• The 'Comrade' title is now available in a fetching communist red for purchase by all of you capitalists who survived the Sietch gulag during the people's revolution. And in the spirit of all communists everywhere, it was broken until the capitalist pig dogs fixed it. ;)
  • Your beloved Boot here with a confession. The Boot tangled its laces and failed to properly set up the new Comrade user title. Thanks to the kind intercession of Emperor Tippy this failure has been corrected and the new user title is now actually on sale to everybody.

AHC: Successful US (and/or UK) non-belligerent containment of militarist Japan with a 1932 or later PoD

Can Japan plausibly be contained without war (with the US or UK) with a PoD in 1932 or later?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 40.0%
  • No

    Votes: 3 60.0%

  • Total voters
    5

raharris1973

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Reaction score
167
Here's the challenge: Have the US (and /or UK) contain militarist Japan's expansion, without a war, with any PoD after 1 April 1932. For reference, March 1932 was when the Japanese proclaimed the state of Manchukuo.

The minimum condition for "successful" containment of Japan is that Japan cannot go to war against, invade, or occupy the territories/possessions of the United States, the British Empire, the Netherlands, Thailand, or the Soviet Union.

Some deliberate action or actions to deter or restrain Japan, but not war, on the part of the US and/or UK and possibly other international actors, must contribute to any Japanese behavior that diverges from OTL. [ie, so, all Japan's militarists just feel happy and stop or Japanese liberals or the Emperor take charge and just stop militarists just because they feel like it out of the blue isn't good enough]

Double your points if, due to containment actions, Japan also never invades or occupies French Indochina.

Triple your points if Japan never invades or occupies China south of Shandong.

Quadruple your points if Japan never invades or occupies China south of the Great Wall.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
2,474
Easy,if England remained as Japan ally.Still doable,if USA do not provoke with Japan war in 1941.
But - enough if Dutch India do not join embargo.They must be avare of fact,that it made them perfect target,and that USA would let Japan take their colonies,reclaim it - but not for Holland.Which happened in OTL.
Smarter dutch gubernator would prevent that.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Reaction score
673
Here's the challenge: Have the US (and /or UK) contain militarist Japan's expansion, without a war, with any PoD after 1 April 1932. For reference, March 1932 was when the Japanese proclaimed the state of Manchukuo.

The minimum condition for "successful" containment of Japan is that Japan cannot go to war against, invade, or occupy the territories/possessions of the United States, the British Empire, the Netherlands, Thailand, or the Soviet Union.

Some deliberate action or actions to deter or restrain Japan, but not war, on the part of the US and/or UK and possibly other international actors, must contribute to any Japanese behavior that diverges from OTL. [ie, so, all Japan's militarists just feel happy and stop or Japanese liberals or the Emperor take charge and just stop militarists just because they feel like it out of the blue isn't good enough]

Double your points if, due to containment actions, Japan also never invades or occupies French Indochina.

Triple your points if Japan never invades or occupies China south of Shandong.

Quadruple your points if Japan never invades or occupies China south of the Great Wall.

I doubt it as the military already had considerable control over the government by then and its looking towards China as a source of both raw materials and markets. Once that happens then its going to be sucked into a quagmire and sooner or later is going to be looking for more resources as well as a defensive perimeter against what it sees as hostile powers.

At the same time while Britain and the US especially and also the USSR and France dislike Japanese behaviour, especially from 1936 onward there isn't the will to go to war with it or for a very long time make other steps such as building up their own forces or economic pressure. Being prepared to fight Japan in a conflict it can't win is the only real way you can avoid war, IF you can get a basic anti-military movement in Japan to take over to avoid such a disaster. Even that is a long shot I fear.

