quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Japanese move into Indochina would have been moving forces into an ally and hence not a problem for the USA. Or don't you comprehend that? The war in China was not the reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was due to the oil embargo put into place by the Japanese occupying Indochina but if they were allies, not a problem for the US. As far as the war in China was concerned, what would have been the likelihood of that even occuring of the UK and Japan were allied?

The situation in China would not have been that simple, since China was an Ally too. Clearly, this would have been an expansion against China. The US reaction would have been the same as historically.

quote:

Babyn Yar was known about and there were survivors. Just ask Dina Pronicheva about what it was like . .

Again, a few people knowing something constitutes a rumor to the larger world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
How could Germany even received any raw materials from China if the Allies did not want them to receive any? Especially if Japan was allied with the United Kingdom?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
How could Germany even received any raw materials from China if the Allies did not want them to receive any? Especially if Japan was allied with the United Kingdom?

Who are the Allies? Didn't even exist until sometime after December 7, 1941.

Here's an even more likely what if that could have put Germany against Japan. Germany had far more to lose in raw materials by siding with Japan than siding with China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-German_cooperation_(1926%E2%80%931941)#:~:text=Cooperation%20between%20China%20and%20Germany%20was%20instrumental%20in,was%20fraught%20with%20factional%20warlordism%20and%20foreign%20incursions.

So now China becomes a German trading partner and receives German military aid and perhaps becomes an ally. Evidently Hitler thought Japan would be better suited in that role. Without the raw materials but with a more able military. Yet he failed to include them when planning Barbarossa. What's the point of their stronger military if you refuse to use it to your advantage? That's plain stupid and makes zero sense. Especially when the Japanese Army was willing to take on the Soviets in Asia. And China is also supported by the U.S. At the same time Japan and Germany are now at odds. And Japan and the U.S. are also at odds.

Now Japan attacks China, now Germany's second or third largest trading partner where tens millions of marks are invested and Germany's friend if not ally. The U.S. also has close ties with China. The U.S. and Germany find themselves on the same side in a war in China. Japan is Germany's enemy. Japan is the enemy of the U.S. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And something else. Rooselvelt had a bitter dislike for dictators. Yet he sided and planned and worked closely with one as bad if not worse than Hitler who had openly planned world domination through Communism. Not exactly a state secret. Yet there Roosevelt is hobnobbing with the devil because they had a common enemy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Read what you are stating. China and Japan are allied with each other yet are at war with each other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

As in the video, there is no initial war between USA & UK. But, as in the video, war friction would probably lead to it. War with Japan alone is likely to, inadvertently, lead to incidents with their allies (USSR & Britain). So...war with Japan will probably lead to war with Russia and/or Britain - necessitating aid to the Axis. Once the US is sending aid to the Axis over the Atlantic, clashes with Britain are very likely.

warspite1

There is war between the UK and the USA because Churchill declares war on the USA. Just typing that sentence out makes me laugh at the absurdity. I ask again, how does an effectively bankrupt Britain, that needs the US for food, raw materials and weapons intend to fight, not just the Axis, but the US too. Where does that make sense on any level?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
There is war between the UK and the USA because Churchill declares war on the USA. Just typing that sentence out makes me laugh at the absurdity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

As in the video, there is no initial war between USA & UK. But, as in the video, war friction would probably lead to it. War with Japan alone is likely to, inadvertently, lead to incidents with their allies (USSR & Britain). So...war with Japan will probably lead to war with Russia and/or Britain - necessitating aid to the Axis. Once the US is sending aid to the Axis over the Atlantic, clashes with Britain are very likely.

warspite1

There is war between the UK and the USA because Churchill declares war on the USA. Just typing that sentence out makes me laugh at the absurdity. I ask again, how does an effectively bankrupt Britain, that needs the US for food, raw materials and weapons intend to fight, not just the Axis, but the US too. Where does that make sense on any level?

OK. So the US is sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic. I suppose the British can clear out of the Atlantic and let that happen. Fine with us. Is that what you say they would do? Even then, will there be no incidences anywhere? No ships staring suspiciously across the waves at each other - with fingers on the triggers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
There is war between the UK and the USA because Churchill declares war on the USA. Just typing that sentence out makes me laugh at the absurdity.

