Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 191

Thread: What if - Spain joined the Axis in 1939.

  1. #106
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,823
    col,

    The war started in 1937 and they could not have deliver the knock out blow right up until Pearl Harbour. In very fact, the reason why Japan took on the US was that they were denied the resources to take China. Except if the US was Japan's ally, there was no way in hell for Japan to get the oil she needed to take China
    that was part of it, but the japanese were also concerned about US interference into malaya and the dutch east indies. there were oil/rubber resources there, which the japanese later used for their fight against the US.

    if the US stays out of the war or drops out after a year or two (which is quite possible if there was nothing galvanizing like pearl harbor), i don't think japan would have had such a limiting factor. ironically i think japan was weakest in terms of resource security in 1940-1941.

    Even if Japan had taken Southern China, the CCP in the north was becoming more and more powerful and do recall it was the CCP who swept down from the north to drive the KMT out from the south.
    it took the massive KMT defections in '48 and '49 that turned the CCP so powerful, though. recall that those KMT troops were also armed with a whole bunch of US lendlease.

    In no way ever can I see Japan ever conquering China. She did not have the manpower and she certainly did not have staying power.
    i certainly don't envision japan outright annexing china either, but i think it's within the realm of possibility for japan to set up a whole bunch of puppet states with their requisite armies. the japanese would just need to provide air power and tanks if need be, enough so that the rump KMT/CCP states would find it difficult to advance.

    how many millions of men and aircraft did japan expend against the US? imagine if a good portion of this were transferred to the china front. japanese factories remain unbombed, with an intact japanese navy/transport fleet.

    that had to do SOMETHING.

    if nothing else, the japanese could have executed a more robust version of the blockhouse strategy that CKS used against quite good effect against the CCP in the 30s civil war. again, i posit summer 1944, where even with US aid, US participation in the war, the KMT at least were still getting slaughtered by the japanese B team...a B team which was itself destroyed in a month by the soviets.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  2. #107
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    that was part of it, but the japanese were also concerned about US interference into malaya and the dutch east indies. there were oil/rubber resources there, which the japanese later used for their fight against the US.
    No can do. You cannot go all out without going Pearl Harbour. Either Japan does a Pearl Harbour or she doesn't. If she doesn't, then, she is NOT going after other allied holdings.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    if the US stays out of the war or drops out after a year or two (which is quite possible if there was nothing galvanizing like pearl harbor), i don't think japan would have had such a limiting factor. ironically i think japan was weakest in terms of resource security in 1940-1941.
    So Japan is allowed to do Singapore, Malaysia, the Philipines, and Hong Kong without doing Pearl? Not a chance. You cannot twist history to only your liking.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    it took the massive KMT defections in '48 and '49 that turned the CCP so powerful, though. recall that those KMT troops were also armed with a whole bunch of US lendlease.
    Because the CCP was winning. Do you actually think a superior armed force would defect to the losing side?

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    i certainly don't envision japan outright annexing china either, but i think it's within the realm of possibility for japan to set up a whole bunch of puppet states with their requisite armies. the japanese would just need to provide air power and tanks if need be, enough so that the rump KMT/CCP states would find it difficult to advance.
    And the warlords won't switch sides or undermind the Japanese? The Japanese didn't have that much money.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    how many millions of men and aircraft did japan expend against the US? imagine if a good portion of this were transferred to the china front. japanese factories remain unbombed, with an intact japanese navy/transport fleet.
    Without fuel, fighting an insurgency that lasted more than 10 years and have no signs of reducing and two very large enemy armies still in the field and no chance of actually anhilating them on the battlefield of your choosing.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    that had to do SOMETHING.
    The limitations that forced Pearl would still be in place.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    if nothing else, the japanese could have executed a more robust version of the blockhouse strategy that CKS used against quite good effect against the CCP in the 30s civil war. again, i posit summer 1944, where even with US aid, US participation in the war, the KMT at least were still getting slaughtered by the japanese B team...a B team which was itself destroyed in a month by the soviets.
    Again, the lack of good generals.

