The Japanese would not go to war with the USSR,they had just gotten thier asses handed to them by the Soviet T-34s in 1939
WI no Pearl Harbour
- Thread starter Akiyama
- Start date
Max Sinister
Banned
Couldn't the Japanese have collected scrap metal in China? Like forcing the Chinese to give them all their things made of iron...
No I don't give the US credit for it either.
The US entered at a point were the Cubans were close to Victory, Gave very little aid to the Cubans, and then froze them out of the peace negotation,
First Refusing to allow the Cubans access to the Spainish negatiations, and then refusing to allow then to sign the peace treaty.
Almost all of the, Great US, freed the Cubans Myth, is a creation of the "Jingoistic Yellow Press"
That said
I do agree that the US treatment of the Cubans was better than the Spainish treatment had been.
As for Pearl, I think the Attack and taking of the Dutch East Indies, would have been the prudent Choice,
The Dutch have no real way to mobilize a effectant resistance, It gets the japanese the Oil and rubber it needs.
It Ticks off Britian, but not enuff [IMO] to cause a outbreak of hostilites,
it also Ticks off the US, but with 90% poll results Against going to war, FDR is not going to get any War going.
of Course with the US pushing more and more in the Atlantic, with it's convey protection to Britian, there is going to be more Incidents like the Rueben James, and eventually war with Germany, which will expand to Japan. But Japan will have had several months unrestricted access to the Indonesia oil fields, and a chance to rebuild their stockpiles of Petrol.
Sorry, Ghost, T34s weren't available to Zhukhov at Khalkin-Gol. He did it the old-fashioned way, by suckering the Japanese in, pounding them with artillery, then launching a devastating counter-attack.
Duquesne, is rubber available in Indonesia? As I understand it the Brits found the Brazilian plants grew only in Malaysia, so the Japanese would have to attack there as well, bringing the UK (and Australia) into their war.
As a matter of realpolitik, the Americans would have been bound to send a fleet to the South China Sea, if there was trouble in that part of the world. Also it was American policy to be boss-nation in the Pacific, understandably, and such a Japanese progression would raise the odds they would lose control.
In the long run, the answer to the question depends on the character of the then US President.
Duquesne, is rubber available in Indonesia? As I understand it the Brits found the Brazilian plants grew only in Malaysia, so the Japanese would have to attack there as well, bringing the UK (and Australia) into their war.
As a matter of realpolitik, the Americans would have been bound to send a fleet to the South China Sea, if there was trouble in that part of the world. Also it was American policy to be boss-nation in the Pacific, understandably, and such a Japanese progression would raise the odds they would lose control.
In the long run, the answer to the question depends on the character of the then US President.
Was being lazy as I could not remember the battle but thought T-34s were used as I thought I read Marshal Z used armour in defeating the Japanese.
Rubber was grown in Indonesia. Also in French Indo-China for that matter.
I went for European colonies. Japan already had French Indochina and could pressure Thailand into an alliance of sorts any time it wanted.
My bet is the Japanese would take Burma, the Dutch East Indies, Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong, New Guinea and likely a chunk of Melanesia and Polynesia before forcing the European powers who were bogged down with their own war into declaring peace and letting Japan hold on to their gains.
Now they might attack America later on, after they had consolidated their gains but i'm really not sure.
As for America declaring an unprovoked war to protect European colonies, not a chance and even if they did, there would be such an upheaval at home that it wouldn't end well for them at all.
My bet is the Japanese would take Burma, the Dutch East Indies, Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong, New Guinea and likely a chunk of Melanesia and Polynesia before forcing the European powers who were bogged down with their own war into declaring peace and letting Japan hold on to their gains.
Now they might attack America later on, after they had consolidated their gains but i'm really not sure.
As for America declaring an unprovoked war to protect European colonies, not a chance and even if they did, there would be such an upheaval at home that it wouldn't end well for them at all.
sharlin
Banned
Hnngh....why do folks think attacking the Soviet union to claim the 'eastern resources' was a good idea? Half of the stuff we know is there now is only just becoming viable due to advances in technology. The Japs, Americans, Brits, Nazis and Brazilians (dunno why i put them in there) did NOT have the equipment to drill for Siberian oil, and there was next to no Soviet exploitation of it. The IJA if it got over its drubbing from the Soviets in 36 would capture a rather small town and fecktons of snowy wasteland. For next to no reason.
The Japs would have to attack the US, the embargo was crippling them. Attacking the Soviets is a fools errand. Also even as bad as it was the Soviet army was still better equipped than the IJA. BT-5's and 7's were faster, better armoured and better gunned than the garbage the IJA called tanks. To do an attack on the Soviets the Japs would have to begin planning from about the early 30s onwards and even after Kalin'gol they would have to stick at it.
