Hasta La Gadget!

June 7 marked the 75th anniversary of the end of the Battle of Midway. The books and movies about this battle have been legion. They focus on the long odds facing the Americans, the luck and breathtaking courage, and the brilliance of American codebreakers that led to victory. They assert that the American victory sealed Japan’s fate in World War II. But they rarely consider in detail the consequences if America had lost the battle, which it might easily have done. The Japanese were also extraordinarily courageous. Had they been luckier, and had they changed the Japanese code well before the battle as they should have, Midway could have ended in the destruction of three American carriers, with the Japanese navy intact. On this anniversary, I want to consider the war had the battle gone Japan’s way.

The Pacific

The immediate consequence of a defeat at Midway would, of course, have been in the Pacific. The Japanese plan appears to have been to follow Midway with an assault on strategic islands in the South Pacific. They would have faced light forces on the islands and no naval threat. They would have taken islands, built airfields and constructed overlapping areas of air power that would have prevented merchant shipping from entering. The flow of U.S. troops and materiel to Australia would have slowed to a trickle or dried up altogether. This would have meant that the U.S. would not have taken Guadalcanal and New Guinea until much later. It also would have given Japan much more time to consolidate a line, for example, from Samoa to Midway to the Aleutians, which was also part of Japan’s Midway strategy.

The United States, lacking a sufficient carrier force, would not have been able to launch a Pacific offensive until mid-1943, and that offensive would have had to be focused on the South Pacific rather than the Gilberts, Marianas and Marshalls. The cost in time, men and materiel of bringing Japan into range of American bombers would have been substantial. Submarines would have had to launch from Pearl Harbor rather than Midway, which is 1,300 miles (2,100 kilometers) longer, and much of the time would have been spent on submarine operations to interdict supplies instead of attacking Japanese warships. Japan would have had time and materiel to increase its strength.

The Americans’ problem in the Pacific would have been securing Hawaii as a forward base and maintaining the line of supply from the West Coast. The Japanese were unlikely to invade Hawaii, given that all operations there would take place within the range of U.S. air power. But the Japanese could have used submarines based in Midway to interdict supplies from the West Coast. If Hawaii ceased to be an effective base, then the Japanese would dominate the Western Pacific. They would have had options to strike the West Coast, and certainly to take Dutch Harbor in Alaska or even Anchorage. They already held the islands of Attu and Kiska. The Americans would have had to answer.

In 1942, the Battle of the Atlantic was at its peak, and that summer and fall, an extraordinarily high 10 percent of all Allied shipping in the Atlantic was being sunk. It is at this point that the United States would have had to decide whether to risk the isolation of Hawaii or reduce the number of destroyers based in the Atlantic. It couldn’t do both – U.S. production of naval vessels wouldn’t really be able to surge until mid-1943.

The shipping of supplies to Britain was meant to support Britain and the Soviet Union, an excellent long-term strategy for pursuing American interests. But this was a political problem. The immediate threat to the American homeland would likely trump long-term strategy.

Given the stakes in the Pacific, the odds against U-boats in the Atlantic and the delay in increased production of naval vessels, the U.S. would have had little choice but to transfer destroyers to the Pacific. But that wouldn’t be enough. It would also greatly increase land-based aircraft on the West Coast. The aircraft production program was beginning to gain steam in 1942, but most of that at the time was being assigned to the Royal Air Force, the U.S. Air Force buildup in Britain or the Soviet Union. That would have changed.

An Unthinkable Treaty

We must consider the impact of all this on Allied powers. Australia would have depended on its own resources. The Japanese were unlikely to invade, but the Australians couldn’t be sure of that. For things to change, the U.S. would have to launch a new Navy, fight its way through the South Pacific and then launch operations northward to push the Japanese away from Australia. To that point, neither the British nor the Americans appeared very effective allies. At the very best, the U.S. was a year away from offensive operations, and opening the line of supply to Australia might not happen until 1944, if ever.

Immediately upon the U.S. defeat at Midway, Australia would have had to demand that the last Australian forces in North Africa return home while the Suez Canal was still open. The battle of El Alamein was being fought from summer 1942 until the British victory in October. A British defeat would have enabled the Germans to take the Suez Canal and likely control the Mediterranean. Australian troops had been critical to this victory, and though the Australians had withdrawn many troops after Pearl Harbor, the 7th Division remained. The 7th Division proved to be the critical force in the final, victorious phase of El Alamein. Had the Australians withdrawn the 7th in summer 1942, which they would have had Midway been an American defeat, it is altogether possible that the British still would have won at El Alamein, but it would have been substantially less likely than with the Australians there.