Possibly if something butterflies Hitler's rise to power AND ALSO the rise of another militant revanchist regime in Germany then Europe would probably stay a lot more stable and then the other powers might have the position to force Japan to back down without an actual war with them. However again, while Britain and France are probably willing to work together in the region, possibly supported by the Dutch would the US, without the crisis of Hitler's success in Europe by June 1940 come out of isolationism?
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
2,474
I doubt it as the military already had considerable control over the government by then and its looking towards China as a source of both raw materials and markets. Once that happens then its going to be sucked into a quagmire and sooner or later is going to be looking for more resources as well as a defensive perimeter against what it sees as hostile powers.

At the same time while Britain and the US especially and also the USSR and France dislike Japanese behaviour, especially from 1936 onward there isn't the will to go to war with it or for a very long time make other steps such as building up their own forces or economic pressure. Being prepared to fight Japan in a conflict it can't win is the only real way you can avoid war, IF you can get a basic anti-military movement in Japan to take over to avoid such a disaster. Even that is a long shot I fear.

Possibly if something butterflies Hitler's rise to power AND ALSO the rise of another militant revanchist regime in Germany then Europe would probably stay a lot more stable and then the other powers might have the position to force Japan to back down without an actual war with them. However again, while Britain and France are probably willing to work together in the region, possibly supported by the Dutch would the US, without the crisis of Hitler's success in Europe by June 1940 come out of isolationism?
USA was problem from the start.They made Japan leave Syberia in 1923,and gave soviets Vladiwostok and other territories USA hold.Allarently,for some reason they prefered soviets to Japan.When they knew that soviets want entire world,when Japan only part of it.
Which mean,that talking with Japan have sense,talking with soviets had no.

Soviets would attack Japan,becouse they attacked every country becouse of their sick ideology.

So,if USA/Japan war was sure thing,becouse USA elites wonted help soviets over Japan.As long as soviet existed,USA would help it - which in that case mean war with Japan.

But - smart dutch could prevent war - all they need is keep selling oil to Japan no matter what USA told.Japan would never attack USA in this scenario.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Reaction score
167
They made Japan leave Syberia in 1923,and gave soviets Vladiwostok and other territories USA hold.Allarently,for some reason they prefered soviets to Japan.
Maybe the US should have stood aside on that Japan in Russian Far East issue.

The realpolitik, Machiavellian, move would have been to let, even encouraged the Japanese and the Russian Communists to keep fighting each other on Russian territory from the 1920s, rather than help separate the belligerents.

Presidents Wilson and Harding should have opened their minds to letting the Red Menace and Yellow Peril keep mixing it up until they turned into a puddle of orange juice not harming so much of the world. Hey, it's what happens when you blend red and yellow.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
2,474
Maybe the US should have stood aside on that Japan in Russian Far East issue.

The realpolitik, Machiavellian, move would have been to let, even encouraged the Japanese and the Russian Communists to keep fighting each other on Russian territory from the 1920s, rather than help separate the belligerents.

Presidents Wilson and Harding should have opened their minds to letting the Red Menace and Yellow Peril keep mixing it up until they turned into a puddle of orange juice not harming so much of the world. Hey, it's what happens when you blend red and yellow.
Indeed.Japan would take part of Syberia and would be to focused on fighting soviets to attack China.Unless...Czang would support soviets.His party was part of soviet international.
 

Airedale260

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2020
Reaction score
1,508
Short answer: No.

Long answer: Also no.

Japan was busy mixing it up in China by 1932 and the U.S. was actually pretty pissed off about it; they just couldn't do anything because of 1) The Great Depression and 2) the U.S. mood being isolationist.

The U.S. cut off oil supplies as a way to force the Japanese to stop committing war crimes in China. They did not expect the Japanese to actually attack them directly because the U.S.' economic and industrial might (plus its larger population) would mean Japan would get absolutely curb stomped. Therefore, the oil embargo was seen as a safer option because the Japanese weren't that stupid.

Oops...

Edit: It's also worth noting that in the 1930s the Pacific was very much seen as the USN's home turf; the Atlantic wouldn't be that until the 1940s. So there was no way the U.S. would have acquiesced to the Japanese committing war crimes and generally fucking about, Communists or not.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
2,474
Short answer: No.