  3. #108
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,823
    col,

    If she doesn't, then, she is NOT going after other allied holdings.
    i don't see why not. IF the US declares war on japan without the absence of a japanese attack, it would be rather delayed. japan in this scenario can still take the philippines with relative ease, thereby securing her internal lines to southeast asia.

    So Japan is allowed to do Singapore, Malaysia, the Philipines, and Hong Kong without doing Pearl? Not a chance. You cannot twist history to only your liking.
    the question is if the US would declare war, and if she does, how much will she would have to see through an island campaign. pearl provided that will. i'm not sure i follow why pearl was a necessity- yamamoto didn't necessarily think it was.

    Because the CCP was winning. Do you actually think a superior armed force would defect to the losing side?
    a lot of it also had to do with the bankruptcy of the KMT. OTOH, in fall 1946 it looked like the KMT was about to crush the CCP. if not for a series of missteps in 1947 they probably could have, too.

    And the warlords won't switch sides or undermind the Japanese? The Japanese didn't have that much money.
    compared to the CCP or KMT, though? especially if south china was lost?

    Without fuel, fighting an insurgency that lasted more than 10 years and have no signs of reducing and two very large enemy armies still in the field and no chance of actually anhilating them on the battlefield of your choosing.
    the japanese had fuel enough to fight the americans all the way until 1945. as you say, the IJA was pretty much a WWI army.

    so i guess my question is-- if the japanese could beat the chinese in summer 1944, with their B team against chinese armies with lend-lease weapons and the 14th Air Force...what are the chances of the chinese beating the japanese A-team without such weapons and without the air support?

    Again, the lack of good generals.
    heck, if chiang's armies could pull it off...

    in a way, i think the argument is moot. whether or not the chinese win, if the US doesn't intervene in the Pacific War i suspect the soviets would have, one way or another. and neither the chinese nor the japanese were gonna stop that.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  4. #109
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    i don't see why not. IF the US declares war on japan without the absence of a japanese attack, it would be rather delayed. japan in this scenario can still take the philippines with relative ease, thereby securing her internal lines to southeast asia.
    Because the US Pacific Fleet would be fully intact and looking for war. We're not speaking Midway anymore but Jutland and like Jutland, no matter what kind of pasting the IJN can deliver, they still would come out the short end of that engagement and must run for home.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    the question is if the US would declare war, and if she does, how much will she would have to see through an island campaign. pearl provided that will. i'm not sure i follow why pearl was a necessity- yamamoto didn't necessarily think it was.
    Yamamoto was not going invade the Phillipines with a fully intact US Pacific Fleet out on the prowl. There was a reason the IJN felt necessary to go Pearl and that was to destroy the Pacific Fleet so that the IJN can have a free hand everywhere else. If the Pacific Fleet stays alive, the IJN would have to mass to counter that and massing to counter would deny them Singapore, Malaya, the Phillipines, Hong Kong, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    a lot of it also had to do with the bankruptcy of the KMT. OTOH, in fall 1946 it looked like the KMT was about to crush the CCP. if not for a series of missteps in 1947 they probably could have, too.
    You're playing into my hand. That meant there were competent KMT, ie Chinese, generals rising up.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    compared to the CCP or KMT, though? especially if south china was lost?
    You're talking about the historic warlords here. They switched sides left, right, and centre. Even CKS was kidnapped. You expect this bunch can be controlled?

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    the japanese had fuel enough to fight the americans all the way until 1945. as you say, the IJA was pretty much a WWI army.
    They did not win China from 37 to 41. A few more years sufferring from an insurmountable insurgency is not going to give them anymore staying power.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    so i guess my question is-- if the japanese could beat the chinese in summer 1944, with their B team against chinese armies with lend-lease weapons and the 14th Air Force...what are the chances of the chinese beating the japanese A-team without such weapons and without the air support?
    The same way the Chinese generals took on the Americans in Korea. Look, if we agree that the Chinese soldier is no less lacking than the Japanese soldier and not once in that entire war was the Chinese ever outnumbered or outgunned, then the failure is Chinese generalship. And since Japan could not deliver the knock out blow, then it was only a matter of time before good Chinese generals rise.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    heck, if chiang's armies could pull it off...
    Chiang's armies did pulled it off - under Stillwell.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    in a way, i think the argument is moot. whether or not the chinese win, if the US doesn't intervene in the Pacific War i suspect the soviets would have, one way or another. and neither the chinese nor the japanese were gonna stop that.
    On that, I fully agree.

