EJNashIII | 27 Jan 2019 12:39 a.m. PST |
Just, much like Germany racial madness rather than common sense drove Japanese decision making. I.e., there would have been no real desire to grab the Dutch East Indies or even China if they were able to go forth without needing to attack the US. |
Fred Cartwright | 27 Jan 2019 2:20 a.m. PST |
I.e., there would have been no real desire to grab the Dutch East Indies or even China if they were able to go forth without needing to attack the US. No grabbing China was the Japanese plan. Both Germany and Japan wanted to join the colonial club. The US opposition to the Japanese move into China was ostensibly based on opposition to colonial conquest, conveniently forgetting that the US majority white population were themselves colonial settlers and ignoring the US economic colonialism pursued quite ruthlessly in South America during the 20's and 30's. The US did not pursue the same policies towards either the French, Spanish or Italians who were also engaged in colonial wars and expansion during that same period, which makes me suspect that it was more about maintaining the US dominant position in the Pacific. Not that the US were wrong to do so as the Japanese colonial expansion was a particularly nasty, evil and oppressive undertaking. |
Marc33594 | 27 Jan 2019 6:37 a.m. PST |
I guess a bit confused. The US disagreed with Japanese policy and aims. Whether for humanitarian reasons, purely economic ones or fill in the blank they disagreed. Strongly worded messages were not going to work. Rather than resort to war the US signals is disapproval by cutting off the means the Japanese are using to fuel that policy. No country is under any obligation (other than perhaps mutually approved treaties) to support policies they disagree with. |
Fred Cartwright | 27 Jan 2019 7:18 a.m. PST |
Marc33594 Agreed, but if you disagree with what someone is doing, grab them by the balls and squeeze hard to stop them doing it can you be surprised when they punch you in the face. Had the boot been on the other foot and it was the Japanese telling the US what they could or couldn't do in their own back yard I am sure the US would have reacted in a similar way. Wars have been fought with less causus belli than renaging on a big deal and then keeping the money. |
Bill N | 27 Jan 2019 7:38 a.m. PST |
With the U.S.S.R. Under Stalin, the U.K. under Churchill and the U.S. under Roosevelt in 1942 the only option that allows the Axis powers to maintain some of their territorial gains is military victory. I don't rule out this possibility. However it was possible those three men may not have been around to lead their nations in WW2. 1) Churchill gets killed in a car accident in NYC when he was on his speaking tour of the U.S. 2) Roosevelt is assassinated shortly before taking office for his first term. 3) Stalin loses out in the power struggle after Lenin's death. |
donlowry | 27 Jan 2019 10:18 a.m. PST |
if you disagree with what someone is doing, grab them by the balls and squeeze hard to stop them doing it can you be surprised when they punch you in the face. Yeah, but if the guy you punch in the face is twice your size and 3 times as wealthy, don't be surprised if he then knocks your head off! |
Marc33594 | 27 Jan 2019 2:09 p.m. PST |
Except Fred the Japanese put themselves in that precarious position. They knew the West, and especially the US, disagreed with their moves. Yet they continued a course of action that was dependent on the West, once again especially the US, continuing to supply them. If the boot was on the other foot, for example the Japanese disapproving of US activity in lets say Nicaragua, the US was in no way dependent on Japanese resources to continue such actions. So the US could well afford to let the Japanese hold their breath and turn blue since they had no such courses of action. It was, in part, arrogance on the Japanese part. We don't care you dont like our China policy or our setting up the puppet state of Manchukuo we will do as we darn well please. And you will continue to provide the resources needed. But then, as events would show, the Japanese grossly under estimated the US. |
Fred Cartwright | 27 Jan 2019 4:01 p.m. PST |
It was, in part, arrogance on the Japanese part. And you don't think it was in any way arrogant on the part of the US to tell another country how to run their affairs, particularly as the US was not directly threatened? And why just the Japanese? If the US disaprroved of colonialism why not do the same to the Spanish, French and Italians? If the boot was on the other foot, for example the Japanese disapproving of US activity in lets say Nicaragua, the US was in no way dependent on Japanese resources to continue such actions. Well of course being able to use your economic power to bully other nations into doing what you want was one of the US strengths. Having all the resources you need within your own borders was an enormous advantage that none of the other combatants enjoyed in WW2. |
Fred Cartwright | 27 Jan 2019 4:08 p.m. PST |