Long answer: Also no.

Japan was busy mixing it up in China by 1932 and the U.S. was actually pretty pissed off about it; they just couldn't do anything because of 1) The Great Depression and 2) the U.S. mood being isolationist.

The U.S. cut off oil supplies as a way to force the Japanese to stop committing war crimes in China. They did not expect the Japanese to actually attack them directly because the U.S.' economic and industrial might (plus its larger population) would mean Japan would get absolutely curb stomped. Therefore, the oil embargo was seen as a safer option because the Japanese weren't that stupid.

Oops...

Edit: It's also worth noting that in the 1930s the Pacific was very much seen as the USN's home turf; the Atlantic wouldn't be that until the 1940s. So there was no way the U.S. would have acquiesced to the Japanese committing war crimes and generally fucking about, Communists or not.
Nope.Japan was happy genociding from 1937,and USA do not cared.Then Hitler attacked soviets,destroyed their superior armies and Japan could join him.Which would finish soviets.
So USA against helped their soviet friends and made embargo which gave Japan 2 choices - surrender or attack USA,becouse they could not attack soviets without oil.Japan choosed going down fighting.

And Japan could attack Pacyfic fleet only becouse FDR move it from USA to Pearl Harbour,and removed admiral who protested it becouse everybody knew that carriers could attack Pearl.That is why fleet was moved to USA.

So,FDR helped soviets,gave Japan juicy target after provoking them to attack, and dared play innocent virgin when Pacyfic fleet was sunked.He betrayed Poland later to soviets,but he betrayed his own american people first.

But,Dutch could still save the day if they do not joined embargo.They should be aware of fact,that USA would take their colonies after finishing Japan.Which they did,by local proxies.
Only chance for keeping their colonies would be avoiding war on Pacyfic,and they need supply apan with oil for that.
 

Airedale260

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2020
Reaction score
1,508
This whole post is so wrong I don’t know where to start, but I’ll give it a go…

The original question was whether the U.S. could contain a militaristic Japan starting in 1932 without getting into a shooting war. My answer was and is “No” because the Japanese were interested in controlling the Pacific, namely the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.” That meant butting heads with, at a minimum, the Americans, who had their own interests in the region, plus the British and the French.

However, while the U.S. wasn’t big on the whole military involvement thing, it should be noted that they weren’t isolationist per se -they just preferred other avenues. The embargo was slapped on the Japanese not because of any sort of sympathy for the Soviets, but because the U.S. was pissed off about the Sino-Japanese War.

The problem for the Japanese is, the U.S. obviously wasn’t going to let them do the whole Co-Prosperity Sphere thing, and they’d already fucked around to the point that it was clear the U.S. wasn’t going to put up with their shit. That meant 1) Giving up on their dream or 2) Picking a fight with the U.S. in the hopes that giving them a bloody nose would get them to back off. They chose option #2…and found out what happens when you actually attack the U.S.

Now, as far as the whole “FDR/Truman Soviet sympathizer/selling out Poland” BS you spout every so often…while FDR made the choice to stay out of the Tehran Conference discussions in 1943 to avoid offending Polish-Americans over the outcome (meaning that Churchill was the one on the Western Allied side making decisions), by 1945 there was no fucking way the U.S. could guarantee free elections in Poland by virtue of the fact that the Red Army was already parked there, never mind the outcomes at Potsdam.

And this brings us to the biggest problem in your logic: the fact that by 1945, the only way for the U.S. to guarantee Polish independence and being free from influence is to get into a shooting war with the Soviet Union. That was impossible. The U.S. was already finishing up a three-year conflict with the Germans, who were NOT a pushover in any sense, and the U.S. wasn’t the sort of country to pick a fight over a third country with a peer opponent (at least not then).

