Page 33 of 35 FirstFirst ... 242526272829303132333435 LastLast
Results 481 to 495 of 521

Thread: Fall of France

  1. #481
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    984
    Thinking this through. I say the only chance Japan had to conquer China was right after WWI. China was more screwed up than 1937. Everybody was tired of war. The USSR was too busy with itself. And the League of Nations was not borned yet.

  2. #482
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,934
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Thinking this through. I say the only chance Japan had to conquer China was right after WWI. China was more screwed up than 1937. Everybody was tired of war. The USSR was too busy with itself. And the League of Nations was not borned yet.
    She didn't have the troops. The Navy budget was 2x that of the army. Also her population of 55 million was small. It would expand to over 70 million by Pearl Harbor.

  3. #483
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,819
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    I'm afraid I'm not following you. Where would they expand their Empire if not into China?
    If I were Japan, and making decisions not based on racial bushido code, but instead went for limited, practical gains at a steady pace, I would have:

    1) Re-trenched from China into Manchuria
    2) Taken Hainan Island
    3) Played the Nationalists against the Communists, attempt to prolong the Chinese Civil War as long as possible
    4) Restricted conquests in SE Asia to Indochina, possibly as client states instead of direct occupation, with Thailand as an ally
    5) Imported Fischer-Tropsch technology from Germany, taken 10 years to develop a mature petrochemical base utilizing the vast deposits of coal in Korea and Manchuria
    6) Not gone to war with US, UK, NL, AUS, NZ
    7) Provided support of a more covert type to de-stabilize European rule in their East Asian colonies, create client states in the event of successful independence movements
    8) But not do the above to the US, which had an anti-colonial outlook even despite possessing colonies of our own
    9) Put the IJN on a more defensive footing vis-a-vis the American/European navies than was historically the case, conserving oil and limiting the potential theater of operations in the event of a possible war with those powers. Try to reverse the tyranny of geography factor with regards to naval operations, to the fullest extent possible.

    Hindsight is obviously 20/20, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Japan and Germany simply went too far, too fast, when the lessons of history should have taught them that Empire is a process of consolidation and steady gains. The most rapidly created empires were always the most rapid to fall, fracture into smaller successor states, or assimilate into the peoples they conquered.

    This assessment may very well be worthless and a non-starter, feel free to second-guess it and pick holes in it. :-)
    Last edited by Ironduke; 11 Apr 18, at 01:32.
    What I don't want to see is the Bills winning a Super Bowl. As long as I'm alive that doesn't happen.

  4. #484
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    984
    Japan never had the numbers to begin with but with a fragmented China, they would be conquering it piecemeal. Divide and conquer.

  5. #485
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    If I were Japan, and making decisions not based on racial bushido code, but instead went for limited, practical gains at a steady pace, I would have:

    1) Re-trenched from China into Manchuria
    2) Taken Hainan Island
    3) Played the Nationalists against the Communists, attempt to prolong the Chinese Civil War as long as possible
    4) Restricted conquests in SE Asia to Indochina, possibly as client states instead of direct occupation, with Thailand as an ally
    5) Imported Fischer-Tropsch technology from Germany, taken 10 years to develop a mature petrochemical base utilizing the vast deposits of coal in Korea and Manchuria
    6) Not gone to war with US, UK, NL, AUS, NZ
    7) Provided support of a more covert type to de-stabilize European rule in their East Asian colonies, create client states in the event of successful independence movements
    8) But not do the above to the US, which had an anti-colonial outlook even despite possessing colonies of our own
    9) Put the IJN on a more defensive footing vis-a-vis the American/European navies than was historically the case, conserving oil and limiting the potential theater of operations in the event of a possible war with those powers. Try to reverse the tyranny of geography factor as far as naval operations to the fullest extent possible.

    Hindsight is obviously 20/20, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Japan and Germany simply went too far, too fast, when the lessons of history should have taught them that Empire is a process of consolidation and steady gains. The most rapidly created empires were always the most rapid to fall, fracture into smaller successor states, or assimilate into the peoples they conquered.