The Japs would have to attack the US, the embargo was crippling them. Attacking the Soviets is a fools errand. Also even as bad as it was the Soviet army was still better equipped than the IJA. BT-5's and 7's were faster, better armoured and better gunned than the garbage the IJA called tanks. To do an attack on the Soviets the Japs would have to begin planning from about the early 30s onwards and even after Kalin'gol they would have to stick at it.
Holy Thread Necromancy Batman!!!!!
Seriously a 6 year necro
Haha, my bad, i just searched 'no Pearl Harbour' and this came up.
Japan faced a choice in late 1941 akin to what Germany had in 1939: Conquest or economic implosion. Germany sought gold in the banks of every country it hit to pay for high-interest loans while securing resources for the future, an "age of continental states". Japan had no means to continue the wars as it had, and it built its conventional army to such a size that it was no longer sustainable with its industrial base. Without Pearl Harbor, the Japanese will hit DEI, Malaysia/Singapore, and the rest of the Southeastern Asian territories. But unless they can control China's richest territories and leave the rest to rump governments there will be no peace for Tokyo. If they are bright they'll support the "Asia for Asians" movement and control the professional and logistics of the Asian economies with a serious ground presence. But most likely it just means that the US declares war in early 1943ish, carrier doctrine is pushed back, and perhaps the Japanese wipe out the US in a different Pearl Harbor-esque scenario should we still be relying primarily on battleships at that point.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
it's a bit of a leap from that to America declaring war on the Japanese 'just' for sweeping up the Dutch East Indies. Would Roosevelt have been able to get away with it with the American public (and their isolationist sentiments) if he was the aggressor?[/QUOTE]
Very much a leap. Congress is not going to declare war over invasion of someone else's territory.
Very much a leap. Congress is not going to declare war over invasion of someone else's territory.
What if they just wait?
A astute observer might guess that the US would be drawn into the European war soon.
If the Japanese could just wait, then move once the US is committed to fighting Germany, the US would be less likely to move against them.
Course this would require a POD with a more patient Japan.
A astute observer might guess that the US would be drawn into the European war soon.
If the Japanese could just wait, then move once the US is committed to fighting Germany, the US would be less likely to move against them.
Course this would require a POD with a more patient Japan.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Japan has to attack in 1941 or 1942, after that the ships ordered in the Vinson act start commissioning, new aircraft are introduced and islands are fortified and Japan is screwed and they know that they can't win even a short war unless they hit the US in 41 early 42
Japan has a very severe problem by late 1941.
Attacking the USSR would cause Japan to run of oil quite quickly although it might provoke a British declaration of war which might allow an attack South without an American declaration of war.
Doing nothing would mean running out of oil more slowly but might have enabled the internal logjam of Japanese politics to be broken after the German defeat before Moscow and with increasing American strength.
I argued in another thread https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=5388343#post5388343 that Japan could not attack South and not expect an eventual American declaration of war. However, it is just possible that a war starting with an American declaration of war might have ended in a compromise peace (but unlikely https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=154524).
Making a deal with the USA was very difficult because both several figures in the US Government and most of the IJA regarded China as an issue of morality. “Quagmires in the Periphery: Foreign Wars and Escalating Commitment in International Conflict” by Jeffrey W. Taliaferro http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/WCFIA_97-06.pdf is an interesting discussion on the reluctance of the Army to cut its losses and withdraw from China. Clearly making a deal was the best way but could the Japanese make a deal?
Attacking the USSR would cause Japan to run of oil quite quickly although it might provoke a British declaration of war which might allow an attack South without an American declaration of war.
Doing nothing would mean running out of oil more slowly but might have enabled the internal logjam of Japanese politics to be broken after the German defeat before Moscow and with increasing American strength.
I argued in another thread https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=5388343#post5388343 that Japan could not attack South and not expect an eventual American declaration of war. However, it is just possible that a war starting with an American declaration of war might have ended in a compromise peace (but unlikely https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=154524).
Making a deal with the USA was very difficult because both several figures in the US Government and most of the IJA regarded China as an issue of morality. “Quagmires in the Periphery: Foreign Wars and Escalating Commitment in International Conflict” by Jeffrey W. Taliaferro http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/WCFIA_97-06.pdf is an interesting discussion on the reluctance of the Army to cut its losses and withdraw from China. Clearly making a deal was the best way but could the Japanese make a deal?
Bide their time (as much as the US oil embargo would allow) and work with Germany, Vichy, and whatever puppet entities that could be created for this purpose in occupied Netherlands, to create the fiction of a peaceful transfer of the Dutch East Indies and French IndoChina to Japanese control. If need be, allow the local colonial administrators to stay in place to run things. Don't mess with US or Btitish possessions unless and until either power declares war on Japan. Britain might since they would see this deal as a direct threat to their interests in the European War, but I doubt that the US would go to war against Japan absent any direct attack on US possessions or assets.
Japan needed oil somehow, and the Dutch East Indies were the obvious target. The only other option was to back down, and Japan would not have done that.