It’s not that Poland wasn’t considered important by the West, but rather the fact that adding several million more American casualties was NEVER going to fly with Congress or the public for the sake of a third country, and going to war with another country which had just been working with us and the British as an ally in bringing down the Nazis, who were by far the bigger threat in Europe at the time (and who’d also declared war on us first, I should note, after we’d declared war on Japan).

And that brings us back to the fact that the war with Japan was still very much ongoing, and we expected a massive invasion of the Home Islands to be necessary. That meant diverting millions of troops from Europe to the Pacific (so fewer for anything resembling Operation: Unthinkable) as well as having to carry on the fight -and we thought we’d likely need the Soviets for help in that, too.

So, no, as James Byrnes put it, it wasn’t a question of what the U.S. would let them do, it was a question of what they could get the Soviets to agree to. Again, it was a case of there being no good options available in regards to Eastern Europe, and as the Cold War heated up, the U.S. couldn’t risk a direct conflict without nuclear weapons being slung all over the place, which…goodbye to all of Europe in that case. So on that note, going forward, I’d strongly suggest you look at this from the perspective of someone who understands what were and were not realistically possible for the West, and the Americans in particular. So drop the “betrayal” crap. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Finally, as to the Dutch…remember, the Dutch government was in Canada at the time. Refusing to sign on to Allied and U.S. initiatives was a no-go since they had already been attacked by the Axis. The best they could hope for was the Japanese wouldn’t be so fucking stupid as to actually start a war with the U.S. As we found out, they were in fact that stupid.

Oh, and while I’m aware the Dutch were upset about losing Indonesia, the problem was that they couldn’t have regained it without American or British help (as we saw). So a second attempt would have wasted energy the U.S. was saving to try and contain the spread of Communism, especially pulling resources away from NATO for a hopeless adventure.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
2,474
This whole post is so wrong I don’t know where to start, but I’ll give it a go…

The original question was whether the U.S. could contain a militaristic Japan starting in 1932 without getting into a shooting war. My answer was and is “No” because the Japanese were interested in controlling the Pacific, namely the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.” That meant butting heads with, at a minimum, the Americans, who had their own interests in the region, plus the British and the French.

However, while the U.S. wasn’t big on the whole military involvement thing, it should be noted that they weren’t isolationist per se -they just preferred other avenues. The embargo was slapped on the Japanese not because of any sort of sympathy for the Soviets, but because the U.S. was pissed off about the Sino-Japanese War.

The problem for the Japanese is, the U.S. obviously wasn’t going to let them do the whole Co-Prosperity Sphere thing, and they’d already fucked around to the point that it was clear the U.S. wasn’t going to put up with their shit. That meant 1) Giving up on their dream or 2) Picking a fight with the U.S. in the hopes that giving them a bloody nose would get them to back off. They chose option #2…and found out what happens when you actually attack the U.S.

Now, as far as the whole “FDR/Truman Soviet sympathizer/selling out Poland” BS you spout every so often…while FDR made the choice to stay out of the Tehran Conference discussions in 1943 to avoid offending Polish-Americans over the outcome (meaning that Churchill was the one on the Western Allied side making decisions), by 1945 there was no fucking way the U.S. could guarantee free elections in Poland by virtue of the fact that the Red Army was already parked there, never mind the outcomes at Potsdam.

And this brings us to the biggest problem in your logic: the fact that by 1945, the only way for the U.S. to guarantee Polish independence and being free from influence is to get into a shooting war with the Soviet Union. That was impossible. The U.S. was already finishing up a three-year conflict with the Germans, who were NOT a pushover in any sense, and the U.S. wasn’t the sort of country to pick a fight over a third country with a peer opponent (at least not then).

It’s not that Poland wasn’t considered important by the West, but rather the fact that adding several million more American casualties was NEVER going to fly with Congress or the public for the sake of a third country, and going to war with another country which had just been working with us and the British as an ally in bringing down the Nazis, who were by far the bigger threat in Europe at the time (and who’d also declared war on us first, I should note, after we’d declared war on Japan).