    This assessment may very well be worthless and a non-starter, feel free to second-guess it and pick holes in it. :-)
    This would deny them their primary objective, China. The more time you give to CKS, the more united China would become and at the very least, adding more and more Western trained divisions to the NRA.

    Ironically, it was the 2nd Sino-Japanese War that saved the Communists. CKS had them on the ropes. Forcing CKS to defend Shanghai and other cities deny CKS the oppertunity to marshall his forces to finish the Communists.

  6. #486
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,611
    frankly japan already HAD everything she wanted by 1919.

    she had hegemony, China was badly fragmented, and Japan could (and did) fund a bunch of puppet warlords.

    the big mistake was wanting to turn hegemony into outright control. that was -stupid-.
    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

  7. #487
    Senior Contributor Triple C's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Apr 06
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    2,398
    Japan probably lacked the incentive to go full imperial at 1919--the US and UK were quite willing to accomodate Japan as a great power and their partener in Asia. What if Japan forgoed this madness, what with picking a fight with everyone at the same time, and instead sided with the actual winners of history?
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

  8. #488
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by Triple C View Post
    Japan probably lacked the incentive to go full imperial at 1919--the US and UK were quite willing to accomodate Japan as a great power and their partener in Asia. What if Japan forgoed this madness, what with picking a fight with everyone at the same time, and instead sided with the actual winners of history?
    They would still loose Manchuria and most likely Korea as well. They might have avoided the WWII damage but no way were they rich enough to hold back the nationalist movements that erupted after WWII.

  9. #489
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,611
    They might have avoided the WWII damage but no way were they rich enough to hold back the nationalist movements that erupted after WWII.
    but those nationalist movements were powered precisely as a reaction to Japanese imperialism and war atrocities. for that matter, the original Fat Kim fought for the CCP.

    honestly i think if japan kept up with its 1920s Taisho period strategy of working with the UK/US, both parties would have turned a blind eye to the little games that Japan was playing in China as part of Japan's sphere of influence. and i don't know why Japan couldn't hold onto Korea or Taiwan, after all the USSR held onto Ukraine and the other subject Stans without much of a problem.
    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

  10. #490
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    984
    Taiwan I can see Japan keeping but CKS was just as ruthless as Tojo. Japan was simply not rich enough to hold back Chinese unification. After that, it would be a matter of time before the Koreans took their inspirations from China. Japan would still be top dog in Asia but China would simply be too powerful to contain. Do recall that in the real timeline, the Chinese smashed into Korea less than 2 years from their Civil War.

  11. #491
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,611
    Do recall that in the real timeline, the Chinese smashed into Korea less than 2 years from their Civil War.
    that was only possible with the enormous stockpile of US arms captured by the CCP and with the enormous number of defecting, US-trained former KMT troops. plus of course a huge amount of Soviet aid.

    CKS might be as ruthless as Tojo but he sure wasn't as ruthless as Mao, nor did he have Mao's vision.

    i do agree that Japan would have lost power relative to China, but if Japan wasn't directly invading China, a lot of that Chinese unification would have been in name only.

    that's what happened with all the warlords who "surrendered" to CKS. yeah, they no longer got to call themselves The Top Dog but they kept their own private armies under a KMT name, their own patronage networks, and CKS basically let them do whatever it was they wanted-- even if it meant the Communists were making enormous propaganda gains.

    you'd end up with Japan being top dog, China being a power but not a great power.
    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