But the homeland would have to take precedent. The Australians wanted to be certain that Australia was not occupied by the Japanese, but they had no military way to prevent it and no reliable allies. Their national strategy was hoping the Japanese had other plans. The Japanese had no real interest in Australia except for making sure it didn’t become a base for the Americans. The Japanese also wanted Australia’s raw materials. A peace agreement was possible. Australia, isolated and with no options, would have done what was unthinkable before Midway: signed a friendship pact with Japan guaranteeing neutrality, with a mutually beneficial trade agreement included.

Soviet Vulnerability

At about the same time of Midway, the Germans launched an offensive in the south that would evolve into the Battle of Stalingrad. The offensive surprised the Soviets, who were expecting the assault to come on Moscow. The Soviets had also underestimated Germany’s strength. At the same time, the Soviets would have seen the American defeat at the Battle of Midway and understood that it would mean a decrease in lend-lease, if not its complete disruption. The British, who also depended on lend-lease, would be in no position to replace it, and Soviet industrial production was not yet capable of providing for a powerful defense at Stalingrad by itself.

And the Soviets had a second problem. Prior to Pearl Harbor, the Soviets had feared, and the Japanese had considered, an alternative strike into Siberia. Russia’s maritime region had oil, and Japan needed oil. The Japanese attacked south toward the Dutch holdings instead, but the interest in Siberia was still there. With a victory at Midway, the Japanese could have halted operations in the Pacific and focused on building defenses on Pacific islands that would bog down the American counterattack in mid-1943 in island-to-island fighting, with a vast Japanese fleet to challenge the landing party.

But Siberia was open. Right after Pearl Harbor, the Soviets shifted to Moscow the force that had been protecting Siberia from Japan. It was this force under Gen. Georgy Zhukov that stopped the Germans. A Japanese victory at Midway would have reopened the possibility of a Japanese invasion. But the Soviets would not have been able to send Zhukov back. Until the defeat of the German southern thrust, which would happen in early 1943, everything had to go there.

The Soviet Union faced two problems. One was that it didn’t know that it could win at Stalingrad with the absence of lend-lease shipments. The other was that critical Soviet lands were at serious risk. If the Soviets couldn’t contain the Germans’ southern thrust, the best they could do was retain a rump state in the north. If they won but Japan attacked Siberia, they would still have lost the east, and the Japanese would control the Western Pacific, China and Siberia.

In 1943 and 1944, there were discussions between Germany and the Soviets on a peace agreement that never worked out. I don’t know that either side took these talks seriously. The Germans certainly wouldn’t have considered talks had Japan won at Midway, forcing the U.S. to shift its grand strategy away from the Atlantic, putting lend-lease in jeopardy and exposing the eastern Soviet Union to Japanese attack. I think without the assistance of the Americans in 1942, the Soviets would have lost the war. In our alternate history, the Americans probably would have thought the Soviets were going to lose anyway, but history proved them wrong.

Freak Outcomes

It is true that in the years after Midway, American productivity would grow to be enormous, but the enemy doesn’t wait for production to rise. Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto’s intention was to destroy the U.S. naval force in the Pacific and to create an impregnable belt of islands to block American advances. That was the purpose of Midway, and had it worked, I think there would have been a different outcome in the global war. This is because the United States was the industrial foundation of the Allies, but in 1942, that production had not really gotten underway. A defeat at Midway would have forced a reallocation of industrial production and warships. This would have left key allies, Australia and the Soviet Union, in an impossible position.

The U.S. would have had towering production by 1943 or 1944. But the Soviets would not be there anymore. Nor, I suspect, would Australia. Britain would have made it so long as it won at El Alamein without Australia’s help. The problem was that massive production without Allied forces and forward bases would have left the U.S. fighting alone. And given the distances and multiple enemies, that wasn’t possible.

This all raises a serious question for me. My work is in finding the order and predictability in history. There was nothing predictable at Midway. The Japanese should have won even with the U.S. breaking their code. The numbers were so lopsided in their favor that their defeat was a freak. And that freak created the world we live in. The Japanese were as brave and as smart, their weapons as good if not better, and they had far greater numbers. They should have won, and the things I have described should have happened, and the history of the world should have been quite different.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

It’s easy to fall in love with a narcissist: They’re charming, exude self-confidence and shower you with compliments and attention, at least in the beginning. 