And that brings us back to the fact that the war with Japan was still very much ongoing, and we expected a massive invasion of the Home Islands to be necessary. That meant diverting millions of troops from Europe to the Pacific (so fewer for anything resembling Operation: Unthinkable) as well as having to carry on the fight -and we thought we’d likely need the Soviets for help in that, too.

So, no, as James Byrnes put it, it wasn’t a question of what the U.S. would let them do, it was a question of what they could get the Soviets to agree to. Again, it was a case of there being no good options available in regards to Eastern Europe, and as the Cold War heated up, the U.S. couldn’t risk a direct conflict without nuclear weapons being slung all over the place, which…goodbye to all of Europe in that case. So on that note, going forward, I’d strongly suggest you look at this from the perspective of someone who understands what were and were not realistically possible for the West, and the Americans in particular. So drop the “betrayal” crap. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Finally, as to the Dutch…remember, the Dutch government was in Canada at the time. Refusing to sign on to Allied and U.S. initiatives was a no-go since they had already been attacked by the Axis. The best they could hope for was the Japanese wouldn’t be so fucking stupid as to actually start a war with the U.S. As we found out, they were in fact that stupid.

Oh, and while I’m aware the Dutch were upset about losing Indonesia, the problem was that they couldn’t have regained it without American or British help (as we saw). So a second attempt would have wasted energy the U.S. was saving to try and contain the spread of Communism, especially pulling resources away from NATO for a hopeless adventure.
So many mistakes,but :
1.Japan starting atrocities in China since 1937/Nankin rape/ ,but USA started embargo AFTER soviets was attacked by germans.Which mean,that they redirected Japan from attacking soviets to attacking USA.

2.We knew what happen when you attack USA.USA run,unless they fought for soviets.Like during WW2.

3.In 1946,when Truman said that Stalin must go from Iran,soviets run.They would run from Poland,too - if USA wonted so.But - they preferred as in soviet mass graves.Which do not happened ONLY becouse Sralin treated us in kid gloves compared to his people.Only 200.000 poles was murdered after 1945 - for Sralin it was nothing.

4.In 1945 USA had A bomb and B.29 bombers which could not be schoot by any soviet fighter or AA gun.So,what war ? It would be one-side massacre.
Not mention,that soviet army need supply of american trucks and trains to work..Unless USA keep delivering it,they would fail even without A bomb.

5.Dutch goverment could go to Sumatra then,and told Japan that would supply it with oil.USA could not invade them after all-thet played good boys.
Supporting USA for Dutch was suicidal.And i do not undarstandt why they did so - we poles died in 1939 in the name of honour,but dutch care about money.They should be more practical.
 

Largo

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
443
5.Dutch goverment could go to Sumatra then,and told Japan that would supply it with oil.USA could not invade them after all-thet played good boys.
Supporting USA for Dutch was suicidal.And i do not undarstandt why they did so - we poles died in 1939 in the name of honour,but dutch care about money.They should be more practical.
Because the people of the Netherlands cared a little bit more about I don't know, the Netherlands than they did about Indonesia and the Japanese sure as hell weren't going to help them retake Amsterdam?
 

Airedale260

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2020
Reaction score
1,508
So many mistakes,but :
1.Japan starting atrocities in China since 1937/Nankin rape/ ,but USA started embargo AFTER soviets was attacked by germans.Which mean,that they redirected Japan from attacking soviets to attacking USA.
Uh, no, it was after a series of other aid provided to the Chinese. Also, please explain to me how, precisely, sanctioning the Japanese, helps the USSR. Unless you mean the various border conflicts going on since 1932, in which case it would seem the whole embargo was way too little and too late under your "logic".


2.We knew what happen when you attack USA.USA run,unless they fought for soviets.Like during WW2.
What are you smoking? World War I proved that if the U.S. is provoked they will, in fact, smash the crap out of their enemies. To say nothing of the fact that they fought to keep the country together in the 1860s despite heavy losses.

