Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What recent posts seem to have ignored is what actually happened in terms of the Republican nomination in 1940. By the time Japan decided to declare war on the US in December 1941, real life events are supposed to have happened in this counterfactual too. We know how the Republican party reacted to German aggression against neutrals in 1940, in terms of their nomination preference. So why would a Republican be necessarily different in terms of their stance toward the Axis?

In 1940 the USSR was an Axis friend. By Pearl Harbor they were an offical member of the Allies. Republicans have a more viceral reaction to Communism than that other party. So, a Republican administration - just attacked by an Allied Power - might see the Axis as the lesser of two evils.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Lend Lease was essential to the Allies because Britain had used up all of its foreign currency to buy war items. Why would Churchill end that? Just so the United Kingdom would surrender?

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Lend Lease was essential to the Allies because Britain had used up all of its foreign currency to buy war items. Why would Churchill end that? Just so the United Kingdom would surrender?

warspite1

According to the You Tuber, Churchill would come to the same conclusion as the Japanese - the US would not be up for a long war

So Britain is relying on the US for supplies, weapons and ship repair, but Churchill will forego all of that and er.... erm..... literally bite the hand that is keeping it alive. Yes, that sounds eminently sensible doesn’t it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Churchill knew that eventually the U.S. would enter the war on the side of the U.K. regardless of the leadership.

4 June 1940


“...
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

He wasn't talking about Canada.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Alternate history is pretending. Because it never happened. You can pretend any number of things that are not based in reality. There is nothing wrong with that. That's one of the things that make us homo sapiens. We can take things that never happened and never could happen and mould them into a fictional story.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What recent posts seem to have ignored is what actually happened in terms of the Republican nomination in 1940. By the time Japan decided to declare war on the US in December 1941, real life events are supposed to have happened in this counterfactual too. We know how the Republican party reacted to German aggression against neutrals in 1940, in terms of their nomination preference. So why would a Republican be necessarily different in terms of their stance toward the Axis?

In 1940 the USSR was an Axis friend. By Pearl Harbor they were an offical member of the Allies. Republicans have a more viceral reaction to Communism than that other party. So, a Republican administration - just attacked by an Allied Power - might see the Axis as the lesser of two evils.

warspite1

But according to the creator’s version of events, nothing has changed in terms of real life events up to July 1941 (other than a souring of German-Japanese relations). US opinion of Nazi Germany hasn’t changed (the Republican Wilkie wants to aid Britain). So I don’t see why the US opinion of Hitler suddenly changes. What this fairy tale hinges on is the preposterous notion that Churchill chooses Japan over the US. Remember, in this counterfactual it is suggested that Britain - already heavily dependent on the US in 1941 - decides to declare war on the United States of America. The reason given for Churchill’s decision is straight out of the Japanese real life thinking . It totally ignores the economic, military and political situation that existed at that time. And how will effectively bankrupt Britain be going to continue a war against Germany and Italy - let alone the US too - without US assistance?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What recent posts seem to have ignored is what actually happened in terms of the Republican nomination in 1940. By the time Japan decided to declare war on the US in December 1941, real life events are supposed to have happened in this counterfactual too. We know how the Republican party reacted to German aggression against neutrals in 1940, in terms of their nomination preference. So why would a Republican be necessarily different in terms of their stance toward the Axis?

In 1940 the USSR was an Axis friend. By Pearl Harbor they were an offical member of the Allies. Republicans have a more viceral reaction to Communism than that other party. So, a Republican administration - just attacked by an Allied Power - might see the Axis as the lesser of two evils.

warspite1

But according to the creator’s version of events, nothing has changed in terms of real life events up to July 1941 (other than a souring of German-Japanese relations). US opinion of Nazi Germany hasn’t changed (the Republican Wilkie wants to aid Britain). So I don’t see why the US opinion of Hitler suddenly changes. What this fairy tale hinges on is the preposterous notion that Churchill chooses Japan over the US. Remember, in this counterfactual it is suggested that Britain - already heavily dependent on the US in 1941 - decides to declare war on the United States of America. The reason given for Churchill’s decision is straight out of the Japanese real life thinking . It totally ignores the economic, military and political situation that existed at that time. And how will effectively bankrupt Britain be going to continue a war against Germany and Italy - let alone the US too - without US assistance?

