Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

Russia had its hands more than full on the German front to try open up the game in China. Japan had its hands more than full with the Allies. I see no space for them to try irritate one another in 42/43

quote:

ORIGINAL: tolsdorff

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

Russia had its hands more than full on the German front to try open up the game in China. Japan had its hands more than full with the Allies. I see no space for them to try irritate one another in 42/43

Agreed. the Soviet Union survived 1942 by the skin of their teeth at staggering cost. If it would have had to divert assets to the far east in that period, it would have collapsed, there should be no doubt about that. 1944 and 1945 is a different story though.

Perhaps the western allies would have changed their Germany-First policy in the face of an imminent chinese collapse. They could have diverted production, units and resources against Japan instead of a buildup against Germany.

Who knows. I certainly don't. A lot of would be's and if's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tolsdorff

Perhaps the western allies would have changed their Germany-First policy in the face of an imminent chinese collapse. They could have diverted production, units and resources against Japan instead of a buildup against Germany.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike McCreery

Most of us know one of the basic Japanese tactics is to collapse China in 1942/1943 to get major victory points and eliminate that front from the game, at least temporarily.

I am really interested in the contest between NJP and Lowpe because they are top notch players and illustrate the technical weaknesses of China. It has been stated that there is no sure defense against a determined Japanese attack early in the game.

So, my question is not about can you do it or should you do it, it is more political and related to game mechanics.

Do the historians and philosophers on this forum believe that Russia would have allowed China to completely collapse and wait passively by while Japan rested and re-formed it's troops along their border?

My contention is that at some point, regardless of the AV strength held in reserve that the Russians would have attacked Japan prior to August 1945 if they had gotten close to the complete conquest of China.

I would love to hear some educated opinions on this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

In the game Japan can take out China, in real life I don't think it would be possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

In the game Japan can take out China, in real life I don't think it would be possible.

+1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

In the game Japan can take out China, in real life I don't think it would be possible.

+1.

In the interests of a debate, I'll challenge that - I think it would be possible to "take out" China from the war. However, it would likely have involved a Japanese withdrawal from mainland China, in order to provoke the resumption of the civil war that had been bubbling over for decades.

I'll preface all of this with the comment that the mindset of the Japanese leadership in 1941 would likely make this course of action be viewed as outrageously radical.

In 1941, "China" is not a single entity, nor is it really "in" the war. I consider it more of an interlude of the Chinese Civil War.

Chaing and the KMT on one side, Mao and the Communists in Yan'an, the Japanese puppet RGC. Interspaced is a handful of warlords that will align to whichever way the wind blows.

Japan "wins" by forcing the KMT, RGC and Communists to fight for control of China in a manner that all external considerations are secondary. It can do this by:

- conventional military operations to put the RGC Government in control of additional population and military centres and provide additional challenge to Chaing's role as the legitimate leader of China.

- let the Communists control the countryside to enable the CCP to build a rival powerbase to the KMT/RGC factions

- negotiate favourable industry and resource interests from the RGC in exchange for large scale provision of surplus arms and equipment to RGC troops, with Japanese detachments serving in an advisory/voluntary capacity and Japanese garrisons in the major coastal cities.

- pragmatic provision to financial and military aid to ambitious Chinese warlords to fragment central KMT authority.

- time-limited intervention by IJA forces if one faction appears to be in the position to deliver a decisive blow.

This would represent a "win" for Japan in my eyes as it gives them the major benefit of an occupied China (the industrial and commercial interests) without the downside of requiring a large occupational force. However, it would be costly (but less so that the historical commitment of troops).

In the absence of the common enemy Japan, it becomes a Chinese conflict with Japan able to hold the balance of power. Any Allied aid to Chaing will be immediately turned against the Communists or RGC forces (never mind Japan) while the RGC would be in a dependant relationship with Japan. The Communists would likely prosper the most given the popularity of their land policies, but in the absence of a secure industrial base or the provisions of weapons en-masse they would find it challenging to engage in the conventional operations needed to bring victory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

In the game Japan can take out China, in real life I don't think it would be possible.

+1.

In the interests of a debate, I'll challenge that - I think it would be possible to "take out" China from the war. However, it would likely have involved a Japanese withdrawal from mainland China, in order to provoke the resumption of the civil war that had been bubbling over for decades.

I'll preface all of this with the comment that the mindset of the Japanese leadership in 1941 would likely make this course of action be viewed as outrageously radical.

In 1941, "China" is not a single entity, nor is it really "in" the war. I consider it more of an interlude of the Chinese Civil War.

Chaing and the KMT on one side, Mao and the Communists in Yan'an, the Japanese puppet RGC. Interspaced is a handful of warlords that will align to whichever way the wind blows.

Japan "wins" by forcing the KMT, RGC and Communists to fight for control of China in a manner that all external considerations are secondary. It can do this by:

- conventional military operations to put the RGC Government in control of additional population and military centres and provide additional challenge to Chaing's role as the legitimate leader of China.

- let the Communists control the countryside to enable the CCP to build a rival powerbase to the KMT/RGC factions

- negotiate favourable industry and resource interests from the RGC in exchange for large scale provision of surplus arms and equipment to RGC troops, with Japanese detachments serving in an advisory/voluntary capacity and Japanese garrisons in the major coastal cities.

- pragmatic provision to financial and military aid to ambitious Chinese warlords to fragment central KMT authority.

- time-limited intervention by IJA forces if one faction appears to be in the position to deliver a decisive blow.

This would represent a "win" for Japan in my eyes as it gives them the major benefit of an occupied China (the industrial and commercial interests) without the downside of requiring a large occupational force. However, it would be costly (but less so that the historical commitment of troops).

In the absence of the common enemy Japan, it becomes a Chinese conflict with Japan able to hold the balance of power. Any Allied aid to Chaing will be immediately turned against the Communists or RGC forces (never mind Japan) while the RGC would be in a dependant relationship with Japan. The Communists would likely prosper the most given the popularity of their land policies, but in the absence of a secure industrial base or the provisions of weapons en-masse they would find it challenging to engage in the conventional operations needed to bring victory.

So this will be your strategy for extracting Scotland from the stick England/Wales/Ireland situation? And you negotiate with them to get all their sheep?

quote:

- negotiate favourable industry and resource interests from the RGC in exchange for large scale provision of surplus arms and equipment to RGC troops, with Japanese detachments serving in an advisory/voluntary capacity and Japanese garrisons in the major coastal cities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

- negotiate favourable industry and resource interests from the RGC in exchange for large scale provision of surplus arms and equipment to RGC troops, with Japanese detachments serving in an advisory/voluntary capacity and Japanese garrisons in the major coastal cities.

While I agree with your premise that the Japanese leadership in 1941 might view with disfavor withdrawing from mainland China I find it unreasonable that getting involved in the Chinese Civil War would be the Japanese road to victory. The US got involved in a civil war in Vietnam. It is a slippery slope and the ending is the ending for Japan would very likely be the same as for the US 30 yrs later.