Jump to content

Fatally Flawed: Military Logic in A Clash of Kings


Chaircat Meow

Recommended Posts

Posters have frequently questioned the logic of a variety of strategies and decisions in the War of the Five Kings. This thread asks whether the military aspects of CoK make sense. Has GrrM given his characters implausible plans and strategies to advance the plot he wanted?

Strategy of Tywin

Does Tywin’s plan actually make sense? If we believe Brynden/Tyrion, Tywin hoped to cajole Robb to a battle at Harrenhal by ravaging his lands, while building up another army in the west to attack Robb from the west, all the while remaining in striking distance of king’s landing to counter a Baratheon attack on the capital.

 

There are some issues with this.

First, Tywin cannot have expected Robb to actually assault Harrenhal itself. That would be suicide, and owing to the vastness of the fortress and the size of Tywin’s army, Robb could not besiege it.

Second, coordinating his own and Stafford’s army in a two pronged at Riverrun would be monstrously hard for Tywin. There are hundreds of miles between the two armies. They would likely be opposed by the Starks on different days.

Tywin probably ought to have sent more reliable men to the city as well. The total of reliable westermen in KL at the start of CoK was 200.

Strategy of Balon

Does Balon’s plan make sense? He hopes to cut off the Stark army to the south by seizing Moat Cailin. Then he aspires to gradually conquer the north, including WF.

There are numerous issues with this.

 

The Vale might agree to ship the Stark army back to White Harbour, circumventing the Ironborn position at Moat Cailin.

It is very hard to feed a sizeable for a substantial amount of time at the Moat, even with friendly locals. As the country will be hostile to the Ironborn supply of the vital Ironborn force will be a major issue.

Balon seems to have no forces to actually conquer the north with. The Ironfleet garrisoned the Moat and Asha took Deepwood with 1,000 men. As far as we see that’s it, no forces to occupy the north at all. The Ironborn did not even take Bear Island.

Folly of Ser Rodrick

When news is brought to Ser Rodrick of an attack by Ironmen on Torrhen’s Square he musters levies from all over the north, and strips the garrison at Winterfell in order to confront them. We don’t know how many men he left at Winterfell, but 30 Ironborn, led by Theon, are easily able to overcome them. Rodrick, with 2,000 men, routs but fails to destroy Dagmar’s 200 men and returns to WF.

Issues with this.

There was just no need to not leave 200 or more men at WF given it was the capital. Rodrick had 2,000 men.

There was no need to respond so quickly, or in such force, to the very small force attacking Torrhen’s Square.

Strategy of Tyrion

 

Tyrion fears Stannis more than Renly and prepares a chain to close the mouth of the river to Stannis’s fleet at the expense of weapons Cersei wanted to make. He is dismissive of Renly, despite Renly having a huge army. He rejects Robb Stark’s peace offer out of hand. He sends away the Red Keep’s reliable westermen garrison as part of a ploy to save Jaime, and so the city is held by mercenaries and city/crownland levies and gold cloaks. Tyrion sends no messengers after Tywin when he learns Stannis is marching on the city.

Issues.

Why is Tyrion so dismissive of Renly, when Renly, with 90,000 men, is obviously the biggest threat? Tyrion’s fear of Stannis causes him to prioritize the city’s sea and river defences, and he consequently makes no plans for a land attack by the reachmen.

The peace offer by the Starks ought to have been seriously considered, as the lannisters were already outnumbered by the Baratheon brothers. Surely it made sense to close down one front?

Tywin ought to have been informed SE had fallen and Stannis was on his way to KL. Granted, Tyrion knew Tywin had left Harrenhal, but he ought to have sent him some messengers to warn him what was happening. How did he hope to hold KL for months on his own without his father’s army?

Debacle at Storm’s End

Tywin’s army at HH was covering KL in preparation for an attack by the Baratheon brothers. However, when Tywin heard that Robb Stark had invaded the west and that Renly was dead and Stannis was laying siege to SE he hurried back to his own lands. According to Tyrion and GrrM (in an SSM) Tywin thought Stannis was likely to remain at SE until it fell (likely to take a while). This meant KL was safe.

