[Daktoria]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_alliance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2% ... ality_Pact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_ ... viet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iran_(1941)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

Let's consider a different timeline.

1. Britain and Japan remain allied despite Canadian and Australian fears of American isolationism to balance the Pacific.
2. Russia and Japan don't stop fighting in the east.
3. Hitler keeps his head on straight, and focuses on the Battle of Britain instead of invading Russia.
4. The Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran appears tumultuous in light of the Great Game, and no British-Russian cooperation since Russia still invaded Poland.
5. Pearl Harbor doesn't happen. Japan controls the South Pacific and China, and Britain exports oil from the Middle East.

Two questions:

One, what does America do?

Two, who wins?

-----

As an added bonus, assume FDR gets thrown out of office such that the Old Right is successful in dismantling Keynesian economics.

[Smilin' Dave]

Britain and Japan remain allied despite Canadian and Australian fears of American isolationism to balance the Pacific.

Why? You propose a scenario where Britain decided to not only dud two members of the Commonwealth but also alienate the United States. In exchange they get what exactly from Japan?

Russia and Japan don't stop fighting in the east.

Japan could not sustain a prolonged conflict with the Soviet Union. Britain would not have directly intervened or likely have provided significant material support over what ended up breaking down to a border dispute.

Hitler keeps his head on straight, and focuses on the Battle of Britain instead of invading Russia.

It's questionable as to whether Hitler could have won the Battle of Britain even if he had continued to pursue the optimal strategy for it.

The Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran appears tumultuous in light of the Great Game, and no British-Russian cooperation since Russia still invaded Poland.

Now you're not even making sense. The primary interest for the British in being allied to Japan was to contain Russian expansion... now you think the British will assist a Soviet invasion in a situation where this strategy continues? Why is there even an Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran if there is no need to open corridors to the Soviet Union, as in your point three there is no invasion of the Soviet Union?

Pearl Harbor doesn't happen.

Why not? The chain of diplomatic strife between Japan and the US that eventually led to war started with the Japanese war in China and the subsequent annexation of Vietnam... which you seem to assume would still happen.

Japan controls the South Pacific

At best it shares control with Britain. If the US hasn't been knocked out of the game then it is a three way at least.

and China

Japan never really controlled China, how is it doing so now?

and Britain exports oil from the Middle East.

Britain in providing oil to Japan even as it threatens Hong Kong? What?

One, what does America do?

It doesn't matter, as the massive contradictions in your what if causes the universe to collapse in on itself in a quantum-pretzel type arrangement.

[Cartertonian]

To coin a phrase, SD, I think Dak expects a certain 'willing suspension of disbelief' in order to engage with this thread.

you're the History Man...go for it!

[SecretSquirrel]

I think that if Hitler had not invaded the USSR, he would have stood a chance at holding mainland Europe -- but ONLY if he tried for ceasefire with Britain. The reason is that Stalin would have eventually invaded if Hitler did not first, and Hitler could not face the USSR and Britain (as in real life) particularly when fighting on his own land instead of foreign.

It is doubtful that Britain would have accepted truce, however.

[Goldberk]

It is doubtful that Britain would have accepted truce, however.

Really? with significant figures in the aristocracy and capitalist class showing sympathy with the fascists and admiration of their crushing of labor power.

[Daktoria]

Why? You propose a scenario where Britain decided to not only dud two members of the Commonwealth but also alienate the United States. In exchange they get what exactly from Japan?

The Anglo-Japanese alliance was originally formed to counterbalance American Pacific naval influence due to the Washington Naval Treaty. That meant Britain could only patrol so much of the world without overstretching itself.

By remaining allied to Japan, the Commonwealth wouldn't have to fear Japanese aggression and could maintain a reliable trading partner that needed raw materials. The isolationist attitude of Americans, as well as resistance to the League of Nations, could also be interpreted as signs of American alienation.

Japan could not sustain a prolonged conflict with the Soviet Union. Britain would not have directly intervened or likely have provided significant material support over what ended up breaking down to a border dispute.

I don't entirely buy this.

Despite Russian major victories, the border skirmishes were locally commanded and lacked air support, so tit for tat, the Japanese performed on par.

It's questionable as to whether Hitler could have won the Battle of Britain even if he had continued to pursue the optimal strategy for it.

How so?

The Luftwaffe's major disadvantage was the redirection of resources to the Wehrmacht such that it couldn't replace pilots, aircraft, and officers quickly enough. Hitler also gave up on the Battle of Britain within a year.

Hitler is often criticized for expanding too far, too fast. Taking his time to expand the air force would have engaged force concentration. This is in contrast to Britain which hadn't expanded its war economy beyond raw materials throughout the Commonwealth, leaving it behind in manufacturing which was already corroding after the Great Depression.

Now you're not even making sense. The primary interest for the British in being allied to Japan was to contain Russian expansion... now you think the British will assist a Soviet invasion in a situation where this strategy continues? Why is there even an Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran if there is no need to open corridors to the Soviet Union, as in your point three there is no invasion of the Soviet Union?

You're not reading me right. I'm saying the invasion doesn't happen.

Why not? The chain of diplomatic strife between Japan and the US that eventually led to war started with the Japanese war in China and the subsequent annexation of Vietnam... which you seem to assume would still happen.

If Japan can stabilize oil, then I'm not sure why engaging America is necessary so fast.

I'm not saying Japan won't engage America over the long run. Maybe it will happen in years' time, but not so fast that it spreads itself thin while engaging China (and Russia).

At best it shares control with Britain. If the US hasn't been knocked out of the game then it is a three way at least.

Are you saying Britain invades the Dutch East Indies?

Japan never really controlled China, how is it doing so now?

It could redirect personnel and materiel ordinarily committed to the navy (similarly to the Battle of Britain above).

Britain in providing oil to Japan even as it threatens Hong Kong? What?

They'd be allied......

[Preston Cole]

It's questionable as to whether Hitler could have won the Battle of Britain even if he had continued to pursue the optimal strategy for it.

Didn't Hitler fail to neutralize the RAF because he changed focus from bombing air bases to bombing London like a total idiot? I think if he'd kept pursuing the first strategy, the RAF would have had literally no time to regroup and challenge the Luftwaffe.

and Hitler could not face the USSR and Britain (as in real life) particularly when fighting on his own land instead of foreign.

What makes you say that? On the contrary, given that Germany doesn't commit any land troops in Britain, fighting on German land which was so conducive to the successes of the Blitzkrieg in 1939 - which is much more concentrated as opposed to the vast steppes of Russia which created supply and partisan problems for the Blitzkrieg - would have probably stalled the Russian advance early on. Remember that the Red Army wasn't even completely motorized and armored following what the Soviet Union perceived as the failure of the tank in the Spanish Civil War. They have the upper hand in manpower, but then again look at the ease the Germans had in encircling Kiev and Smolensk.

[fuser]

I think if he'd kept pursuing the first strategy, the RAF would have had literally no time to regroup and challenge the Luftwaffe.

RAF would had easily regrouped by relocating to central England and given the fact that Luftwaffe lacked any strategic bombers which could not reach all over England.
Then air battle is just half the story, there is simply no way that Germans could land and support an invasion force on British isles, considering their naval capacity.

Remember that the Red Army wasn't even completely motorized and armored

No army was completely armored and none other than Americans were fully motorized. In Fact Soviets were more motorized compared to Germans.

[Smilin' Dave]

To coin a phrase, SD, I think Dak expects a certain 'willing suspension of disbelief' in order to engage with this thread.

Suspension of disbelief can still be broken by asking the reader to belief things that make no sense. Like a scenario where Britain goes against its own interests and allies and instead decided to help Japan with its imperial conquests. How can we forecast reasonable outcomes from an unreasonable series of assumptions?

The Anglo-Japanese alliance was originally formed to counterbalance American Pacific naval influence due to the Washington Naval Treaty.

What? Anglo-Japanese alliance was brokered in 1902, the Washington Naval Treaty didn't eventuate until 1922. My prediction of universe implosion for warps in space-time are feeling more probable all the time.

By remaining allied to Japan, the Commonwealth wouldn't have to fear Japanese aggression

Despite the previously existing alliance Canada and Australia clearly did fear Japanese expansion in the Pacific area, so I'm unclear why your scenario, where their fears are disregarded, eg. get dudded by their ally Britain, will make them feel any better.

and could maintain a reliable trading partner that needed raw materials.

Australia and Canada were not short of trade partners. The country that needed reliable trading partners was Japan, and much of this scenario seems to be geared to fixing it so Japan comes out on top no matter what.

I don't entirely buy this.

Despite Russian major victories, the border skirmishes were locally commanded and lacked air support, so tit for tat, the Japanese performed on par.

The Japanese often actually had air superiority over local Soviet forces on many occasions (read up on Japanese fighter aces from the period). What the Soviets did have was a massive manpower advantage, better logistical support and more tanks. The Japanese not only lacked similar material advantages but lacked a realistic doctrine for countering these advantages. Faced with Soviet armoured superiority the Japanese leadership didn't rush out and acquire more and better anti-tank weaponry, they just insisted on the supremacy of spirited infantry.

And the Japanese actually need to do better than on par, as the Soviets will, in your scenario, only be fighting on one front... while Japan is still fighting China at the same time.

The Luftwaffe's major disadvantage was the redirection of resources to the Wehrmacht such that it couldn't replace pilots, aircraft, and officers quickly enough.

The infrastructure that meant the Luftwaffe couldn't replace its planes and pilots fast enough goes all the way back to the interwar period, rather than a quick decision by the General Staff/Hitler at the time. It's not as though factories previously churning out planes were re-tasked to tanks. And the shortage of aircrews might be a bit complex, since Goering later felt he was so flush with recruits he could afford to send them off to fight as infantry in the Soviet Union.

Hitler is often criticized for expanding too far, too fast. Taking his time to expand the air force would have engaged force concentration

So we have to add yet another point of divergence to make your scenario work. Now the entire German war economy has to be re-geared?

You're not reading me right.

Your original sentence was poorly phrased. Further your fourth point still makes no sense, why is it notable that the joint invasion of Iran doesn't not take place if there was still no need to establish a land corridor in your scenario? It would change nothing.

If Japan can stabilize oil, then I'm not sure why engaging America is necessary so fast.

Even if for some reason Britain decided it would prefer to export oil itstead of stockpiling it for the war effort, I'm not sure it would be enough for the Japanese. And there would still be a risk for Japan that the US might escalate its involvement.

Are you saying Britain invades the Dutch East Indies?

Are you telling me Britain would still be okay with Japan invading the Dutch East Indies?

It could redirect personnel and materiel ordinarily committed to the navy (similarly to the Battle of Britain above).

Given the political division between the army and navy in Japan during this period that is way more complicated than you think. My point about the lack of infrastructure/starting base also applies here. You can't just pull the crews off the ships, slap a rifle in their hand and tell them to be on their way, building military units takes time.

They'd be allied......

Yes and having a big army, belonging to an expansionist power, on their door step wouldn't make them nervous at all. One famous for 'incidents' with neighbours in Asia that looked suspiciously like invasions

I reiterate that your scenario benefits no one except Japan, yet requires everyone to go along with it. It just isn't believable.

Didn't Hitler fail to neutralize the RAF because he changed focus from bombing air bases to bombing London like a total idiot? I think if he'd kept pursuing the first strategy, the RAF would have had literally no time to regroup and challenge the Luftwaffe.

Yes and no. The shift in focus from airfields to the cities was a bad move and certainly a boon to the RAF, but the Germans didn't have the means to defeat the RAF completely. Many RAF bases were outside the reach of Luftwaffe aircraft (lacking a true strategic bomber and long range fighters), as was a large chunk of their airforce. If worst came to worst the RAF can withdraw out of Luftwaffe range but still contest the skies over southern Britain. A withdrawal of the RAF would make a subsequent invasion slightly easier, but the Royal Navy would still remain an obstacle the Germans could not have overcome.

[Daktoria]

What? Anglo-Japanese alliance was brokered in 1902, the Washington Naval Treaty didn't eventuate until 1922. My prediction of universe implosion for warps in space-time are feeling more probable all the time.

I'm talking about its renewal following WW1.

Despite the previously existing alliance Canada and Australia clearly did fear Japanese expansion in the Pacific area, so I'm unclear why your scenario, where their fears are disregarded, eg. get dudded by their ally Britain, will make them feel any better.

Australia and Canada were not short of trade partners. The country that needed reliable trading partners was Japan, and much of this scenario seems to be geared to fixing it so Japan comes out on top no matter what.

What trading partners are you talking about?

I explained the "why" before in context of American isolationism. In fact, Standard Oil explicitly campaigned against an Anglo alliance because it was afraid of its leadership in the League of Nations and controlling Middle Eastern resources.

The Japanese often actually had air superiority over local Soviet forces on many occasions (read up on Japanese fighter aces from the period). What the Soviets did have was a massive manpower advantage, better logistical support and more tanks. The Japanese not only lacked similar material advantages but lacked a realistic doctrine for countering these advantages. Faced with Soviet armoured superiority the Japanese leadership didn't rush out and acquire more and better anti-tank weaponry, they just insisted on the supremacy of spirited infantry.

And the Japanese actually need to do better than on par, as the Soviets will, in your scenario, only be fighting on one front... while Japan is still fighting China at the same time.

I'm not familiar with your reference to Japanese air superiority at all. That sounds like a brutal assertion.

The rest I agree with, but the point was Japan's general staff wasn't orchestrating the campaign. It was handled by local commanders.

I'm not familiar with Japan struggling in China either before American intervention. The Japanese struggled to maintain civil control, but that's because of American backing of the Nationalists as well as naval distraction.

If the Japanese engaged Russia instead, then they could consolidate their logistics out of Manchuria, nor would the Nationalists (who were China's primary resistance) have been so strong.

The infrastructure that meant the Luftwaffe couldn't replace its planes and pilots fast enough goes all the way back to the interwar period, rather than a quick decision by the General Staff/Hitler at the time. It's not as though factories previously churning out planes were re-tasked to tanks. And the shortage of aircrews might be a bit complex, since Goering later felt he was so flush with recruits he could afford to send them off to fight as infantry in the Soviet Union.

So we have to add yet another point of divergence to make your scenario work. Now the entire German war economy has to be re-geared?

I'm not sure why you're talking about regearing. If Hitler doesn't aim to invade the Soviet Union in the first place, then he won't specialize towards the Wehrmacht.

Your reference took place in 1942 as well.

Your original sentence was poorly phrased. Further your fourth point still makes no sense, why is it notable that the joint invasion of Iran doesn't not take place if there was still no need to establish a land corridor in your scenario? It would change nothing.

It demonstrates distance between Britain and Russia.

Even if for some reason Britain decided it would prefer to export oil itstead of stockpiling it for the war effort, I'm not sure it would be enough for the Japanese. And there would still be a risk for Japan that the US might escalate its involvement.

Why would America intervene unprovoked as a democracy?

This especially doesn't make sense in light of what you said about Canada and Australia before. You're confirming the isolationist attitude since America would have to view British trade as a threat to be willing to intervene.

Are you telling me Britain would still be okay with Japan invading the Dutch East Indies?

I'm not familiar with the Anglo-Dutch alliance extending into the 20th century. Besides, the Dutch Empire was on its last legs.

In the worst case scenario, I'm not sure why Britain would prefer to care about the Dutch before Japan. That's a huge mismatch of priorities.

Given the political division between the army and navy in Japan during this period that is way more complicated than you think. My point about the lack of infrastructure/starting base also applies here. You can't just pull the crews off the ships, slap a rifle in their hand and tell them to be on their way, building military units takes time.

Your timing seems off. I'm not suggesting a redeployment of existing assets. I'm talking about future production.

Yes and having a big army, belonging to an expansionist power, on their door step wouldn't make them nervous at all. One famous for 'incidents' with neighbours in Asia that looked suspiciously like invasions

I reiterate that your scenario benefits no one except Japan, yet requires everyone to go along with it. It just isn't believable.

I don't understand how you clamor about Japan having "a big army" while doubting its ability to engage Russia and the Chinese.

You seem to be criticizing my ideas on both sides, but those criticisms contradict each other.

I also don't see how the British economy can recover independently without trade. The Great Depression destroyed British manufacturing such that it would need some alternative form of revenue in order to afford labor.

[Smilin' Dave]

What trading partners are you talking about?

Do you really need to to detail major trade partners of Australia and Canada in the inter-war/WWII period? Perhaps you think Australian mine outputs were just dumped in a heap somewhere for entertainment purposes.

I'm not familiar with your reference to Japanese air superiority at all.

Well I must have made it up then. Did you try looking up the stuff I suggested?

The rest I agree with, but the point was Japan's general staff wasn't orchestrating the campaign. It was handled by local commanders.

Then you are apparently familiar with the politics of the Japanese military and you should surely be able to see how your what if is considerably more complex, even unlikely, than you seem to insist.

I'm not familiar with Japan struggling in China either before American intervention. The Japanese struggled to maintain civil control, but that's because of American backing of the Nationalists as well as naval distraction.

Certainly the struggles were not necessarily in terms of pitched field battles but the KMT and CCP were able to maintain pressure on the Japanese military throughout the war. Japan's limited numbers meant they couldn't effectively control the countryside or more remote areas, often leaving garrisons isolated and subject to attrition. As late as December 1944 Japan was still trying to secure the Chinese interior. It's also not as simple as American intervention. China received aid from Germany for a period and even the Soviet Union.

If the Japanese engaged Russia instead

Now you're moving the goal posts. In your OP you stated Japan would control China. Now you change things so that China will not be a major theatre of war. How are we supposed to have any kind of discussion if you keep changing the parameters in your favour?

If Hitler doesn't aim to invade the Soviet Union in the first place

So now to make your scenario work we need a Nazi party that isn't interested in Lebensraum?

Your reference took place in 1942 as well.

No shit Sherlock. Perhaps the Luftwaffe found those troops unexpectedly in a warehouse in 1942?

Why would America intervene unprovoked as a democracy?

Firstly we are not necessarily talking about the US going straight to war and secondly you can't possibly be so naive as to think the US has never waged a war of 'pre-emption' or similar.

This especially doesn't make sense in light of what you said about Canada and Australia before. You're confirming the isolationist attitude since America would have to view British trade as a threat to be willing to intervene.

You seem to believe British exports will be enough to sustain Japan's need for oil, which would wrong foot the US embargo. I point out it still might not be enough and that the US could consider other options. For example if the US blockaded Japan, would Britain be willing to try to 'run' it while already embroiled with a war in Europe? Instead you would prefer to keep going on about US isolationism.

Besides, the Dutch Empire was on its last legs.

Britain had in past intervened, by various means, against other countries that tried to snap up real estate that used to belong to ailing nations and empires. The British Empire did not want a competitor, even from an ally. Britain is not going to be cool with the Japanese invading the East Indies. It especially doesn't make sense if the Japanese want to do this to secure oil supplies - you've tried to sell this alliance as the British profiting from trade. Why would they let themselves be cut out of the picture?

I'm not sure why Britain would prefer to care about the Dutch before Japan.

Because one is white, European, part of the status quo and not expansionist?

What exactly does Britain get out of this deal again? In your scenario they trade with Japan (who balances this trade with what?), green light Japan's expansionism etc. All supposedly aimed at the US, which you keep reminding us is 'isolationist'? Once again your scenario should be seen as 'how many unbelievable thngs need to fall into place for Japan to get an empire and keep it in the 1930s and 1940s.

Your timing seems off. I'm not suggesting a redeployment of existing assets. I'm talking about future production.

Tell you what, so I can avoid another game of 'trying to guess what number Dak is thinking of' why don't you specify some more concrete dates in your scenario? Future is when exactly in this scenario?

I don't understand how you clamor about Japan having "a big army" while doubting its ability to engage Russia and the Chinese.

Oh honestly. Did I say they had the biggest army? Are you saying British forces in the Far East were of similar size to the Japanese? Do you think Britain had a population comparable with China or the USSR? Get a clue and stop saying such silly things.

You seem to be criticizing my ideas on both sides, but those criticisms contradict each other.

Because you "ideas" are completely incoherent, they don't even form a coherent narrative. And you have yet to 'contradict' me, all you do is rewrite this stupid fantasy in your head and then insist I was wrong for not guessing what the fuck you were talking about.

I also don't see how the British economy can recover independently without trade. The Great Depression destroyed British manufacturing such that it would need some alternative form of revenue in order to afford labor.

They somehow managed in the original timeline without letting Japan kick them in the balls over and over again.

I'm done with this. And don't PM me again about this topic either.