I wonder how many minutes would Churchill remain Prime Minister after proposing such a course of action...

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
There is war between the UK and the USA because Churchill declares war on the USA. Just typing that sentence out makes me laugh at the absurdity.

I wonder how many minutes would Churchill remain Prime Minister after proposing such a course of action...

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Curtis Lemay is missing the point by seeing the Axis and Allies as two definitive blocks. And China and Japan are just one example. So Japan agree to send a couple of ships to the Atlantic and a couple of brigades to Egypt (whoop whoop) in return for what? Britain will at best be expected to stop aiding China. So Britain is now potentially creating yet another enemy in the Chinese.... Great, a bankrupt empire can't have enough enemies can they?

quote:

But what of the USSR? Apparently Stalin is happy to attack China (which of course aids Japan and does nothing for the USSR) despite the fact that the Soviets are fighting the Germans without the benefit of Lend Lease and indeed the Germans are getting help from the US. So what forces does Stalin use against China exactly???? And why help the Japanese (even if they could) who the Soviets detest?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Curtis Lemay is missing the point by seeing the Axis and Allies as two definitive blocks. And China and Japan are just one example. So Japan agree to send a couple of ships to the Atlantic and a couple of brigades to Egypt (whoop whoop) in return for what? Britain will at best be expected to stop aiding China. So Britain is now potentially creating yet another enemy in the Chinese.... Great, a bankrupt empire can't have enough enemies can they?

Are you saying that if neutral Japan seeks to become a member of the Allies they would be turned down? Any instance of that sort of refusal elsewhere? Clearly, the USSR was accepted. Once a member, their actions reflect on the Alliance.

quote:

But what of the USSR? Apparently Stalin is happy to attack China (which of course aids Japan and does nothing for the USSR) despite the fact that the Soviets are fighting the Germans without the benefit of Lend Lease and indeed the Germans are getting help from the US. So what forces does Stalin use against China exactly???? And why help the Japanese (even if they could) who the Soviets detest?

Again, a Repulican administration might see the combo of Communism and Japan as worse than the Axis. Who knows how little would be necessary to trigger war with the USSR under that circumstance?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

OK. So the US is sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic. I suppose the British can clear out of the Atlantic and let that happen. Fine with us. Is that what you say they would do? Even then, will there be no incidences anywhere? No ships staring suspiciously across the waves at each other - with fingers on the triggers?

warspite1

Is that what I say they would do? I am sorry, I didn't think I could make it any plainer. No, as soon as Stalin and Churchill heard the Japanese attacked the US, they would drop their oriental 'Ally' like a stone.

quote:

I ask you again, and will continue to ask:

- How does the effectively bankrupt British Empire function without US aid?
- Why does Stalin even consider choosing Japan over the US given what it means in the war against Germany?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The USSR did not become a member of the Allies.

quote:

Japan was part of the Axis...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Curtis Lemay is missing the point by seeing the Axis and Allies as two definitive blocks. And China and Japan are just one example. So Japan agree to send a couple of ships to the Atlantic and a couple of brigades to Egypt (whoop whoop) in return for what? Britain will at best be expected to stop aiding China. So Britain is now potentially creating yet another enemy in the Chinese.... Great, a bankrupt empire can't have enough enemies can they?

Are you saying that if neutral Japan seeks to become a member of the Allies they would be turned down? Any instance of that sort of refusal elsewhere? Clearly, the USSR was accepted. Once a member, their actions reflect on the Alliance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Curtis Lemay is missing the point by seeing the Axis and Allies as two definitive blocks. And China and Japan are just one example. So Japan agree to send a couple of ships to the Atlantic and a couple of brigades to Egypt (whoop whoop) in return for what? Britain will at best be expected to stop aiding China. So Britain is now potentially creating yet another enemy in the Chinese.... Great, a bankrupt empire can't have enough enemies can they?