The U.S. prior to 1940 stayed largely out of world affairs because we had no interest in getting tangled in foreign affairs -a tradition that dated all the way back to George Washington. We only got involved in the World Wars when it became clear that staying out could have meant facing a threat actually capable of defeating us (namely a Europe dominated by a hostile power)


3.In 1946,when Truman said that Stalin must go from Iran,soviets run.They would run from Poland,too - if USA wonted so.But - they preferred as in soviet mass graves.Which do not happened ONLY becouse Sralin treated us in kid gloves compared to his people.Only 200.000 poles was murdered after 1945 - for Sralin it was nothing.
The problem the Red Army had in Iran is that they didn't have anywhere near the presence they had in Eastern Europe -Britain had a presence as well. Plus the logistics of trying to hold an untenable position are very different from being RIGHT OVER the border from Belarus and European Russia, along with the fact that there were far fewer troops there than in Eastern Europe.

I get the bitterness over Katyn. But the Soviets were firmly entrenched in Eastern Europe in general and Poland in particular compared to their position in Iran.


4.4.In945 USA had A bomb and B.29 bombers which could not be schoot by any soviet fighter or AA gun.So,what war ? It would be one-side massacre.
Not mention,that soviet army need supply of american trucks and trains to work..Unless USA keep delivering it,they would fail even without A bomb.
You're completely ignoring the fact that the U.S. is and was not a dictatorship. In order for ANY war to be successfully fought to a victory the ongoing support of the American public is needed. The American public was not going to support the U.S. turning on an ally like that. They'd been told for years (accurately, I'd point out) how the Soviets were absorbing losses as opposed to the Western Allies.

So, tell me, how EXACTLY do you propose to get the Americans and the British to sign onto a complete about-face in Europe, keeping in mind that there's still a war with Japan going on, the U.S. has a VERY limited number of atomic weapons and took tons of precautions to ensure they didn't fall into enemy hands (that the Soviets had spies in the program is something they didn't learn until much later), the American people (who again at this point aren quite reluctant to go to war) have just sacrificed everything to defeat the Nazis, and by the way, this would mean even higher casualties once the Red Army gets moving, meaning their husbands, brothers, sons, and fathers are now facing at best a strategic stalemate.

But I'll save you the trouble: There ISN'T a way. The only way the Soviets are going to accede to a Poland they don't control on their borders is if the USSR no longer exists. And in case you've forgotten, the USSR has the same advantage the U.S. does, namely strategic depth and, in effect, the inability to be conquered. And that's leaving aside the fact that the Western Allies (with the exceptions of Churchill and Patton, who everyone else thought were nuts) knew there was no fucking way to do that.

5.Dutch goverment could go to Sumatra then,and told Japan that would supply it with oil.USA could not invade them after all-thet played good boys.
Supporting USA for Dutch was suicidal.And i do not undarstandt why they did so - we poles died in 1939 in the name of honour,but dutch care about money.They should be more practical.
What? Why would they go to Sumatra where they'd be 1) Cut off from everyone in the world who could realistically support and protect them, 2) Under threat from the Japanese, who were allied to the same Germans busy invading their home territory, and 3) Would have had no hope of ever regaining power because they'd alienate their allies.

You're suggesting they behave suicidally because (as far as I can tell) Poland fought on until it was crushed because it had honor and the Dutch didn't?

That's...quite the hot take. Now, not to demean Poland here, but getting slammed on two sides by two of the largest countries in Europe at the time (while their allies were on the far side of one of them) was never going to end well. The Germans had significant numerical and technological advantages, and the Soviets had raw numbers. Poland put up the best fight it could under the circumstances.

And the Dutch were a far smaller country, and while they were obviously much closer to Britain and France, there was no real way for them to fight back considering this was going on at the same time as the invasion of France. It was a giant mess.