  5. #110
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    No can do. You cannot go all out without going Pearl Harbour. Either Japan does a Pearl Harbour or she doesn't. If she doesn't, then, she is NOT going after other allied holdings.
    Why Not? The US didn't ride to the rescue of Britain, France or the Netherlands. Why would she do so for thier colonies? In 1941 the US pacific fleet was powerful on paper, but much weaker in reality. Her battleship designs remained untested as to who would win the faster Japanese or better armored Americans. US carriers used inferior aircraft, US submarines were inferior and much of the US destroyer force was on the other side of the Panama Canal on escort and patrol duty. On the ground things were even worse, the US Army in the Phillipines lacked equipment, tanks or large war stocks. The US like everyone else was at least partially betting that Fortress Singapore would act as a deterrent.

    Japan on the other hand had the biggest navy, biggest army, biggest marine force, and biggest most modern air force.....

    So Japan is allowed to do Singapore, Malaysia, the Philipines, and Hong Kong without doing Pearl? Not a chance. You cannot twist history to only your liking.
    The Philipines are sovergien US territory and would draw the US into the war. And while those islands sit astride any Japanese efforts in Maylasia and Indonesia they don't directly preclude Japanese actions there is Japan decides the US is still to isolantionist to act- not a very hard assumption at all. We did after all abandone the rounds eyes to Hitler, why would we care about almond eyes in Asia?

    Because the CCP was winning. Do you actually think a superior armed force would defect to the losing side?
    Actually it was fairly see-saw through the period of major defections. mao had a much better recruitment strategy than Chaing did.

  6. #111
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,158
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Why Not? The US didn't ride to the rescue of Britain, France or the Netherlands. Why would she do so for thier colonies? In 1941 the US pacific fleet was powerful on paper, but much weaker in reality. Her battleship designs remained untested as to who would win the faster Japanese or better armored Americans. US carriers used inferior aircraft, US submarines were inferior and much of the US destroyer force was on the other side of the Panama Canal on escort and patrol duty. On the ground things were even worse, the US Army in the Phillipines lacked equipment, tanks or large war stocks. The US like everyone else was at least partially betting that Fortress Singapore would act as a deterrent.

    Japan on the other hand had the biggest navy, biggest army, biggest marine force, and biggest most modern air force.....



    The Philipines are sovergien US territory and would draw the US into the war. And while those islands sit astride any Japanese efforts in Maylasia and Indonesia they don't directly preclude Japanese actions there is Japan decides the US is still to isolantionist to act- not a very hard assumption at all. We did after all abandone the rounds eyes to Hitler, why would we care about almond eyes in Asia?

    You're talking what was real in 1941,as showed by history.But in the minds of the Japanese admirals,Pac Fleet was much stronger.Same as with Malaya in the minds of the Brits.Perception plays the decisive part in the decision process.
    The Japanese had only one man whose perception was close to reality and he wasn't the one to make the call.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  7. #112
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Why Not? The US didn't ride to the rescue of Britain, France or the Netherlands. Why would she do so for thier colonies?
    Because the US was the primary political force denying resources to Japan. If the US had kept continuing supplying Japan with all the oil she wanted, then nothing the Brits nor the Dutch could do would stop Japanese adventure in China.

    As such, going after the Brits and the Dutch without going after the Americans would only leave them more vulnerable to an American counter-stroke.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    In 1941 the US pacific fleet was powerful on paper, but much weaker in reality. Her battleship designs remained untested as to who would win the faster Japanese or better armored Americans. US carriers used inferior aircraft, US submarines were inferior and much of the US destroyer force was on the other side of the Panama Canal on escort and patrol duty. On the ground things were even worse, the US Army in the Phillipines lacked equipment, tanks or large war stocks. The US like everyone else was at least partially betting that Fortress Singapore would act as a deterrent.