Are you saying that if neutral Japan seeks to become a member of the Allies they would be turned down? Any instance of that sort of refusal elsewhere? Clearly, the USSR was accepted. Once a member, their actions reflect on the Alliance.

quote:

But what of the USSR? Apparently Stalin is happy to attack China (which of course aids Japan and does nothing for the USSR) despite the fact that the Soviets are fighting the Germans without the benefit of Lend Lease and indeed the Germans are getting help from the US. So what forces does Stalin use against China exactly???? And why help the Japanese (even if they could) who the Soviets detest?

Again, a Repulican administration might see the combo of Communism and Japan as worse than the Axis. Who knows how little would be necessary to trigger war with the USSR under that circumstance?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

OK. So the US is sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic. I suppose the British can clear out of the Atlantic and let that happen. Fine with us. Is that what you say they would do? Even then, will there be no incidences anywhere? No ships staring suspiciously across the waves at each other - with fingers on the triggers?

warspite1

Is that what I say they would do? I am sorry, I didn't think I could make it any plainer. No, as soon as Stalin and Churchill heard the Japanese attacked the US, they would drop their oriental 'Ally' like a stone.

That wasn't what I asked. Read it again: If the US was sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic, would Britain clear out of the Atlantic to allow that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

OK. So the US is sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic. I suppose the British can clear out of the Atlantic and let that happen. Fine with us. Is that what you say they would do? Even then, will there be no incidences anywhere? No ships staring suspiciously across the waves at each other - with fingers on the triggers?

warspite1

Is that what I say they would do? I am sorry, I didn't think I could make it any plainer. No, as soon as Stalin and Churchill heard the Japanese attacked the US, they would drop their oriental 'Ally' like a stone.

That wasn't what I asked. Read it again: If the US was sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic, would Britain clear out of the Atlantic to allow that?

quote:

I ask you again, and will continue to ask:

- How does the effectively bankrupt British Empire function without US aid?
- Why does Stalin even consider choosing Japan over the US given what it means in the war against Germany?

How does Stalin have that option with a Republican administration? Why would the US be forced to choose Stalin over Hitler after being attacked by an Allied Power?

How can you continue to claim this is all "absurd"? It has to, at least, be plausible. That's all it requires.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Curtis Lemay is missing the point by seeing the Axis and Allies as two definitive blocks. And China and Japan are just one example. So Japan agree to send a couple of ships to the Atlantic and a couple of brigades to Egypt (whoop whoop) in return for what? Britain will at best be expected to stop aiding China. So Britain is now potentially creating yet another enemy in the Chinese.... Great, a bankrupt empire can't have enough enemies can they?

Are you saying that if neutral Japan seeks to become a member of the Allies they would be turned down? Any instance of that sort of refusal elsewhere? Clearly, the USSR was accepted. Once a member, their actions reflect on the Alliance.

warspite1

Please, think real world here. Japan can declare war on Germany/Italy if it likes. That doesn't mean that Britain are going to have to welcome Japan with open arms. Japan can do their own thing. The British will accept what they can but the US are in the driving seat. They can tell Chruchill he faces a choice - lend lease and other support or Britain can aid Japan. The choice is yours.

If you believe that Britain would ignore the USA then I ask yet again, how does bankrupt Britain - a country that can't even repair all its own naval vessels - conduct a World War without supplies, food and weapons from the US?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

OK. So the US is sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic. I suppose the British can clear out of the Atlantic and let that happen. Fine with us. Is that what you say they would do? Even then, will there be no incidences anywhere? No ships staring suspiciously across the waves at each other - with fingers on the triggers?

warspite1

Is that what I say they would do? I am sorry, I didn't think I could make it any plainer. No, as soon as Stalin and Churchill heard the Japanese attacked the US, they would drop their oriental 'Ally' like a stone.

That wasn't what I asked. Read it again: If the US was sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic, would Britain clear out of the Atlantic to allow that?

warspite1

You are not reading what I wrote. There is no reason that an American administration would suddenly become pro-Fascist. That is just not happening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Curtis Lemay is missing the point by seeing the Axis and Allies as two definitive blocks. And China and Japan are just one example. So Japan agree to send a couple of ships to the Atlantic and a couple of brigades to Egypt (whoop whoop) in return for what? Britain will at best be expected to stop aiding China. So Britain is now potentially creating yet another enemy in the Chinese.... Great, a bankrupt empire can't have enough enemies can they?