Stannis himself appears to agree with this analysis. He tells Davos he will not leave to march on the city until the castle is taken. Of course, Tywin and Tyrion do not know about the shadowbaby, but we are led to believe that their calculation was accurate in all other respects.

Issue

Why is Stannis so insistent and predictable in his desire to take SE before KL. Does it really make sense to keep the whole army outside the castle for months to years until the garrison surrenders and to relinquish all initiative in the war?

Mystery of the Barges

Apparently the lannisters and Tyrells employed a large fleet of barges at Tumbler’s Falls to ferry their army down the river to the city and take Stannis in the flank. What was the enormous barge fleet doing at Tumbler’s Falls, which seems to be a long way up the Blackwater? Could the Tyrells really have organized this so quickly, and why would they actually do so?

Conclusion

I do not think all of these issues are necessarily a problem. I’ve just flagged up many of the major problems I’ve seen raised about the war in CoK, even if I think they have solutions (I haven’t detailed these here). I’d like to hear your thoughts. Did GrrM sacrifice the military aspect of his book in order to get the plot he wanted, or are most of these issues resolvable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time to comment in detail, but my initial views are:-

1. Tywin's strategy was good. He was the best Lannister commander, with the best Lannister army. He'd occupied half the Riverlands and could feed his men, while denying resources to the enemy. The worst thing he could do was divide his army piecemeal. Robb had won two victories, but his lands were being ravaged. Tywin had every reason to think he'd be tempted to strike at him.

2. Kings Landing was important but not decisive. I think it's clear that Tywin's children were expendable. If Kings Landing fell, Tywin still had 30,000 men to fight his way back to the Westerlands.

3. Robb's peace terms were way in excess of his military achievements. Tyrion had no reason to accept them.

4. Taking a city with a big garrison is very difficult. Tyrion and Cersei had reason to think they could hold the city. They would also have assumed that Renly and Stannis would cause more harm to each other.

5. Stannis is feared for his record.

6. Balon and Ser Rodrick screwed up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time to comment in detail, but my initial views are:-

1. Tywin's strategy was good. He was the best Lannister commander, with the best Lannister army. He'd occupied half the Riverlands and could feed his men, while denying resources to the enemy. The worst thing he could do was divide his army piecemeal. Robb had won two victories, but his lands were being ravaged. Tywin had every reason to think he'd be tempted to strike at him.

2. Kings Landing was important but not decisive. I think it's clear that Tywin's children were expendable. If Kings Landing fell, Tywin still had 30,000 men to fight his way back to the Westerlands.

3. Robb's peace terms were way in excess of his military achievements. Tyrion had no reason to accept them.

4. Taking a city with a big garrison is very difficult. Tyrion and Cersei had reason to think they could hold the city. They would also have assumed that Renly and Stannis would cause more harm to each other.

5. Stannis is feared for his record.

6. Balon and Ser Rodrick screwed up.


I disagree with 2. With his grandchildren dead, he would loose the Lannister legitimate control over the Iron Throne. More and More people would flock to the Baratheon brothers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with 2. With his grandchildren dead, he would loose the Lannister legitimate control over the Iron Throne. More and More people would flock to the Baratheon brothers.


He'd certainly far rather his children remained alive, but he won't sacrifice his army for them. He can remarry, or Ser Kevan can carry on the Lannister line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1: No comment.

2: Balon wasn't seeking WF, at least not yet. He was trying to knock down opposition in the North piece by piece, and force the North to assemble what few forces they had left to commit to action. Taking MC was to prevent Robb from quickly and easily turning his army North. Possibly even breaking it via the Southern armies. Even if Robb found a way around, it would have taken a lot of time to do so. By which point the Ironborn would have secured a foothold on the West coast and defended it.

3: As I recall, it was Bran and not Rodrick who made the decision to leave Winterfell undefended. It was not a sound strategy, but Rodrick isn't the one to blame.

4: Tyrion had good cause to fear Stannis more, Stannis was going to get there first. And he did. I'm pretty sure that was specifically mentioned.
He had to reject Robb's demands. Even Robb knew they were unacceptable. If Tyrion had accepted them, Joffrey and Tywin both would have countermanded that acceptance.

5: Predictable or not, Stannis couldn't go to KL with SE in the hands of an enemy. You do not ignore defended outposts during an invasion and allow swords to rise up behind you.