Well, I'm changing that sequence by swapping Roosevelt for a right-wing Republican. What Churchill decides doesn't matter, if the US decides that the Allies are the greater evil. The combination of Stalin and Tojo could pull that off. No doubt the US will try to remain neutral with Britain. But, war being war, that will prove difficult, as in the video.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What recent posts seem to have ignored is what actually happened in terms of the Republican nomination in 1940. By the time Japan decided to declare war on the US in December 1941, real life events are supposed to have happened in this counterfactual too. We know how the Republican party reacted to German aggression against neutrals in 1940, in terms of their nomination preference. So why would a Republican be necessarily different in terms of their stance toward the Axis?

In 1940 the USSR was an Axis friend. By Pearl Harbor they were an offical member of the Allies. Republicans have a more viceral reaction to Communism than that other party. So, a Republican administration - just attacked by an Allied Power - might see the Axis as the lesser of two evils.

warspite1

But according to the creator’s version of events, nothing has changed in terms of real life events up to July 1941 (other than a souring of German-Japanese relations). US opinion of Nazi Germany hasn’t changed (the Republican Wilkie wants to aid Britain). So I don’t see why the US opinion of Hitler suddenly changes. What this fairy tale hinges on is the preposterous notion that Churchill chooses Japan over the US. Remember, in this counterfactual it is suggested that Britain - already heavily dependent on the US in 1941 - decides to declare war on the United States of America. The reason given for Churchill’s decision is straight out of the Japanese real life thinking . It totally ignores the economic, military and political situation that existed at that time. And how will effectively bankrupt Britain be going to continue a war against Germany and Italy - let alone the US too - without US assistance?

Well, I'm changing that sequence by swapping Roosevelt for a right-wing Republican. What Churchill decides doesn't matter, if the US decides that the Allies are the greater evil. The combination of Stalin and Tojo could pull that off. No doubt the US will try to remain neutral with Britain. But, war being war, that will prove difficult, as in the video.

warspite1

But Germany's actions meant that the Republicans went for Wilkie. So that's a big leap of imagination. You are not saying much for the American people that Germany's actions 1939-41 don't register with them..... isolationist maybe but pro-Fascist??

You refer to the 'Allies' as though they are a homogenous group and that the US has to choose between the Axis and 'Allies'.

For one thing the 'Allies' are the Commonwealth (yes that includes the oldest Dominion Canada sitting on Americas northern border), the Soviet Union, China and Japan. So given that two of these 'Allies' are at war with each other and that none of them are exactly bedfellows then that hardly fits that particular bill. And what of the USSR and Britain and their relations with China? It's far more complicated than 'Axis' and 'Allies'.

But moreover, how can you possibly say that what Churchill decides does not matter?

It very much matters. If Churchill doesn't (cough) declare war on the US then why do the US need to join the Axis, even if Japan attacks them???? In that scenario why would the USA decide: "right, Japan have attacked us. But Britain and the USSR are fighting against Fascist regimes and not interested in going to war against us". I know, lets join the Germans and Italians against the two powers we are currently providing lend-lease too and are Allied with in all but name.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But Germany's actions meant that the Republicans went for Wilkie. So that's a big leap of imagination. You are not saying much for the American people that Germany's actions 1939-41 don't register with them..... isolationist maybe but pro-Fascist??

quote:

You refer to the 'Allies' as though they are a homogenous group and that the US has to choose between the Axis and 'Allies'.

For one thing the 'Allies' are the Commonwealth (yes that includes the oldest Dominion Canada sitting on Americas northern border), the Soviet Union, China and Japan. So given that two of these 'Allies' are at war with each other and that none of them are exactly bedfellows then that hardly fits that particular bill. And what of the USSR and Britain and their relations with China? It's far more complicated than 'Axis' and 'Allies'.

But moreover, how can you possibly say that what Churchill decides does not matter?

It very much matters. If Churchill doesn't (cough) declare war on the US then why do the US need to join the Axis, even if Japan attacks them???? In that scenario why would the USA decide: "right, Japan have attacked us. But Britain and the USSR are fighting against Fascist regimes and not interested in going to war against us". I know, lets join the Germans and Italians against the two powers we are currently providing lend-lease too and are Allied with in all but name.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But Germany's actions meant that the Republicans went for Wilkie. So that's a big leap of imagination. You are not saying much for the American people that Germany's actions 1939-41 don't register with them..... isolationist maybe but pro-Fascist??

Not pro-Fascist. Anti-Communist. These are Republicans in charge now.

quote:

You refer to the 'Allies' as though they are a homogenous group and that the US has to choose between the Axis and 'Allies'.

For one thing the 'Allies' are the Commonwealth (yes that includes the oldest Dominion Canada sitting on Americas northern border), the Soviet Union, China and Japan. So given that two of these 'Allies' are at war with each other and that none of them are exactly bedfellows then that hardly fits that particular bill. And what of the USSR and Britain and their relations with China? It's far more complicated than 'Axis' and 'Allies'.

But moreover, how can you possibly say that what Churchill decides does not matter?

It very much matters. If Churchill doesn't (cough) declare war on the US then why do the US need to join the Axis, even if Japan attacks them???? In that scenario why would the USA decide: "right, Japan have attacked us. But Britain and the USSR are fighting against Fascist regimes and not interested in going to war against us". I know, lets join the Germans and Italians against the two powers we are currently providing lend-lease too and are Allied with in all but name.....

I'm just saying that what may have been a fantasy on the site, could be made plausible with a more right-wing US Administration. The US, attacked by an Allied power, could see the Soviet-Japan combination as the greater evil than Nazi Germany. Soviet and Japanese attrocities are old news. Nazi attrocities are just rumors. And Japan attacking the neutral US blunts the argument that the Axis are the aggressors. Policy decisions of 1940 have been made obsolete by the events of 1941. The World Hedgemony of the Communist and Japanese combo may seem more threatening than the Axis (which is, so far, limited to Europe and the Med).

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Why would any Allied power attack the US? To get aid rebuilding their country after the war? Ever read the book or see the movie "The Mouse that Roared?"

quote:

Nazi atrocities were facts and not rumors in 1941.

quote:

A more "right wing" administration would have been isolationist...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Why would any Allied power attack the US? To get aid rebuilding their country after the war? Ever read the book or see the movie "The Mouse that Roared?"

Japan, an Allied Power in this version of history, has attacked the US.

quote:

Nazi atrocities were facts and not rumors in 1941.

Not mass murder. Whereas such Soviet and Japanese attrocities were old news.

quote:

A more "right wing" administration would have been isolationist...

Not after being attacked by Japan in a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If Japan was still a member of the Allies, why would she even attack the USA?

quote:

I guess that you never heard of Babyn Yar? Also known as Babi Yar? The locals watched what happened there . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Sorry. Forgot for a moment that you reject all fiction even for entertainment purposes.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If Japan was still a member of the Allies, why would she even attack the USA?

Same reasons as historically, as a result of her war with China. See the video.

quote:

I guess that you never heard of Babyn Yar? Also known as Babi Yar? The locals watched what happened there . . .

Locals knowing is not the same as the world knowing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The reason Japan attacked the US was the stopping of the oil exports to Japan which the DEI also followed. The reason for the ban on oil exports was the occupation of French Indochina but since France would be an ally of Japan then that would not be a problem for the US. So there would be no ban on oil exports to Japan and hence no reason for the attack on the US at Pearl Harbor nor anywhere else.

quote:

As far is it being known about Babyn Yar, it was known to those people who had an interest in such events as well as certain people in power. As far as every single person in the entire world knowing about such an event, you are correct in that not every single person would have known about it. But the people in power and/or interested in such power in the US knew about such things but at that time, there was only so much that could be done about them. Heck, the Communists and Socialists in the USA were protesting assisting the Allies until after the 22nd of June, 1941 . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Sorry. Forgot for a moment that you reject all fiction even for entertainment purposes.

warspite1

What a child. As I have made perfectly clear - even to you - there are counterfactuals that attempt to sensibly look at what could have happened based on the historical, and there are counterfactuals that don’t trouble themselves in the effort department. You can’t accept another view point and now turn to sarcasm. Well done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The reason Japan attacked the US was the stopping of the oil exports to Japan which the DEI also followed. The reason for the ban on oil exports was the occupation of French Indochina but since France would be an ally of Japan then that would not be a problem for the US. So there would be no ban on oil exports to Japan and hence no reason for the attack on the US at Pearl Harbor nor anywhere else.

The US reaction to Japanese occupation of French Indochina was not to protect French colonial possessions. It was an expansion of the war against China, and that required the reaction made.

quote:

As far is it being known about Babyn Yar, it was known to those people who had an interest in such events as well as certain people in power. As far as every single person in the entire world knowing about such an event, you are correct in that not every single person would have known about it. But the people in power and/or interested in such power in the US knew about such things but at that time, there was only so much that could be done about them. Heck, the Communists and Socialists in the USA were protesting assisting the Allies until after the 22nd of June, 1941 . . .

Still, just rumors. Certainty didn't arrive till tanks rolled into the death camps.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Sorry. Forgot for a moment that you reject all fiction even for entertainment purposes.

warspite1

What a child. As I have made perfectly clear - even to you - there are counterfactuals that attempt to sensibly look at what could have happened based on the historical, and there are counterfactuals that don’t trouble themselves in the effort department. You can’t accept another view point and now turn to sarcasm. Well done.

Ah resorting to name calling. You don't like what if historical scenarios fine. Why are you even commenting here if it isn't your cup of tea? To pound your chest and shout how correct you are and how wrong everyone else is because they like to play with the facts? Others do like fictional history no matter how out of whack it is. So go find a thread where people of your mindset play. I hope you will be happy there. I do enjoy alternate history. That's exactly what this thread is about. If you can't handle that and it seems to upset you greatly then simply stop paying attention to this thread. Easy as that. No one is forcing it on you except you.

Have a nice day.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

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?

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But Germany's actions meant that the Republicans went for Wilkie. So that's a big leap of imagination. You are not saying much for the American people that Germany's actions 1939-41 don't register with them..... isolationist maybe but pro-Fascist??

Not pro-Fascist. Anti-Communist. These are Republicans in charge now.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But Germany's actions meant that the Republicans went for Wilkie. So that's a big leap of imagination. You are not saying much for the American people that Germany's actions 1939-41 don't register with them..... isolationist maybe but pro-Fascist??

Not pro-Fascist. Anti-Communist. These are Republicans in charge now.

quote:

You refer to the 'Allies' as though they are a homogenous group and that the US has to choose between the Axis and 'Allies'.

For one thing the 'Allies' are the Commonwealth (yes that includes the oldest Dominion Canada sitting on Americas northern border), the Soviet Union, China and Japan. So given that two of these 'Allies' are at war with each other and that none of them are exactly bedfellows then that hardly fits that particular bill. And what of the USSR and Britain and their relations with China? It's far more complicated than 'Axis' and 'Allies'.

But moreover, how can you possibly say that what Churchill decides does not matter?

It very much matters. If Churchill doesn't (cough) declare war on the US then why do the US need to join the Axis, even if Japan attacks them???? In that scenario why would the USA decide: "right, Japan have attacked us. But Britain and the USSR are fighting against Fascist regimes and not interested in going to war against us". I know, lets join the Germans and Italians against the two powers we are currently providing lend-lease too and are Allied with in all but name.....

I'm just saying that what may have been a fantasy on the site, could be made plausible with a more right-wing US Administration. The US, attacked by an Allied power, could see the Soviet-Japan combination as the greater evil than Nazi Germany. Soviet and Japanese attrocities are old news. Nazi attrocities are just rumors. And Japan attacking the neutral US blunts the argument that the Axis are the aggressors. Policy decisions of 1940 have been made obsolete by the events of 1941. The World Hedgemony of the Communist and Japanese combo may seem more threatening than the Axis (which is, so far, limited to Europe and the Med).

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But Germany's actions meant that the Republicans went for Wilkie. So that's a big leap of imagination. You are not saying much for the American people that Germany's actions 1939-41 don't register with them..... isolationist maybe but pro-Fascist??

Not pro-Fascist. Anti-Communist. These are Republicans in charge now.

quote:

You refer to the 'Allies' as though they are a homogenous group and that the US has to choose between the Axis and 'Allies'.

For one thing the 'Allies' are the Commonwealth (yes that includes the oldest Dominion Canada sitting on Americas northern border), the Soviet Union, China and Japan. So given that two of these 'Allies' are at war with each other and that none of them are exactly bedfellows then that hardly fits that particular bill. And what of the USSR and Britain and their relations with China? It's far more complicated than 'Axis' and 'Allies'.

But moreover, how can you possibly say that what Churchill decides does not matter?

It very much matters. If Churchill doesn't (cough) declare war on the US then why do the US need to join the Axis, even if Japan attacks them???? In that scenario why would the USA decide: "right, Japan have attacked us. But Britain and the USSR are fighting against Fascist regimes and not interested in going to war against us". I know, lets join the Germans and Italians against the two powers we are currently providing lend-lease too and are Allied with in all but name.....

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.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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.