Yeah, but if the guy you punch in the face is twice your size and 3 times as wealthy, don't be surprised if he then knocks your head off! Well indeed and we should all be greatful the Japanese got into a fight with the big kid on the block. |
Marc33594 | 27 Jan 2019 4:12 p.m. PST |
I am sorry Fred but ALL countries throughout history have directly or indirectly told other countries how to run their affairs if they havent tried to step in and run them themselves. Was it arrogance. No more than any other country. The difference was Japan could not back theirs up. Japan had the decided disadvantage of being the new kid on the block and trying to secure their own empire long after many other countries had expanded theirs. Was it fair? Nope. Japan rightfully felt left out following WW I where they felt they had contributed as much as the other allies but reaped none of the rewards. As far as an economic power able to bully other countries I am afraid you overestimate US powers. Influence, certainly and yes the US leveraged it but no more so than other countries attempted to leverage their advantages. And absolutely. The US indeed was in the enviable position once the war started having most of the resources they needed within their own boarders. And where they did need to import, for such strategic materials as nickle, they did so with Canada an ally and secure land borders. Any reading of the war in the Pacific however has to start and end with the string of miscalculations Japan made especially regarding the US. |
Fred Cartwright | 27 Jan 2019 4:35 p.m. PST |
Marc what I find astonishing is the US claim that somehow the war with Japan came out of the blue as if they had done nothing to provoke it. I would go further as anyone half way component in dealing with the Japanese would have known that they could accept defeat, but there has to be a face saving option which was missing from the US moves in 1941. It was the face saving option in 1945 that allowed the Japanese to surrender, by allowing them to keep the emperor as nominal head of government and by dropping the bomb which enabled them to feel they had been defeated by unfair means. Japan rightfully felt left out following WW I where they felt they had contributed as much as the other allies but reaped none of the rewards. I don't think the US had any intention of allowing Japan to become an economic power and be in any position to challenge US dominance of the Pacific. They are not going to be able to do the same to the Chinese though! |
Lee494 | 27 Jan 2019 8:13 p.m. PST |
My question was about how the Axis could win, not if there had to be a WWII. IMO even without Hitler, Stalin and Tojo you would have had a WWII. Too much unfinished business from WWI. Japan wanted colonies. Germany wanted lost territory back. And Russia wanted whatever it could get to create a "buffer" with western Europe. So if we assume that some sort of war was going to happen, how does the Axis win it? One way perhaps is for Hitler NOT to attack Russia and concentrate on knocking England out of North Africa and the War. With a Vichy type govt in France and England they allow the Japanese to take their Asian assets – they are de facto Axis allies at that point – so Japan gets what they want without attacking the US. Would the US have stayed out in this case? Could Hitler have ever been persuaded not to attack Russia? Could Germany have taken out England even it if didn't attack Russia? All interesting questions. One thing I think I see coming through in these threads is that the attacks on Russia and Pearl Harbor, and Hitler declaring war on the US, were pivotal and those three events alone doomed the Axis to defeat. But keep the comments coming. Cheers! |
Marc33594 | 28 Jan 2019 5:23 a.m. PST |
Nor did the Japanese leave the US any way out. They showed an equal, if not greater lack of competence despite the wise counsel of those like Adm Yamamoto who had actually spent time in the US. Instead they clearly signaled they would continue their policy. And they fully expected the US not only to accept that but to continue enabling it! Japan clearly wished to replace US economic dominance in the Pacific, fair enough. But to expect the US to do nothing and, more amazingly, to aid the Japanese in that goal is rather mind boggling. And let us not forget the actions of other colonial powers in Asia. They had every reason to want to continue with policies then current and the US was seen as a stabilizing influence when it came to the economic situation. Certainly their actions were equally provocative. It was not just the US the Japanese declared war on and attacked on 7 December. |
Marc33594 | 28 Jan 2019 6:56 a.m. PST |