Are you saying that if neutral Japan seeks to become a member of the Allies they would be turned down? Any instance of that sort of refusal elsewhere? Clearly, the USSR was accepted. Once a member, their actions reflect on the Alliance.

quote:

But what of the USSR? Apparently Stalin is happy to attack China (which of course aids Japan and does nothing for the USSR) despite the fact that the Soviets are fighting the Germans without the benefit of Lend Lease and indeed the Germans are getting help from the US. So what forces does Stalin use against China exactly???? And why help the Japanese (even if they could) who the Soviets detest?

Again, a Repulican administration might see the combo of Communism and Japan as worse than the Axis. Who knows how little would be necessary to trigger war with the USSR under that circumstance?

warspite1

Sorry, but how does this answer the point I raised about the Soviet ability, let alone wish, to get embroiled in a war with China when the Germans are driving them back?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Curtis Lemay is missing the point by seeing the Axis and Allies as two definitive blocks. And China and Japan are just one example. So Japan agree to send a couple of ships to the Atlantic and a couple of brigades to Egypt (whoop whoop) in return for what? Britain will at best be expected to stop aiding China. So Britain is now potentially creating yet another enemy in the Chinese.... Great, a bankrupt empire can't have enough enemies can they?

Are you saying that if neutral Japan seeks to become a member of the Allies they would be turned down? Any instance of that sort of refusal elsewhere? Clearly, the USSR was accepted. Once a member, their actions reflect on the Alliance.

warspite1

Please, think real world here. Japan can declare war on Germany/Italy if it likes. That doesn't mean that Britain are going to have to welcome Japan with open arms. Japan can do their own thing. The British will accept what they can but the US are in the driving seat. They can tell Chruchill he faces a choice - lend lease and other support or Britain can aid Japan. The choice is yours.

If you believe that Britain would ignore the USA then I ask yet again, how does bankrupt Britain - a country that can't even repair all its own naval vessels - conduct a World War without supplies, food and weapons from the US?

Why wouldn't the US want Japan as a British ally instead of an Axis one? Isn't that good news at the time for both the US and the British? Japan doesn't join the Axis!!! It joins the Allies!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

OK. So the US is sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic. I suppose the British can clear out of the Atlantic and let that happen. Fine with us. Is that what you say they would do? Even then, will there be no incidences anywhere? No ships staring suspiciously across the waves at each other - with fingers on the triggers?

warspite1

Is that what I say they would do? I am sorry, I didn't think I could make it any plainer. No, as soon as Stalin and Churchill heard the Japanese attacked the US, they would drop their oriental 'Ally' like a stone.

That wasn't what I asked. Read it again: If the US was sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic, would Britain clear out of the Atlantic to allow that?

warspite1

You are not reading what I wrote. There is no reason that an American administration would suddenly become pro-Fascist. That is just not happening.

You are not reading what I wrote. Anti-Communist, not pro-Fascist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

OK. So the US is sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic. I suppose the British can clear out of the Atlantic and let that happen. Fine with us. Is that what you say they would do? Even then, will there be no incidences anywhere? No ships staring suspiciously across the waves at each other - with fingers on the triggers?

warspite1

Is that what I say they would do? I am sorry, I didn't think I could make it any plainer. No, as soon as Stalin and Churchill heard the Japanese attacked the US, they would drop their oriental 'Ally' like a stone.

That wasn't what I asked. Read it again: If the US was sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic, would Britain clear out of the Atlantic to allow that?

quote:

I ask you again, and will continue to ask:

- How does the effectively bankrupt British Empire function without US aid?
- Why does Stalin even consider choosing Japan over the US given what it means in the war against Germany?

How does Stalin have that option with a Republican administration? Why would the US be forced to choose Stalin over Hitler after being attacked by an Allied Power?