    Japan on the other hand had the biggest navy, biggest army, biggest marine force, and biggest most modern air force.....
    Whatever the outcome of a Jutland type battle would not be half as bad as Pearl for the USN. And as the Battle of the Coral Seas have shown, the IJN was not going to escape without casualties.

    And the outcome would still be the same as Midway, the IJN has to head home because as Yamamoto has foreseen, the Americans could replace their losses much faster and easier than the Japanese.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    The Philipines are sovergien US territory and would draw the US into the war. And while those islands sit astride any Japanese efforts in Maylasia and Indonesia they don't directly preclude Japanese actions there is Japan decides the US is still to isolantionist to act- not a very hard assumption at all. We did after all abandone the rounds eyes to Hitler, why would we care about almond eyes in Asia?
    All this assumes that Japan would be willingly waste valueable military resources while exposing her rear to a US who continued to arm and the balance of power continually shifting towards the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Actually it was fairly see-saw through the period of major defections. mao had a much better recruitment strategy than Chaing did.
    Still does not change the fact that able generals were emerging.

  8. #113
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,060
    As such, going after the Brits and the Dutch without going after the Americans would only leave them more vulnerable to an American counter-stroke.
    Could America politically have launched it? I'm sure FDR would have wanted to, but I doubt the American public would go to war to protect the Dutch control over Indonesia seeing as they didn't declare war when Japan took Indochina.
    Last edited by troung; 06 Sep 11, at 01:00.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  9. #114
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Could America politically have launched it?
    Doesn't matter. The USN was getting stronger and if the IJN went on a conquest, then they've just became weaker.

  10. #115
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,526
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Could America politically have launched it? I'm sure FDR would have wanted to, but I doubt the American public would go to war to protect the Dutch control over Indonesia seeing as they didn't declare war when Japan took Indochina.

    My bet is that he would have done something to put US forces in harm's way without actually decalaring on Japan - much like the US destroyers in the Atlantic. The Japanese high command was even crazier than Hitler (well enough of them to count, anyway) & would eventually have done something to provoke a reaction. Support for the UK was increasing in the US after the blitz. Malaya abutted the Phillippines. Assuming that Japan is prepared to strike south with an unconquered Phillippines at its rear (which seems extremely unlikely) the US can take actions that virtually guarantee conflict. One example - escort non-military british/dutch ships.

    None of this will give the same impetus to public opinion as PH, but the US will start the war later, which means it is in better shape. Plus, it starts with an intact pacific fleet & the ability to force the IJN to take battle om terms that suit it better. As pointed out, even if the first battle goes badly for the US, the IJN still takes losses. This immediately restricts the ability of Japan to continue expanding as it did. If I recall some of the same forces that hit PH also popped up bombing Darwin & attacking Trincomalee.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  11. #116
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,060
    Doesn't matter. The USN was getting stronger and if the IJN went on a conquest, then they've just became weaker.
    What if the IJN doesn't do anything to rile up the nation like PH? Japanese controlled SE Asia gives them all the resources they need.

    My bet is that he would have done something to put US forces in harm's way without actually decalaring on Japan - much like the US destroyers in the Atlantic. The Japanese high command was even crazier than Hitler (well enough of them to count, anyway) & would eventually have done something to provoke a reaction. Support for the UK was increasing in the US after the blitz. Malaya abutted the Phillippines. Assuming that Japan is prepared to strike south with an unconquered Phillippines at its rear (which seems extremely unlikely) the US can take actions that virtually guarantee conflict. One example - escort non-military british/dutch ships.
    I really can't see escorting Dutch/UK ships into a real war zone with Japanese carriers at sea (bit more then simply u-boats) passing Congress. And support for GB might have been strong, but Malaya was a colony not GB proper.