6: The barges already were there for Renly's forces.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRRM is not a military strategist by nature or by training, he's more interested in war for its human costs than its glory, and he's given himself the major additional handicap of trying to plot out a war in a country that's very much unlike any real medieval country.1 So yes, the strategy is far from perfect.

But I think you may be going too far looking for examples, and stretching yourself in a few of them. I realize that you acknowledged this ("I do not think all of these issues are necessarily a problem"), but trying to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks actually makes the argument weaker, not stronger.

Does Tywins plan actually make sense? If we believe Brynden/Tyrion, Tywin hoped to cajole Robb to a battle at Harrenhal by ravaging his lands, while building up another army in the west to attack Robb from the west, all the while remaining in striking distance of kings landing to counter a Baratheon attack on the capital.

Tywin didn't actually need Robb to actually attack Harrenhal--because if Robb didn't do so, he'd be effectively confined to the northeastern quadrant of the Riverlands, making his whole army useless, and allowing Tywin free reign over everything else, in which case he still basically wins. Harrenhal is definitely nicely situated to control the Trident and still be in range of King's Landing. And this strategy would have succeeded had it not been for the Frey deal, so it doesn't seem like a bad strategy in hindsight2 (except that I do think Tywin should have had some fallback plan in case Robb came up with something unexpected like the Frey deal--and I agree with your criticism of his later strategy3).

Second, coordinating his own and Staffords army in a two pronged at Riverrun would be monstrously hard for Tywin. There are hundreds of miles between the two armies. They would likely be opposed by the Starks on different days.

They don't have to arrive in Riverrun on the same day. The point of coordinating the two armies is not to flank Robb in the field, it's to set up a siege of Riverrun. As long as the first-arriving force can hold out long enough for the other to arrive and finish the encirclement, the siege works. After that, when and if the Starks finally arrive, they're fighting from a defensive position. Again, he wasn't expecting Robb to go straight to Riverrun, he was expecting Robb to meet him in the east, in which case there's no problem with the strategy.

Strategy of Balon

At any level below the grand-strategy idea of taking the North, every single thing Balon did except taking Moat Caillin was stupid. But that's because Balon is not nearly as good a strategist as he thinks he is. In fact, he doesn't even seem to understand the concept. As far as I can tell, his thinking goes like this: Harwyn Hoare, who was half a greenlander, was able to conquer the Riverlands; this proves that Balon, who's a real hard Ironman, can't possibly lose in conquering the North. How's he going to win? By being a real hard Ironman. How does reaving the shores have anything to do with winning the war? Reaving the shores is what real hard Ironmen do. Stop asking so many questions. He's delusional, so it's not at all a plot problem that his strategy is stupid.

Folly of Ser Rodrick

Yes, Rodrick is an idiot. But what were the odds that someone was going to attack Winterfell? It was unthinkable to Rodrick--and, given that it was also apparently unthinkable to Balon and to Asha, I don't think he was too much to blame for not thinking of it.

1 Once he decided to add dragons to the story, he decided to explore what would realistically follow from a Norman Conquest won and held with dragons rather than forts and maneuver. That's not a minor change. People in Westeros clearly expect wars to be won incredibly rapidly and offensively, with huge battles, where powerful individuals swing the day. No one but Tarly and Stannis even seem to have the patience for sieges, instead preferring to storm the walls immediately. And so on. That's all pretty plausible for the world he's built, but it makes it very hard to actually write realistic wars because there's so little to go on from real-world history.

2 I do think it's more than a little geographically and economically implausible that there's only one crossing in an area that massive. But, given that background, Tywin's strategy makes sense.

3 Thinking Stannis is likely to be obsessive about Storm's End is one thing, but banking the entire war on that likelihood is another. He knew that moving west to challenge Robb would leave KL completely open to attack, he tried it anyway, and the only reason he didn't lose to Stannis is that he got lucky and Edmure prevented him from doing what he wanted to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Kings Landing was important but not decisive. I think it's clear that Tywin's children were expendable. If Kings Landing fell, Tywin still had 30,000 men to fight his way back to the Westerlands.

KL certainly was decisive. If it fell to Stannis, Stannis would be sitting on the Iron Throne, with the rival claimant in his custody. Sure, Tywin could fight his way back to the West, but then what? There's no reason for him to even continue the war at that point. And who's going to ally with him if he does? And how are they going to win when Stannis is in a defensive position, and has a navy that can prevent the same kind of end-run that he himself used, and is almost certainly going to have plenty of new allies get off the fence and decide they've been Stannis backers all along?
 

3. Robb's peace terms were way in excess of his military achievements. Tyrion had no reason to accept them.

Tyrion could have offered counter-terms. For example: Lay down your claim to a crown, and pledge to help us in the war against the other pretenders, and you can have your sisters back, and Ned's bones and Ice, and even a trial for the Mountain after the war is over. Even if Robb didn't accept (which he probably wouldn't), it would at least put doubts in his mind and drive a further wedge between him and his mother, and what is there to lose?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, we agree on something!

 

Right on every point, however I would add that there is no good reason for Tywin to confront Edmure when he could easily take the Gold road, and if he felt the need to he could have used his entire army to force a crossing at one point, he may take fairly heavy casualties but he would have crossed in a day and Edmure couldn't have done anything.

 

Not so much bad strategy but poorly done is the Battle of Oxcross, we are supposed to believe Stafford is a fool and Robb is brilliant, but Stafford had no need to post sentries; even if Robb could get past the Golden Tooth and the other border castles he would still have to advance through 300 miles of allied territory to reach Lannisport and Oxcross, Robb's strategy was simply sneak up on enemy, surprise and slaughter, nothing brilliant. All Oxcross shows is that the fertile, gold rich Westerlands has a population density of 0, allowing Robb to ride through undetected, or that the peasants and lords/castellans hate the Lannisters so much that they didn't even bother to say anything about the enemy host passing by.

 

On a semi related note does anyone else feel like Courtnay Penrose was horribly contrived? With the possible goals of making it slightly possible that Loras and Mace would have time to get to Bitterbridge, negotiate with Littlefinger, get to the Blackwater (with ~60,000 men) meet up with Tywin and attack Stannis by the time the fleet arrives at King's Landing, and giving us the chance to see a Shadowbaby born.

 

Think about it; Penrose has no one to hold the castle for, no authority to decide who to surrender or not surrender the castle to, and no right to act like the lord of Storm's End. He also didn't have any real motivation, he states Stannis isn't his king, but doesn't actually deny the throne is his, he doesn't accuse him of killing Renly, just states it wasn't Brienne, he insults R'hllor but doesn't cite religious reasons for his actions, he "fears" for Edric Storm, but politically speaking both of the other kings active in mainland Westeros to whom he appeals to help would have more motivation than Stannis to want to harm Edric, Stannis had no intention of harming Edric at the time, and would likely never have had such intentions if Penrose had not delayed him.

 

Also in a more general sense sieges again, don't make sense, since summer has just ended and every granary should be full, with no major resupply for years, it doesn't make sense to actually station an army outside the castle, it should logically be provisioned for years, it would make sense to abandon the siege completely, and then come back in a few years when winter is almost over, so it cannot resupply come spring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitler's decision to invade Russia and Japan's decision to bomb Pearl Harbor dont make alot of military sense either. But that's just Captain Hindsight's opinion.

War is always a gamble.

Japan's decision to bomb Pearl Harbor wasn't that stupid.

Certainly, it was a mistake to believe there was any chance that America would just sign a quick peace treaty and back out of the Pacific.

But they clearly had to do something. The US had effectively prevented Japan from getting any oil at all--their supply dropped 96% over 1941. The US was already publicly committed to FDR's "Victory Program", which included "all measures short of war" (including using the US Navy to escort Allied shipping so the Allies could use their navies elsewhere), raising an army of 10 million men by 1943, and shipping the world's largest bomber wing to the Philippines (which was already underway by late 1941).

According to declassified US military intelligence, the US believed Japan's best strategy was to invade the Indonesian islands where Dutch bases had been temporarily handed over to America. If America didn't want to enter the war over that, they would have had to pull back from Southeast Asia and regroup, and meanwhile Japan would have gained access to the massive oil supplies they desperately needed. But Japan was absolutely certain that America would fight back against such an attack, and they were probably right. Really, it would have been just like Pearl Harbor, except without the side benefit of crippling American's existing Pacific fleet.

Watanabe's plan to pull back from China and other fronts, surprise-attack Pearl Harbor, and then immediately follow with a full invasion of Hawaii and then the Philippines was probably their best bet in retrospect--but it was also a much bigger risk than the one they actually took.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. Some things in the WOT5K shouldn't be looked to closely at. Mostly the fall of Winterfell, and the lack of interest the other factions in the conflict pay to Renly and his enormous army. Most other things can be explained away, but these two go beyond reasonable incompetence (positions of power being awarded based on bloodline rather than merit and all) and pass into plot hole territory. 

 

I think it would have been hard for GRRM to advance the plot in the direction necessary for the story without these stretches, though. Winterfell obviously has to fall and the Stark children be presumed dead for ASOIAF to work, and how could that feasibly happen without a huge fuckup on the part of the people in charge of its defense? It is an enormous magical castle in the middle of a vast country far away from any front, and also the capital of the kingdom and should thus be reasonably well defended at all times. Logically any attempt at taking it should need a long siege from a large army of some sort, in which case Robb should have hurried back with his forces to relieve it as well as calling up another army in the North at the same time. Who would even have done the sieging? Neither the Boltons nor the Ironborn should have had the numbers necessary for such a project. 

 

Likewise with Renly in that if people had given him proper attention Tywin ought to have pretty much abandoned his entire campaign in the Riverlands (just made sure that the Golden Tooth was guarded so that Robb couldn't sneak in to the Westerlands) and then focused all his strength, intelligence and armies on finding a way of somehow dealing with Renly. Whatever it took. Which would have resulted in a very different story. At least until Renly decided to go to Storm's End and meet the baby. 

 

So these plot holes might be necessary evils. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Tywin is being unfairly criticized. WHile Robb attacking Harrenhal is a best case scenario there are other paths to victory. By Ravging the riverlands He was weakening Robb and making him look bad. Stafford was bring Tenthousand men to the riverlands. Presumably the plan would be to meat up with him and then defeat Robb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japan's decision to bomb Pearl Harbor wasn't that stupid.

Certainly, it was a mistake to believe there was any chance that America would just sign a quick peace treaty and back out of the Pacific.

But they clearly had to do something. The US had effectively prevented Japan from getting any oil at all--their supply dropped 96% over 1941. The US was already publicly committed to FDR's "Victory Program", which included "all measures short of war" (including using the US Navy to escort Allied shipping so the Allies could use their navies elsewhere), raising an army of 10 million men by 1943, and shipping the world's largest bomber wing to the Philippines (which was already underway by late 1941).

According to declassified US military intelligence, the US believed Japan's best strategy was to invade the Indonesian islands where Dutch bases had been temporarily handed over to America. If America didn't want to enter the war over that, they would have had to pull back from Southeast Asia and regroup, and meanwhile Japan would have gained access to the massive oil supplies they desperately needed. But Japan was absolutely certain that America would fight back against such an attack, and they were probably right. Really, it would have been just like Pearl Harbor, except without the side benefit of crippling American's existing Pacific fleet.

Watanabe's plan to pull back from China and other fronts, surprise-attack Pearl Harbor, and then immediately follow with a full invasion of Hawaii and then the Philippines was probably their best bet in retrospect--but it was also a much bigger risk than the one they actually took.

 

Plus had the US carriers actually been in Pearl Harbor, which some reports suggest was supposed to be the case (they left on maneuver's under short notice), then the attack would have crippled our pacific fleet and  left japan free to do pretty much whatever they wanted. And Japan didn't focus their bombing efforts on our oil supplies at Pearl enabling the US to respond much more quickly. Had they destroyed all the oil reserves at Pearl it would have taken years before the US fleet could begin to counter Japan's aggression.

So it was sort of a combo of being unlucky and failing to complete mission objectives that were within their capability that caused the attack to not succeed.

 

If you really think about it, Robert's Rebellion had no chance of success. Had Rhaegar not decided to engage rebel forces at the trident and been killed by Robert, it's unlikely they would have succeeded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japan's decision to bomb Pearl Harbor wasn't that stupid.

Certainly, it was a mistake to believe there was any chance that America would just sign a quick peace treaty and back out of the Pacific.

But they clearly had to do something. The US had effectively prevented Japan from getting any oil at all--their supply dropped 96% over 1941. The US was already publicly committed to FDR's "Victory Program", which included "all measures short of war" (including using the US Navy to escort Allied shipping so the Allies could use their navies elsewhere), raising an army of 10 million men by 1943, and shipping the world's largest bomber wing to the Philippines (which was already underway by late 1941).

According to declassified US military intelligence, the US believed Japan's best strategy was to invade the Indonesian islands where Dutch bases had been temporarily handed over to America. If America didn't want to enter the war over that, they would have had to pull back from Southeast Asia and regroup, and meanwhile Japan would have gained access to the massive oil supplies they desperately needed. But Japan was absolutely certain that America would fight back against such an attack, and they were probably right. Really, it would have been just like Pearl Harbor, except without the side benefit of crippling American's existing Pacific fleet.

Watanabe's plan to pull back from China and other fronts, surprise-attack Pearl Harbor, and then immediately follow with a full invasion of Hawaii and then the Philippines was probably their best bet in retrospect--but it was also a much bigger risk than the one they actually took.


I fervently hate conspiracy theories, but the eight points sounds suspiciously similiar to the actual course of action taken by the American Government.

Regardless, FDR's proclamation of an "Unprovoked attack" was false. If you poke something with a stick for long enough, don't be shocked when it bites you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strategy of Tyrion

 

Tyrion fears Stannis more than Renly and prepares a chain to close the mouth of the river to Stannis’s fleet at the expense of weapons Cersei wanted to make. He is dismissive of Renly, despite Renly having a huge army. He rejects Robb Stark’s peace offer out of hand. He sends away the Red Keep’s reliable westermen garrison as part of a ploy to save Jaime, and so the city is held by mercenaries and city/crownland levies and gold cloaks. Tyrion sends no messengers after Tywin when he learns Stannis is marching on the city.

Issues.

Why is Tyrion so dismissive of Renly, when Renly, with 90,000 men, is obviously the biggest threat? Tyrion’s fear of Stannis causes him to prioritize the city’s sea and river defences, and he consequently makes no plans for a land attack by the reachmen.

The peace offer by the Starks ought to have been seriously considered, as the lannisters were already outnumbered by the Baratheon brothers. Surely it made sense to close down one front?

Tywin ought to have been informed SE had fallen and Stannis was on his way to KL. Granted, Tyrion knew Tywin had left Harrenhal, but he ought to have sent him some messengers to warn him what was happening. How did he hope to hold KL for months on his own without his father’s army?
 

 

Tyrion wasn't necessarily dismissive of Renley, If Renley had an army as large as you state then Tyrion is smart enough to know that there is nothing he can do about it, if Renley marches on Kings Landing Renley will win. But Tyrion does have a slim hope of beating Stannis and he prepares for that, there may be an number of reason for that as well, if he can hold the harbour then he has an escape route in the case of Renley at the gates, fortifying the harbour also is protection from the Redwyne fleet which would be sided with Renley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyrion wasn't necessarily dismissive of Renley, If Renley had an army as large as you state then Tyrion is smart enough to know that there is nothing he can do about it, if Renley marches on Kings Landing Renley will win. But Tyrion does have a slim hope of beating Stannis and he prepares for that, there may be an number of reason for that as well, if he can hold the harbour then he has an escape route in the case of Renley at the gates, fortifying the harbour also is protection from the Redwyne fleet which would be sided with Renley.


This makes astoundingly good sense.

I see no issues with any of your hypothesis.

At all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fervently hate conspiracy theories, but the eight points sounds suspiciously similiar to the actual course of action taken by the American Government.

The official alternative to the conspiracy theory is that the US didn't have to do anything because they were sure Japan had no choice but to attack anyway sooner or later. And I think that's perfectly plausible.1 But it's not much better--it's just saying "we didn't have to force their hand, because we'd already backed them into a corner by that point".

1 The openly-stated Victory Program, especially the part where America controlled neutral shipping in the Pacific and stopped selling oil to Japan, already left them no options but to drop out of the war or attack America--except maybe for the option of invading Indonesia and hoping America didn't take it as an attack, or doing something crazy like invading South America or Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...