How can you continue to claim this is all "absurd"? It has to, at least, be plausible. That's all it requires.

warspite1

You haven't looked at the video OR you have but you are assuming that in June 1941 (with everything happening as per the historical) the US decide not to support Stalin. Even if we indulge that for the moment, that still doesn't make the US pro-Fascist. The fall of the USSR means the almost certain fall of Britain. Why does a Republican Government want Europe dominated by Hitler?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

OK. So the US is sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic. I suppose the British can clear out of the Atlantic and let that happen. Fine with us. Is that what you say they would do? Even then, will there be no incidences anywhere? No ships staring suspiciously across the waves at each other - with fingers on the triggers?

warspite1

Is that what I say they would do? I am sorry, I didn't think I could make it any plainer. No, as soon as Stalin and Churchill heard the Japanese attacked the US, they would drop their oriental 'Ally' like a stone.

That wasn't what I asked. Read it again: If the US was sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic, would Britain clear out of the Atlantic to allow that?

warspite1

You are not reading what I wrote. There is no reason that an American administration would suddenly become pro-Fascist. That is just not happening.

You are not reading what I wrote. Anti-Communist, not pro-Fascist.

warspite1

You are not reading what you have written. You have said the US are sending supplies to the Fascists in order that they destroy Stalin. And that means Britain next. You think that is not a pro-Fascist move?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Curtis Lemay is missing the point by seeing the Axis and Allies as two definitive blocks. And China and Japan are just one example. So Japan agree to send a couple of ships to the Atlantic and a couple of brigades to Egypt (whoop whoop) in return for what? Britain will at best be expected to stop aiding China. So Britain is now potentially creating yet another enemy in the Chinese.... Great, a bankrupt empire can't have enough enemies can they?

Are you saying that if neutral Japan seeks to become a member of the Allies they would be turned down? Any instance of that sort of refusal elsewhere? Clearly, the USSR was accepted. Once a member, their actions reflect on the Alliance.

quote:

But what of the USSR? Apparently Stalin is happy to attack China (which of course aids Japan and does nothing for the USSR) despite the fact that the Soviets are fighting the Germans without the benefit of Lend Lease and indeed the Germans are getting help from the US. So what forces does Stalin use against China exactly???? And why help the Japanese (even if they could) who the Soviets detest?

Again, a Repulican administration might see the combo of Communism and Japan as worse than the Axis. Who knows how little would be necessary to trigger war with the USSR under that circumstance?

warspite1

Sorry, but how does this answer the point I raised about the Soviet ability, let alone wish, to get embroiled in a war with China when the Germans are driving them back?

War with China doesn't have to be the trigger. Just the fact that Japan is an Ally could, with a Republican administration be enough to make the USSR seem more of a threat than Nazi Germany. Or, if an incident is required, any would do. Soviet equipment turning up in Japanese units, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Lol. If, Japan seeks to declare war on Germany then great. Everyone's a winner baby. Except.....

.... Japan are still in China. And the US are going to be wary of any Alliance made because Japan is still a potential enemy. As are Britain for fear of upsetting the US.

You seem to believe that there is only one type of ally - all in or all out. The world - realpolitik - is more nuanced. Will the US and Britain welcome Japan's involvement? Cautiously at best and as said, if the US believe that Japan want too much for their help then they will do what needs to be done to ensure that they are disbused of the notion that this is a quick, easy win to keep hold of China.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Curtis Lemay is missing the point by seeing the Axis and Allies as two definitive blocks. And China and Japan are just one example. So Japan agree to send a couple of ships to the Atlantic and a couple of brigades to Egypt (whoop whoop) in return for what? Britain will at best be expected to stop aiding China. So Britain is now potentially creating yet another enemy in the Chinese.... Great, a bankrupt empire can't have enough enemies can they?

Are you saying that if neutral Japan seeks to become a member of the Allies they would be turned down? Any instance of that sort of refusal elsewhere? Clearly, the USSR was accepted. Once a member, their actions reflect on the Alliance.

quote:

But what of the USSR? Apparently Stalin is happy to attack China (which of course aids Japan and does nothing for the USSR) despite the fact that the Soviets are fighting the Germans without the benefit of Lend Lease and indeed the Germans are getting help from the US. So what forces does Stalin use against China exactly???? And why help the Japanese (even if they could) who the Soviets detest?