  12. #492
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    that was only possible with the enormous stockpile of US arms captured by the CCP and with the enormous number of defecting, US-trained former KMT troops. plus of course a huge amount of Soviet aid.
    But you would have a China without the devestation of WWII and CKS's Western divisions in tact and even more modern divisions coming on line. However, the point about the Korean War was to show that the Chinese were capable of maneuver warfare that the Japanese could not even begin to comtemplate.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    CKS might be as ruthless as Tojo but he sure wasn't as ruthless as Mao, nor did he have Mao's vision.
    The Yellow River Flood says otherwise but I sincerely doubt Mao would have survived without the Japanese saving his ass.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    i do agree that Japan would have lost power relative to China, but if Japan wasn't directly invading China, a lot of that Chinese unification would have been in name only.
    CKS would have taken back Manchuria sooner or later. The Chinese were at least versed in Mongol/Qing maneuver warfare. They only lost to the Japanese in set piece battles.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    that's what happened with all the warlords who "surrendered" to CKS. yeah, they no longer got to call themselves The Top Dog but they kept their own private armies under a KMT name, their own patronage networks, and CKS basically let them do whatever it was they wanted-- even if it meant the Communists were making enormous propaganda gains.

    you'd end up with Japan being top dog, China being a power but not a great power.
    What's the difference? The IJA would be useless and Japanese military power would be restricted to the IJN and maybe the Japanese Air Force if they got their act together. Japan would still need to trade with China to survive. The US would not be flooding money into Japan. Those business deals would be based upon mutual power respect.

    Sure, Japan would have a bigger say outside of Asia but in Asia? Can Japan seriously stopped China from helping to liberate Korea?

  13. #493
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,819
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    This would deny them their primary objective, China. The more time you give to CKS, the more united China would become and at the very least, adding more and more Western trained divisions to the NRA.

    Ironically, it was the 2nd Sino-Japanese War that saved the Communists. CKS had them on the ropes. Forcing CKS to defend Shanghai and other cities deny CKS the oppertunity to marshall his forces to finish the Communists.
    In my scenario, the only objective in China is to keep it weak, divided, and down. Not conquer it.

    Basically:
    1) Keep the Chinese down
    2) Kick the Europeans out through covert means, through the support of independence movements and the creation of client states from successful independence movements
    3) Keep the Americans and Soviets not pissed off to whatever extent possible - ostensibly share their anti-colonial outlook while creating client states and alliances with newly independent/client state Asian states
    4) Long-term - projecting outward to the 1960s/70s, basically a Japan-led NATO that is anti-China, consisting of the 1919 Japanese Empire and the entirety of SE Asia as client states, while neutral/amiable to the European powers and America.

    But as you oft like to say, too many butterflies.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 13 Apr 18, at 01:06.
    What I don't want to see is the Bills winning a Super Bowl. As long as I'm alive that doesn't happen.

  14. #494
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,819
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    the big mistake was wanting to turn hegemony into outright control. that was -stupid-.
    It galvanized the Chinese. Much as if there were an alien invasion of Earth, a subject explored in many 1950s sci-fi films and the film Independence Day, all the nations of Earth would cast aside their differences to defeat the aliens.
    What I don't want to see is the Bills winning a Super Bowl. As long as I'm alive that doesn't happen.

  15. #495
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    In my scenario, the only objective in China is to keep it weak, divided, and down. Not conquer it.
    I can't see it. In the original timeline, CKS defeated his biggest threat, the Communists, forcing them on the Long March, and had them on the ropes before the Japanese attacked. If left alone, he would have finished them because he hated them that much. I mean who is strong enough to resist CKS? Even with Japanese support?

    Frankly, I do not see anyway for the IJE to keep China divided exccept for direct military intervention. The Communists had the best shot and they were on the ropes and the Japanese have no way to send money or support to them without going through Soviet territory.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 13 Apr 18, at 18:43.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 13 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 13 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Fall of Pelosi?
    By Ironduke in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 15 May 09,, 22:15
  2. The Fall Of Rome?
    By Ironside in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 26 May 06,, 02:47
  3. The Fall of Communism
    By Leader in forum Multimedia & Jukebox room
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 26 Jul 05,, 10:40
  4. The fall of France
    By tarek in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27 Sep 04,, 23:26

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
  •