Maintaining a relationship with a narcissist is not so easy. In the video above, Psych2Go points out nine signs that you’re in an emotionally manipulative relationship with a narcissist.

One warning sign? Emotional detachment.

“Most narcissists actually seem like the perfect partner when they start out; they’ll flatter you, they’ll build you up, then expect you to build them up [in return],” the narrator explains. “When they’ve finally gotten all the assurance, validation and ego-boosting they can from you, they’ll start to pull away.” 

Of course, it’s important to note that narcissism exists on a spectrum; not everyone you date who seems a little into themselves has full-blown narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Head here to read more about narcissism. 

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Stories + articlesList=563aa9a2e4b0411d306fa826,55c4aaf2e4b0923c12bc7398,56255667e4b0bce34701c7cd,5924930fe4b0ed5eed1322da

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

A rape victim in Edmonton, Canada, was jailed in a cell near her attacker and even had to ride with him to court in the same van. 

On Monday, Alberta Justice Minister Kathleen Ganley spoke out on the case and ordered an investigation to ensure nothing like that ever happens again. Though the trial happened in 2015, it’s back in the news because Ganley has formed a special committee to review the case and make what she calls “aggressive changes.”

“The facts of this case are disturbing and tragic, and when you add in the treatment of the victim in the system, they are almost incomprehensible,” Ganley said, according to the BBC. She adding that “both policies and people failed in this case.”

The victim’s name has not been made public, but she was given the pseudonym “Angela Cardinal” by the Canadian Broadcasting Company during the trial.

In 2014, the 28-year-old victim was homeless and sleeping on the stairwell of an Edmonton apartment after a resident gave her permission to do so.

While she was sleeping, a different resident, Lance Blanchard, brutally attacked her. Blanchard, a career criminal with a history of violent behavior, forced her into his second-floor apartment and bound her with electrical cords before beating her, stabbing her and sexually assaulting her, according to the Edmonton Sun.

The victim survived the attack by putting her phone on speaker mode, dialing 911 and screaming, “Help me. Somebody, help me. I’ve been stabbed.” 

Police arrived six minutes later and stopped the attack, but her body was covered in cuts and she needed 27 stitches to repair a wound to her hand, according to the CBC.

In addition, one eye was black and blue and she had bruises on her neck where Blanchard tried to choke her.

As terrible as the assault was, it’s the victim’s treatment by the court that’s now sparking further outrage. 

It began June 5, 2015, when she was ordered to testify at Blanchard’s preliminary hearing. During questioning, the woman kept falling asleep and had trouble focusing and answering questions, according to the CBC.

The prosecutor asked the court to order the victim to spend the weekend at the Edmonton Remand Centre to make sure she came back to testify further. 

Understandably, the victim was angered.

“I’m the victim and look at me, I’m in shackles,” she told provincial court Judge Raymond Bodnarek on the following Monday, according to the CBC.

The judge told her she was being jailed to ensure she showed up in court the next day.

“Shackles,” she said. “Aren’t you supposed to commit a crime to go to jail?”

The judge did not heed her words. Instead, she spent a total of five nights in the same jail as her attacker, and twice had to ride to court in the same van, according to News.com.au. During court breaks, Cardinal was usually placed in a cell close to Blanchard.

Blanchard was convicted in December of aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping and unlawful confinement. His victim never saw the conviction. She died in late 2015 in an unrelated shooting.

Blanchard is still behind bars but is arguing the conviction, saying his constitutional rights were violated because he’s spent the past three years in solitary confinement at the Edmonton Remand Centre, the CBC reports.

The victim’s sister-in-law said on Tuesday she has no sympathy for Blanchard. 

“I heard that video recording of her 911 call,” the sister-in-law said, according to the CBC. “And to hear her voice screaming for help and he’s going to sit there and complain about shackles and how his TV’s not right.

“I was angered [at] how he’s sitting there whining, complaining about how he’s being treated. And what did he do to get there? How did he treat her to get there?”

In addition to Alberta Justice Minister Ganley’s committee, criminal lawyer Roberta Campbell, outgoing president of the Law Society of Manitoba, will also conduct an independent investigation into Cardinal’s treatment by the judicial system.

“She was the victim,” Campbell told the CBC. “We should have treated her as the victim. And I think it definitely speaks to a series of wrong decisions and a series of systemic failures that would have allowed us to do something like this to this young woman.” 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

1. “I was asked to testify today to describe for you my interactions with President-Elect and President Trump on subjects that I understand are of interest to you. I have not included every detail from my conversations with the President, but, to the best of my recollection, I have tried to include information that may be relevant to the Committee.”

Nothing like a found-document-style framing to spice up a novel ― see The Handmaid’s Tale or The Princess Diaries!

2. “The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the material implicated the FBI’s counter-intelligence responsibilities. We also agreed I would do it alone to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect.” 

Already, there seems to be something amiss in the state of the U.S. government.

3. “I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past.”

This is what we might call foreshadowing that such documentation will prove vital.

4. “It was unclear from the conversation who else would be at the dinner, although I assumed there would be others.

It turned out to be just the two of us, seated at a small oval table in the center of the Green Room. Two Navy stewards waited on us, only entering the room to serve food and drinks.”

A dramatic dinner alone with the president…

5. “My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship. That concerned me greatly, given the FBI’s traditionally independent status in the executive branch.”

 …who has an unusual request to make.

6. “A few moments later, the President said, ‘I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.’ I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.”

Like Chekhov’s gun, the theme of “loyalty” has been established. What could happen next?

7. “He then said, ‘I need loyalty.’ I replied, ‘You will always get honesty from me.’ He paused and then said, ‘That’s what I want, honest loyalty.’ I paused, and then said, ‘You will get that from me.’ As I wrote in the memo I created immediately after the dinner, it is possible we understood the phrase ‘honest loyalty’ differently, but I decided it wouldn’t be productive to push it further.”

Uh-oh, the conversation ends with the whole loyalty thing unresolved. Watch for it to explode in Act 2!

8. “The President signaled the end of the briefing by thanking the group and telling them all that he wanted to speak to me alone. I stayed in my chair. As the participants started to leave the Oval Office, the Attorney General lingered by my chair, but the President thanked him and said he wanted to speak only with me. The last person to leave was Jared Kushner, who also stood by my chair and exchanged pleasantries with me. The President then excused him, saying he wanted to speak with me.”

Through these details, such as the president repeatedly saying he wants to speak to Comey alone, we gather that this desire to be alone will prove significant. Why? Intrigue, probably.

9. “When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the President began by saying, ‘I want to talk about Mike Flynn.’ Flynn had resigned the previous day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other concerns about Flynn, which he did not then specify.”

Yep, it was the intrigue thing.

10. “The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, ‘He is a good guy and has been through a lot.’ He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’ I replied only that ‘he is a good guy.’ […] I did not say I would ‘let this go.’”

The president tries, and fails, to draw the noble FBI director into his web of intrigue.

11. “The FBI leadership team agreed with me that it was important not to infect the investigative team with the President’s request, which we did not intend to abide. We also concluded that, given that it was a one-on-one conversation, there was nothing available to corroborate my account.”

Who would believe the narrator, with no evidence but his word against the president’s?

12. “On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He described the Russia investigation as ‘a cloud’ that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia. He asked what we could do to ‘lift the cloud.’”

You know it’s a real post-WWII spy novel once “Russian hookers” show up.

13. “The President went on to say that if there were some ‘satellite’ associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out, but that he hadn’t done anything wrong and hoped I would find a way to get it out that we weren’t investigating him.”

But why was the president saying this? What deeper forces are at work here? 

14. “He said he would do that and added, ‘Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.’ I did not reply or ask him what he meant by ‘that thing.’ […]

That was the last time I spoke with President Trump.”

“That thing,” being the crux of the whole novel, will not be revealed until the final 10 pages. Can’t wait!

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=59123897e4b05e1ca202d173,5935a281e4b0cfcda916931c,5938594ce4b00610547ed0cb,59124a7ee4b05e1ca202e151,5915936be4b0fe039b33e248,591659c3e4b0fe039b34c580

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Sure, every relationship is different, but there are certain little truths that anyone in love ― no matter where they’re from or how long they’ve been together ― can relate to.  

Loryn Brantz, a BuzzFeed writer and illustrator, captures this adorably in her recent comic series “9 Truths Every Person Crazy In Love With Another Person Knows” using two lovey-dovey little beans (or are they potatoes?).

Below, we’ve gathered a few of our favorites. To see the rest of the series, head over to BuzzFeed. 

You end up cuddling whether the bed is big or small.

You find your partner adorable even when they’re doing (or saying) the most mundane things.

A hug from your boo can brighten the cloudiest of days.

Decades later, you still have hots for each other.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=56d74b29e4b0871f60eda9a1,57ab87f0e4b06e52746efb9f,59285e0fe4b053f2d2ac3cc9

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.