Again, a Repulican administration might see the combo of Communism and Japan as worse than the Axis. Who knows how little would be necessary to trigger war with the USSR under that circumstance?

warspite1

Sorry, but how does this answer the point I raised about the Soviet ability, let alone wish, to get embroiled in a war with China when the Germans are driving them back?

War with China doesn't have to be the trigger. Just the fact that Japan is an Ally could, with a Republican administration be enough to make the USSR seem more of a threat than Nazi Germany. Or, if an incident is required, any would do. Soviet equipment turning up in Japanese units, etc.

warspite1

So let me get this right. You see no issue with Japan and Britain being allies (see your posts above) but the Soviets and Japan as allies is a big no no and has the Americans cosying up to Fascists?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

OK. So the US is sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic. I suppose the British can clear out of the Atlantic and let that happen. Fine with us. Is that what you say they would do? Even then, will there be no incidences anywhere? No ships staring suspiciously across the waves at each other - with fingers on the triggers?

warspite1

Is that what I say they would do? I am sorry, I didn't think I could make it any plainer. No, as soon as Stalin and Churchill heard the Japanese attacked the US, they would drop their oriental 'Ally' like a stone.

That wasn't what I asked. Read it again: If the US was sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic, would Britain clear out of the Atlantic to allow that?

quote:

I ask you again, and will continue to ask:

- How does the effectively bankrupt British Empire function without US aid?
- Why does Stalin even consider choosing Japan over the US given what it means in the war against Germany?

How does Stalin have that option with a Republican administration? Why would the US be forced to choose Stalin over Hitler after being attacked by an Allied Power?

How can you continue to claim this is all "absurd"? It has to, at least, be plausible. That's all it requires.

warspite1

You haven't looked at the video OR you have but you are assuming that in June 1941 (with everything happening as per the historical) the US decide not to support Stalin. Even if we indulge that for the moment, that still doesn't make the US pro-Fascist. The fall of the USSR means the almost certain fall of Britain. Why does a Republican Government want Europe dominated by Hitler?

How was the end result in the video so much worse than the historical ending? Germany stands as a bulwark against the Soviets and everything else is America's. Perhaps better than red tides all over the place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

OK. So the US is sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic. I suppose the British can clear out of the Atlantic and let that happen. Fine with us. Is that what you say they would do? Even then, will there be no incidences anywhere? No ships staring suspiciously across the waves at each other - with fingers on the triggers?

warspite1

Is that what I say they would do? I am sorry, I didn't think I could make it any plainer. No, as soon as Stalin and Churchill heard the Japanese attacked the US, they would drop their oriental 'Ally' like a stone.

That wasn't what I asked. Read it again: If the US was sending war material to the Axis via the Atlantic, would Britain clear out of the Atlantic to allow that?

warspite1

You are not reading what I wrote. There is no reason that an American administration would suddenly become pro-Fascist. That is just not happening.

You are not reading what I wrote. Anti-Communist, not pro-Fascist.

warspite1

You are not reading what you have written. You have said the US are sending supplies to the Fascists in order that they destroy Stalin. And that means Britain next. You think that is not a pro-Fascist move?

That wasn't the ending in the video.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Lol. If, Japan seeks to declare war on Germany then great. Everyone's a winner baby. Except.....

.... Japan are still in China. And the US are going to be wary of any Alliance made because Japan is still a potential enemy. As are Britain for fear of upsetting the US.

You seem to believe that there is only one type of ally - all in or all out. The world - realpolitik - is more nuanced. Will the US and Britain welcome Japan's involvement? Cautiously at best and as said, if the US believe that Japan want too much for their help then they will do what needs to be done to ensure that they are disbused of the notion that this is a quick, easy win to keep hold of China.

Sorry, but I can't see any way that Japan NOT joining the Axis AND joining the Allies would be seen as anything other that good news at the time.