    We cut the Dutch off at the knees over Indonesia post war, can't see us going to war over the Japanese booting them out.

    None of this will give the same impetus to public opinion as PH, but the US will start the war later, which means it is in better shape. Plus, it starts with an intact pacific fleet & the ability to force the IJN to take battle om terms that suit it better. As pointed out, even if the first battle goes badly for the US, the IJN still takes losses. This immediately restricts the ability of Japan to continue expanding as it did. If I recall some of the same forces that hit PH also popped up bombing Darwin & attacking Trincomalee.
    It also gives Japan the ability to set up shop in SE Asia, exploit resources, and form stronger puppet states.
    Last edited by troung; 06 Sep 11, at 01:22.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  12. #117
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    What if the IJN doesn't do anything to rile up the nation like PH? Japanese controlled SE Asia gives them all the resources they need.
    But the country pushing towards war ain't the Dutch nor the Brits. It was the Americans. By attacking SE Asia, the Japanese just weakened themselves against a foe who was not only getting bigger and bolder but the Japanese themselves just impaled themselves on an adventure that really could not eliminate the threat in the first.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    It also gives Japan the ability to set up shop in SE Asia, exploit resources, and form stronger puppet states.
    Any of those puppet states can build ships?

  13. #118
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,060
    Any of those puppet states can build ships?
    Japan can use their resources to fuel Japanese factories and their men to build roads, bases, fortifications and as factory workers.

    But the country pushing towards war ain't the Dutch nor the Brits. It was the Americans. By attacking SE Asia, the Japanese just weakened themselves against a foe who was not only getting bigger and bolder but the Japanese themselves just impaled themselves on an adventure that really could not eliminate the threat in the first.
    Germany took the Netherlands/France/Norway/etc, invaded the USSR and bombed the UK and we didn't declare war, Japan conquering their Asian colonies might not sell a war. We applied sanctions after Japan took Indochina.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  14. #119
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Japan can use their resources to fuel Japanese factories and their men to build roads, bases, fortifications and as factory workers.
    They had Korea and Manchuria and the ship output was still dismal.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Germany took the Netherlands/France/Norway/etc, invaded the USSR and bombed the UK and we didn't declare war, Japan conquering their Asian colonies might not sell a war. We applied sanctions after Japan took Indochina.
    Every step Hitler took was to prepare himself for war against Stalin. By taking the Czechs, he doubled his tank force and he needed Poland as a staging ground for Op BARBAROSA.

    For Japan to impale herself in SE Asia, it leaves her rear wide open to a country that was pushing towards war against Japan. All the American build up was there. MacArthur was dispatched to the Phillipines. The Pacific Fleet massed at Pearl. To attack West means leaving the East wide open and a very easy American victory.

    Whether the Americans attacked or not, it was not wise policy.

  15. #120
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,060
    They had Korea and China and the ship output was still dismal + Every step Hitler took was to prepare himself for war against Stalin. By taking the Czechs, he doubled his tank force and he needed Poland as a staging ground for Op BARBAROSA.
    Indonesian oil, Malayan tin, etc. wouldn't have hurt their output. They would get the natural resources they felt they needed w/o having to fight us right away.

    For Japan to impale herself in SE Asia, it leaves her rear wide open to a country that was pushing towards war against Japan. All the American build up was there. MacArthur was dispatched to the Phillipines. The Pacific Fleet massed at Pearl. To attack East means leaving the West wide open and a very easy American victory.
    Assuming we are down the path of fighting, it gives them to chance to exploit Indonesia and Malaysia for a couple of years unmolested.

    ==========
    I'm sure we would also have a good deal of time to build up our forces in the Philippines and train a proper Philippine Army.
    Last edited by troung; 06 Sep 11, at 02:05.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The King George V Class battleship (1939)
    By USSWisconsin in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 21 Mar 14,, 03:34
  2. Great Britain and France Declare War on USSR in 1939
    By Danowest in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08 Mar 08,, 19:53
  3. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09 Oct 04,, 08:33

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •