Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
Again I think the best way for Japan to win is to not play. If Japan either
1) seizes Dutch and British assets without attacking the US; or
2) withdraws from China and thus gets the oil embargo lifted.

The interesting question is, without a direct Japanese attack, would the US have declared war on Japan? I think not baby puppy. if they and Japan then beat us in several engagements without Germany declaring war we might have negotiated something.

Everyone seems to forget that most of the oil Japan used came from the good ol' US of A.

Also, a coup against the EMPEROR? You are aware that he was viewed as a GOD! The Japanese were conquering Asia for the same reason the Nazis was manufacturing the Holocaust. It was all about racial supremacy and a land grab.

And before anyone asks what would happen if the US had not discovered the nuke? A costly land invasion of Japan, which was already in place and was the plan B if the bomb failed.

Not to mention we had rewards for civilians who came up with good weapon ideas that actually worked...

This is why we used napalm bats on Japan to neutralize some of their industrial capabilities.

What if Japan had attacked Vancouver instead of Pearl Harbour? I vaguely remember a history textbook saying that was the original idea.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
What if Japan had attacked Vancouver instead of Pearl Harbour? I vaguely remember a history textbook saying that was the original idea.

Then the mighty Canadian fleet would have roared forth to do battle.

Vancouver?

I disagree strongly. FDR wanted a shooting war with Germany. He didn't want one with Japan. Even after Pearl Harbor he treated it as a horrific sideshow to 'the real fight.' If Germany didn't declare war, what support would he get in a highly isolationist USA, of whom 2/3 probably couldn't pin Japan on a map?

Don't underestimate how much American's disliked the Japanese in the 1930's. Even back in the 20's, we were much more concerned with Japanese expansion than anyone else. Hell, we were concerned about it in the 1910's after they took Russia's butt and beat it into a pancake. Japanese expansionism was the 'terrorism' of the era. We were a little more mellow about it when Japan mostly wanted to take over mainland asia, but when their sight turned to the South Pacific, the UK and us kind of had our "not sure if serious" faces on. Even the Washington treaty that limited the tonnage of naval ships was designed to limit the Japanese Navy to dissuade their expansion.

Also, a coup against the EMPEROR? You are aware that he was viewed as a GOD! The Japanese were conquering Asia for the same reason the Nazis was manufacturing the Holocaust. It was all about racial supremacy and a land grab.

There were many coups, but not against the emperor. They were against the militant/pacifist/weak willed etc government that served him. Some officers just plain recognized how dysfunctional the current political system was.

What if Japan had attacked Vancouver instead of Pearl Harbour? I vaguely remember a history textbook saying that was the original idea.

Agreeing with Frazz. Not sure why Japan would want to hit Vancouver. Maybe you're thinking of San Diego? A plan did call for a strike against San Diego when it was still the USN headquarters in the pacific.

Actually, they did "successfully" attack mainland US....

What they did was fill huge weather balloons carrying napalm and set them towards the US. The couple that managed to make land fall, did so in the rainforests of Western Oregon.

I guess the idea was that when the napalm hit, it would create a huge, uncontrollable forest/city fire, and demoralize us in someway... guess they didn't count on the mighty forests of Oregon drowning them out like that

Our forests > Japanese bombs.

Yes.

But you know, let's take this thread over and come up with a less stupid premise that isn't focused on "OMG JAPANESE EMPIRE!"

Alternate history can be fun when it's not stupid.

What if the tables were turned. What would the world be like today, if the US destroyed/conquered Japan? That could be an interesting alternate history.

Politics in East Asia would be pretty different. If we conquered Japan, we'd likely have a much stronger military presence in Asia I think. Depending on how many Japanese still lived in Japan (I presume we did a land invasion which would have probably ended up killing a lot of them), there may be ongoing conflict.

Its just hard to figure it out. The war could have continued for a whole nother year, maybe two? We might have never intervened in Korea maybe. Politics with China could be way different too.

I actually wonder how different East Asia would be if we had placed someone like Eisenhower or more, personable, type military leader instead of MacArthur

According to most historians, he brow beat the Japanese into doing things his way, forced them to bring certain American "institutions" to there (such as Baseball) mostly so that he and his staff could feel more at home. He basically stomped on their thousands of years of tradition (of course, this was the same tradition that led to WW2)




For an interesting take on alternate history, try and think of how WW2 would have gone differently if Rommel had risen to power, instead of Hitler, and go!

 LordofHats wrote:
Politics in East Asia would be pretty different. If we conquered Japan, we'd likely have a much stronger military presence in Asia I think. Depending on how many Japanese still lived in Japan (I presume we did a land invasion which would have probably ended up killing a lot of them), there may be ongoing conflict.

Its just hard to figure it out. The war could have continued for a whole nother year, maybe two? We might have never intervened in Korea maybe. Politics with China could be way different too.

Politics at home would be, too, if we had Japan as a state-- although that's unlikely.

Yeah. It sounds like an awesome start for a counter-factual exercise but we'd probably need a more narrowed focus, like effects on the Korean War, or Vietnam, or China. Could write a dissertation on it.

How about the effects of internal politics in the US?

Yeah that too. Guess I've got "What would happen in Asia" on the brain. Truman actually might not have been elected for one. The election of 1948 was close. Had the war dragged on, I doubt he'd had won. McCarthyism and NATO take a hit in that.

Oh and the Cold War too actually. Depending on how you look at it, Truman was a huge instigator of rising tensions with the USSR. I don't know anything about his 1948 opponent in the election, but that could have been huge.

Going off the title I'd be more interested in how Europe would have turned out without Nazis. (If world war ii had never happened, and we just had a scruff with the japanese. No arguing "someone would have taken their place")

 xole wrote:
Going off the title I'd be more interested in how Europe would have turned out without Nazis. (If world war ii had never happened, and we just had a scruff with the japanese. No arguing "someone would have taken their place")

Well, the thing is that someone WOULD take his place... however, for the sake of the exercise, this person is almost decidedly NOT anti-semite.. so on top of the over-eager Militarism expressed by H, we would see something of a more organized "bankroll" behind the operations. Depending on the military mind that galvanizes the nation of Germany, this is a VERY scary sort of proposition.

 DiAF wrote:
What if the tables were turned. What would the world be like today, if the US destroyed/conquered Japan? That could be an interesting alternate history.

Wait, what? We did that. Ask the Japanese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I actually wonder how different East Asia would be if we had placed someone like Eisenhower or more, personable, type military leader instead of MacArthur

According to most historians, he brow beat the Japanese into doing things his way, forced them to bring certain American "institutions" to there (such as Baseball) mostly so that he and his staff could feel more at home. He basically stomped on their thousands of years of tradition (of course, this was the same tradition that led to WW2)




For an interesting take on alternate history, try and think of how WW2 would have gone differently if Rommel had risen to power, instead of Hitler, and go!

Alternatively, what if we had someone like "burn everything!" Sherman?

Hows about this for an alternative history scenario.

The fourth crusade never makes it to Constantinople. Say a big ass storm takes em out, or there is a massive outbreak of some suitable horrendous medieval disease. Or the crusaders see how small the turnout is and just all bail, or force the Venetians to actually take them to the Holy Land.

I'd figure something like the Eastern Roman Empire enduring significantly longer, maybe even long enough to make it into the fairly modern era. I wonder what the effects on the world would be. No muslim states in Europe, another major power thrown into the mix in European politics. Less of a hegemony for the Catholics, I suppose. Greece maybe not becoming as gakked up as it is.

I don't know about that. The Fourth Crusade hurt the Holy Roman Empire, but its downfall really lay in the relative weakness of its own political system. A long series of events resulted in its dissollution, of which I'd consider the 4th Crusade to be more minor compared to the Reformation and the Wars of Religion.

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't know about that. The Fourth Crusade hurt the Holy Roman Empire, but its downfall really lay in the relative weakness of its own political system. A long series of events resulted in its dissollution, of which I'd consider the 4th Crusade to be more minor compared to the Reformation and the Wars of Religion.

Holy Roman Empire is not the Eastern Roman Empire. Talking Byzantines bro.

Oh oops. XD Silly me.

Okay I see what you mean now. No idea why I read it that way. I'm not totally versed in the Byzantines, but I wonder if we can call the sacking during the 4th Crusade their real downfall. I'd say the Battle of Manzikert finished off the eastern empire.

 Frazzled wrote:

Alternatively, what if we had someone like "burn everything!" Sherman?

So basically, what if it were Patton, and not Eisenhower who was "Supreme Allied Commander Europe" ???


@Bromsy... according to all of my History classes thus far, "Eastern Roman Emprie" never existed... if you are talking Byzantines, just call them Byzantines, or Byzantium.

I think Patton would have been ill suited for it. The man was too abrasive. Supreme Allied Commander was a position that needed more of a diplomatic personality. I figure if Patton somehow ended up in that position, the allied forces would have had a much harder time cooperating with one another. EDIT: Not to mention its a total waste of Patton's talent.

Patton hated Montgomery to.

Well yeah.. Patton was about Winning and winning his way. I just think that if he didn't have Eisenhower over him, he would have burned more of his way through Europe to see Germany beaten, like Sherman did in Ga.

 LordofHats wrote:
Oh oops. XD Silly me.

Okay I see what you mean now. No idea why I read it that way. I'm not totally versed in the Byzantines, but I wonder if we can call the sacking during the 4th Crusade their real downfall. I'd say the Battle of Manzikert finished off the eastern empire.

Nah, Manzikert gave Anatolia to the muslims, but the fall of Constantinople and the establishment of the Latin Empire and the other states by the Crusaders shattered Byzantine central authority, and control. Without that happening there is every chance that they could have endured, holding onto their European and island possessions, and with time there is a chance that a reversal of fortune could have even allowed them to retake their asian territories. I'm not saying they would have been some Europe spanning colossus or anything, but it would have seriously changed stuff this far down the timeline.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

@Bromsy... according to all of my History classes thus far, "Eastern Roman Emprie" never existed... if you are talking Byzantines, just call them Byzantines, or Byzantium.

... I think it sounds better. So there.

Would be an interesting play out compared to the Ottoman's I suppose.

On the subject of alternate WW2 Japanese history, how about we talk about a good one?

I've seen that toon....what toon?...been a bit..

Jin-Roh: The Wolf Brigade.

It's part of Mamoru Oshii's Kerberos Saga.

Hitler gets assassinated by Stauffenberg, Germany wins WW2 and occupies Japan.

Fantastic film. I really should read/watch some of the other parts in the saga.