Several points Lee494. Germany not declaring war on the US may have altered the timeline a bit and resulted in a Pacific first policy (this is providing Japan still attacks Pearl Harbor) but one way or the other war with Germany had become inevitable. While the US professed neutrality it was a fig leaf. In September 1940 the US traded the UK 50 destroyers for basing rights on select British possessions. In March of 1941 Lend Lease passed in the US congress. At some point there were bound to be incidents. While, technically, food stuffs and medicines can be delivered as humanitarian aid the US deliveries went far beyond accepted aid to a country at war. If nothing else, having declared a blockade, and this sound almost obscene, but The German's would have been within their legal rights to attack US flagged shipping in the exclusion zone. There also seems to be a feeling that, had the Germans not attacked the Soviet Union (or at the very least put it off a year) they would have the resources to successfully invade the UK. That was no easy task and far from a sure thing! A failure would have given the German military a bloody nose, ended the image of an invincible German military sooner and allowed Russia even more time for modernizing their forces. And it depends on ones definition of winning the war. Had Germany stopped after taking France and the low countries and Norway and digested those conquests the war is technically over and they have "won". So perhaps in asking how the Germans could have won the war limiting their war aims might be an answer. They could have even expanded their area of influence by treaties with their eventual allies like Hungary, Romanian, Bulgaria and the like and ultimately be in a better situation should the Soviet Union invade. |
Legion 4 | 28 Jan 2019 7:46 a.m. PST |
Well no one mentioned the obvious … If the Axis had help from aliens … |
foxweasel | 28 Jan 2019 8:18 a.m. PST |
|
donlowry | 28 Jan 2019 9:16 a.m. PST |
There also seems to be a feeling that, had the Germans not attacked the Soviet Union (or at the very least put it off a year) they would have the resources to successfully invade the UK. That was no easy task and far from a sure thing! A failure would have given the German military a bloody nose, ended the image of an invincible German military sooner and allowed Russia even more time for modernizing their forces. I doubt that Germany could ever have successfully invaded Britain, but, if not committed to war with the USSR it could have devoted more resources and effort to the Battle of the Atlantic and to North Africa. We must remember, however, that even if Germany did not attack the USSR it still had to defend that border. Stalin had been hoping for a chance to grab more if/when Germany got tied up in a stalemate in the West, and still would have been happy to take advantage of any German weakness. Still, passively defending does not tie up as many men and resources as a shooting war does, and with more defenders in France and the British driven out of North Africa and the Med., the U.S. entry into the war would not have meant a second front any time soon. |
Fred Cartwright | 28 Jan 2019 3:31 p.m. PST |
And let us not forget the actions of other colonial powers in Asia. They had every reason to want to continue with policies then current and the US was seen as a stabilizing influence when it came to the economic situation. And exactly what were they going to do? Tell the US to get stuffed? Britain needed lend lease to survive they were hardly going to tell the US to mind their own business and sell oil to Japan. The French and Dutch were occupied by the Germans and not in a position to refuse either. And they fully expected the US not only to accept that but to continue enabling it! Why wouldn't they?! Japan had been in China for years and had kept buying oil from the US. |
Marc33594 | 28 Jan 2019 4:12 p.m. PST |
These were policies Fred which had and still were benefiting the colonial powers, not something they were forced to continue because the US was holding their feet to the fire. And the US was in the process of cutting back in the Pacific. They had already granted the Philippines commonwealth status in 1935 as part of the process of eventually gaining their independence. And as to the fact the US had been selling oil in the past doesnt mean they had the patience to do so in perpetuity! The Japanese had been warned of the consequences. So no they most certainly could not expect the US to continue such sales. Guess I am missing your point. The US had an obligation to continue to sell oil, steel and other strategic goods to the Japanese? The US was to blame for the war in the Pacific, one that the Japanese had been waging since just prior to the seizure of part of China and Mongolia to set up the puppet state of Manchukuo? That Japan was the real victim? |
William Ulsterman | 28 Jan 2019 8:30 p.m. PST |
1. Forget the surface fleet – start the war with more than 27 ocean going u-boats. 54 would have been a nice number, and check the torpedoes. The Germans had faulty torpedo detonators for around the first year and a half of WWII – during this time the tonnage sunk per submarine was at its highest. 2. Develop a drop tank for the ME 109 (which they already had made, they just weren't producing them in 1940 in time for the Battle of Britain) – extend the range of the ME 109 up to (roughly) Newcastle from the coast of France. Not a lot of space for the RAF to retreat into and keep their squadrons fresh. Could have been a big factor. 3. The Italians stay strictly neutral, thus denying Britain and the USA a battleground in the Med. For want of a better option the Poms and the Yanks have to attack France head on in 1943 and the whole thing turns into a large scale Dieppe. |
Fred Cartwright | 29 Jan 2019 4:19 a.m. PST |
Marc I certainly think they had an obligation to deliver the oil that had already been agreed and paid for. The way they pulled the plug was designed to cause the maximum anger in Japan. Hanging on to the money was the icing on the cake! If the US was serious about reaching a peaceful solution then where was the carrot to counter balance the stick? The truth is the US weren't interested in a peaceful solution they were going to have it out with the upstart Japanese. Roosevelt got what he wanted. Unfortunately everyone else got dragged in too. Britain did not want war with the Japanese and several members of my family might have lived a whole lot longer had it not happened. |
Andy ONeill | 29 Jan 2019 5:34 a.m. PST |
I think Hitler was quite lucky to survive long enough to get to power. Some of his decisions had really terrible implications for German production. Here's my what if. Hitler dies in the putsch or one of the assassination attempts is successful. No Hitler. Industrialists back a leader for his ability to drive production efficiencies. This one change then makes huge differences. Not_Hitler picks subordinates based on their ability and he drives the various military suppliers to work together rather than vying against each other. We need to work together because the beast from the east will invade us if we don't get em first. He is not corrupt and does not choose corrupt subordinates. Production is far more efficient. He doesn't support crackpot schemes or murderous loons. Britain backs his claims that the reparations for ww1 are ruinous and this Germany therefore has more money. In order to quiet political discontent and because it has excellent weapon production he reluctantly expands into Czechoslovakia. A number of countries are not at all happy with this but it's a done deal and the puppet government turns out to be fairly reasonable. Promises to free the non-German parts are made. There is no need for large numbers of U boats or much of a navy. They invest in better planes and heavier longer range bombers. Supply of critical resources such as oil, rubber and metals is not a problem. Seeing Stalin as a threat, Germany still carries out tank research with the Soviets. During an exchange of views they are somewhat alarmed to hear that the Soviets think their best tank is junk and seem to have a tank with a much bigger gun. The efficient advisers explain any war with the Soviet Union will be long and protracted. A war of materiel. Money is spent on better medium tanks with sloped armour, which are easier to produce and maintain. It will be a war at great distance in extreme climate. They plan for this. Germany does not invade anywhere other than Czechoslovakia and allies with Britain. No Polish campaign, no attack on France, no Battle of Britain. Germany has substantial efficient tank and air forces. In 1940 the Soviets attack Finland. Britain and Germany respond by declaring war on the Soviets. Both reinforce Finland. Britain then persuades Poland they will be next. They ally and Germany attacks the Soviet Union to save the free world. The Soviet Union is seen as a threat to Europe and USA doesn't want to get involved. They are persuaded to support Japan's attack from the East. This comes as Germany attacks from the West in 1940, with Polish and British support. In the real world. Britain was inclined to support the Finns. If Nazi Germany hadn't been at war with Britain then that would likely have happened. It was widely considered that the French had been extremely unreasonable with their reparation demands after ww1. This is one of the things drove Germany to want to invade France at all. |
Marc33594 | 29 Jan 2019 5:59 a.m. PST |
Fair enough Fred. Then, by your logic, the war in Europe was mostly the fault of Britain and France. You point out how important face was to the Japanese. The Germans were proud as well. The Germans were humiliated after the war and forced to pay crippling reparations. France especially, given what they had suffered during the war, seemed to take delight with humiliating the Germans. And the UK and France stood by doing essentially nothing during the re-militarization of the Rhineland, the Anschluss and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. Since they stood by for these actions it was reasonable to expect they would not go to war over Poland. And, in the end of course, it was the UK and France which declared war on Germany. So the rest of the western world got dragged in to use your comments on the Pacific. And if the UK and France had confronted the Germans early then many of my family would have lived a longer life. Japan, since late 20s/early 30s had been effectively ruled by a coalition of the military and ultra-nationalists. Any moderate politician who dared speak out against their polices did so at risk of their life. This coalition had decided on a purely military course of action with no negotiations. The US support or nonsupport played no role in Manchukou or in areas such as Nanking. If the US had continued to placate the Japanese it may have forestalled war between the two but it is naive to think British assets and territories would have been exempted. The Japanese were opportunists. They know doubt would have still occupied French and Dutch possessions following those countries fall in 1940. This would also secure necessary resources only this time unhindered by any US actions. With the UK in a death struggle with the Germans the Japanese would have taken the steps they did to attack the British as well looking to expel them and keep them from being a factor preventing the Japanese master plan. At some point war would have been inevitable between the US and Japan. Circling back on this original topic it would have been fought with the Japanese in much better shape than historically and defeating the allies in the Pacific piecemeal. So it appears your thesis is the wider Pacific war was the fault of the US (we should have continued to enable their conquests apparently). And if one uses the same logic the war in Europe, at least at it relates to Germany, was the fault of the UK and France. Russia was Germany's China. The UK and France got what they wanted. |
Marc33594 | 29 Jan 2019 7:43 a.m. PST |
But back to the original post but this time the Pacific. Not sure the Japanese could have pulled off a victory but they could certainly have positioned themselves much better given but one change. The Japanese go ahead with all they did do, including declaring war on the US, but with one change, they do not attack Pearl Harbor! The Japanese planners knew that if they attacked the Philippines it was war. They looked at taking the Philippines, digging in, and waiting for a US response. Instead they decided a blow against the main US fleet at Pearl Harbor would cripple the US and forestall a move by the American fleet. The Pearl Harbor attack would end up being a costly mistake. They had overcome the use of torpedoes in shallow waters (and planning for Pearl Harbor, including use of torpedoes, predates the attack on Taranto). But it was still shallow waters which means most ships settled to the bottom and could be raised. In fact only the target ship Utah, and the battleships Arizona and Oklahoma were permanent losses! While it took until 1944 for the last ship to be raised, refitted, and in action, still not quite what the Japanese had envisioned. Further, during repair and refit many engineering shortfalls, especially with regards to faulty water tight designs, were exposed and corrected! The US, like many naval powers, was undergoing an internal struggle between the battleship advocates and the carrier/airpower advocates. At the time of Pearl Harbor it was the battleship group which still held the upper hand. Had there been no Pearl Harbor attack no doubt the US fleet would have sortied in relief of the Philippines. The carriers would have accompanied but more likely in a scouting role. The Japanese could afford to lie in wait, perhaps a reverse Midway in a way. Any losses on the US part would have been permanent and not repaired. Casualties much higher. Based on several of the surface actions at the beginning of the Pacific war it may have been a complete disaster for the US. Higher casualties would have bought the Japanese more time. An attack on the Philippines would not be seen in the same light as one on Hawaii and may not have had the same punch to the stomach Pearl Harbor did. The US fleet suffering a significant reverse in combat with the Japanese fleet (as opposed to being struck at anchor in port) may have had a very discouraging effect on US morale and public support. Not sure the Japanese would have ultimately prevailed but an already bloody conflict would have certainly had even higher casualties and taken longer. |
Fred Cartwright | 29 Jan 2019 8:58 a.m. PST |
No argument about the war in Europe being largely the fault of Britain and France, particularly France who wanted to extract the maximum revenge for past humiliations. They should have listened to Wilson. To compound that the dealings with Germany and Russia prewar were badly bungled. As for US being dragged into the war in Europe they refused to do so, until Japan attacked the US and Hitler declared war on the US, so you have only got yourselves to blame for that one. War in the Far East was absolutely the worst thing for Britain at the end of 1941. With Germany heavily involved in Russia the U.K. was safe from invasion more time to secure Middle Eastern oil might have enabled Britain to put up a better defence. And if as you say it was such an important thing for the US to intervene why wait 10 years to do it? The whole thing could have been done and dusted before the Nazis came to power! |
Legion 4 | 29 Jan 2019 9:14 a.m. PST |
Or the undead… Zombie Nazis !?!?!?!?!!!! |
donlowry | 29 Jan 2019 9:32 a.m. PST |
Britain then persuades Poland they will be next. They ally and Germany attacks the Soviet Union to save the free world. How is Germany going to get at the USSR without going through Poland? Which the Poles are not going to want! Hitler dies in the putsch or one of the assassination attempts is successful. No Hitler. Industrialists back a leader for his ability to drive production efficiencies. Industrialists didn't (don't) want efficiency, they want profits! Not-Hitler picks subordinates based on their ability and he drives the various military suppliers to work together rather than vying against each other. They didn't (don't) want to work together, they're competitors! He is not corrupt and does not choose corrupt subordinates. Lotsa luck with finding such a politician! |
Marc33594 | 29 Jan 2019 10:37 a.m. PST |
Because the US didnt wait 10 years. In 1937 the invasion of China was the so called straw that broke the camels back. The move was condemned by the US in no uncertain terms as well as many members of the rather toothless League of Nations to include UK. From 1938 the US began a series of more restrictive trade polices with Japan in an attempt to deter Japanese aggression in China. Some of the moves included ending the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan and tightening the Export Control Act of 1940. Incremental steps designed to move Japan to negotiations. And, if as you say, Britain did not want to antagonize the Japanese let alone fight them why, in January of 1941 when the US froze Japanese assets in response to Japan's move into Indo-China did Britain, along with the Netherlands, join in the freeze? You can't claim US lend lease as it would be several months before the act would be approved and longer before the flow of goods. I guess, at this point, best leave it with the US, UK and France being the real villains in WW II and the Germans and Japanese (suppose we should throw in the Italians as well) were the real victims. |
Fred Cartwright | 29 Jan 2019 12:12 p.m. PST |
Because the US didnt wait 10 years. In 1937 the invasion of China was the so called straw that broke the camels back. The Japanese moved into Manchuria in 1931 and the fighting continued throughout the subsequent decade before the war with the US, but even if we take your date of 1937 why wait 4 years and keep on supplying oil in the meantime? And, if as you say, Britain did not want to antagonize the Japanese let alone fight them why, in January of 1941 when the US froze Japanese assets in response to Japan's move into Indo-China did Britain, along with the Netherlands, join in the freeze? Well let us see. Maybe because they didn't want to upset the US by not complying, particularly in the case of Britain when you are relying on the US to supply you with weapons to continue the fight against Germany! You don't tell someone who enabling you to survive to get lost! I guess, at this point, best leave it with the US, UK and France being the real villains in WW II and the Germans and Japanese (suppose we should throw in the Italians as well) were the real victims. Now that is just plain daft. No one is suggesting that the Germans and Japanese are absolved of blame. However it is never all one sided and the result of WW1 where Germany was humiliated and the Japanese despite being on the winning side received nothing from the subsequent treaties did a lot to set up the conditions that lead to WW2. Despite the blundering in handling the situation in Germany as the Nazis started grabbing territory both the French and British realised war was inevitable and started to prepare for it. Maybe not well enough, but they tried. The appeasement is understandable too, given the awful experiences of the trenches that both countries went through, which accounts for the slowness in realising Hitler would never be satisfied and war would come eventually. |
Bill N | 29 Jan 2019 12:35 p.m. PST |
Marc I certainly think they had an obligation to deliver the oil that had already been agreed and paid for. Why? Not rhetorical. Since WW1 the U.S. and the U.K. had been telling Japan it was not acceptable for Japan to dominate China. Beginning in 1931 Japan proceeded to expand into China in spite of U.S. and U.K. warnings. In 1940 Japan extended its efforts to Indochina and made demands on the Dutch East Indies. The U.S. embargo on certain goods to Japan in 1940 was a clear indication that further aggression by Japan would result in additional economic sanctions. Japan chose to disregard this warning. They chose to purchase from the U.S., a nation with whom they were having progressively more strained relations, rather than seeking alternative sources of supply. They gambled and they lost. |
Fred Cartwright | 29 Jan 2019 1:29 p.m. PST |
Why? Not rhetorical. Because it had already been agreed. If you don't want them to have it don't agree to sell it to them in the first place. How do you think the US would have reacted if at the conclusion of the bases for destroyers deal, having taken delivery of the destroyers the UK said "Sorry we have changed our minds. You can't have the bases and by the way we are keeping the destroyers!" But the US was big enough and ugly enough to look after itself, so did it anyway. Just don't act all surprised when it starts a war. |