980. I was introduced to The Moscow Option, the first The Man in the High Castle. Philip K. Dick, 1962. alternate history book I ever read, by veteran A Philip K. Dick should need no introduction. He is WORLD AT WAR player Mike Stone, who is one of the one of the best science fiction writers of the twentieth fabled three wise men of our hobby. The departure century and it is no surprise that his treatment of the from history starts in 1941, when the panzers head for subject of alternate history is a masterpiece. Moscow as the German High Command Without spoiling the plot, The Man in the High recommended in the actual war. Russia collapses, and Castle is set in a future dominated by the Axis ascend accordingly. and Imperial Japan. The Man in the High Castle I have to read this book again. All I remember is operates on many levels. One protagonist makes his that Japan wins a Midway, but themselves get living selling fake American artifacts to Japanese “Midwayed” during an ambitious operation to cripple tourists. The title character is a fictitious author who the Panama Canal. In a nice touch, the key American writes a fantasy book in which the Allies win the air strikes is launched from a carrier in the Caribbean Second World War. against Japanese carriers in the Pacific. I can just The idea of wheels within wheels is typical of imagine the rule questions about that trick... Dick, whose works were made into movies such as The Moscow Option could be classified as a Bladerunner and Minority Report. This all reinforces counterfactual history, although I believe it is at least the central, and somewhat disconcerting, theme of the partly a novel, as well as a history of a war which book – what is reality? Our world, the world in the never was. I won’t spoil the ending, because I don’t book, the world in the book within the book, or remember it. Read the book, but don’t tell me! 16 Winter 2008

Hitler Victorious is an anthology of short stories. I have never read it, although I have found some of the stories in it in other collections. As one might expect, some of the stories are brilliant and some are not so great.

Fatherland. , London, Hutchinson, 1992 (372 pages). I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Fatherland, a mystery novel set in a world in which Germany won the war. Harris is a great writer and his goal is not really to explore alternate history, much less go into detail, but rather to write a gripping novel (a goal in The Fantastic World War II. Edited by Frank which he almost always succeeds, if you’re not McSherry, Jr., New York, Baen Books, 1990 (281 familiar with his writing). Nevertheless, the world he pages). portrays is eminently credible and is probably one of the most realistic depictions of a Nazi Europe as you For those who can’t find a copy of Hitler Victorious, The Fantastic World War II is a similar can find. anthology of short stories.

What about Harry?

Yes, I know. Sixteen pages of alternate history in ULTRA and no mention of Harry Turtledove! There, I said his name – happy now? For those who are blissfully ignorant of Harry Turtle- dove’s work, he is a prolific author who specializes in alternate history. And when I say “prolific”, I mean it. He has written a long series of novels based on a Confederate victory in the American Civil War. He has also written several novels in which Japan follows up its air strike on Pearl Harbor by invading Hawaii. His “masterpiece” (and I use the term guardedly) is his “Worldwar” series, which sees a reptilian race blessed with 1980s military technology invade earth at the height of World War Two. Chaos and a good time for all ensues. I gave up on Turtledove because he writes badly and he Hitler Victorious. Edited by Gregory Benford, lacks imagination(!). Just my opinion, of course.... 1987.