Again, I get that you're bitter (and understandably so) about your country being under Soviet occupation for almost 50 years. But at the same time, you need to stop and consider the facts that there was realistically no way for the U.S. to invade, and a huge loss of life for no real gain, because not only would American support for that not exist (in fact it wasn't actually galvanized until after the Berlin Blockade and the invasion of South Korea), but also that the cost would have been a Central Europe (and Poland in particular) absolutely leveled and irradiated, not to mention susceptible to propaganda about unprovoked Western attacks (and they'd blame us for wrecking Poland, not the USSR).

So...no, sadly, there was no good outcome for Poland. Stop blaming the U.S. for something we couldn't actually do. Also, this whole "only fighting for the Soviets" and "The Americans never cared about Poland" crap is actually Communist propaganda. One can criticize FDR for being perhaps too trusting or misunderstanding the political dynamics of the USSR, but to say "he betrayed Poland" is simply something Polish nationalists tend to claim because they either don't understand military or political realities of the time, or because they DO understand but to admit that would mean admitting Poland was still in the crappy situation it had been for the past several hundred years, and that, sadly, it was inevitable another occupying power was going to be calling the shots.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
2,474
Uh, no, it was after a series of other aid provided to the Chinese. Also, please explain to me how, precisely, sanctioning the Japanese, helps the USSR. Unless you mean the various border conflicts going on since 1932, in which case it would seem the whole embargo was way too little and too late under your "logic".




What are you smoking? World War I proved that if the U.S. is provoked they will, in fact, smash the crap out of their enemies. To say nothing of the fact that they fought to keep the country together in the 1860s despite heavy losses.

The U.S. prior to 1940 stayed largely out of world affairs because we had no interest in getting tangled in foreign affairs -a tradition that dated all the way back to George Washington. We only got involved in the World Wars when it became clear that staying out could have meant facing a threat actually capable of defeating us (namely a Europe dominated by a hostile power)
1.Sanction on oil after Hitler attacked his soviet ally mean,that Japan could not attack soviets and help Hitler,but either attack USA or surrender.Knowing japaneese mentality,it mean attacking USA.And FDR must knew that,becouse in 1940 he send Pacyfic fleet from America to Hawaii,when Japan could attack it.

2.Nothing.But,i was unclear- USA after WW1 always widraw unless it was war to help soviets take over Europe/WW2/
Now,something more?

3.You gave many of my threads,but without any your comments.So,i assume then you are taking about war with soviets in 1945.
1.Patton belived that he could easily beat soviets - and since soviets murdered him,he was right.

2.Soviets air forces sucked - Rudel was attacking them in Ju87 during day till his unit was out of fuel.Hungarian air forces did the same/using Ju88/ till USA destroyed them.All in situation when soviets had 10:1 numerical advantage.
Which mean,that allied air forces would massacre them.

3.Soviet army depended on american trucks and trains.Which was first target of any air attack.Unless USA want continue support soviets when fighting them,after month they would fight on foot.

4.50% of oil come from Baku - which could be destroyed in one day.After that,soviets would fight on foot.

5.Most important - soviets was slave army.In 1941 german was making 20km per day or more/on foot/ becouse soviet surrender without fight.Hitler start murdering prisoners,so soviet soldiers start fighting,too - but all american need after destroing Baku is declare that every soldier who run after killing commisars and higher ranks would get warm meal.
Soviet army would be finished in weeks.

MOST IMPORTANT THING - I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST BETRAING ALLIES IN POLITICS,WHEN IT HAD SENSE.SO,FOR EXAMPLE,I HAD NOTHING AGAINST BETRAING USA FOR CHINA NOW.
WHAT I COULD NOT STOMACH IS BETRAING IN STUPID WAY.AND THAT IS WHAT USA DID TO POLAND IN 1945.
BECOUSE THEY COULD EASILY BEAT SOVIETS,BUT MADE DEAL WITH THEM.KNOWING THAT SOVIETS WANT TAKE OVER ENTIRE WORLD ,INCLUDING USA.
If Soviets leaders after 1983 was still belivers,they would burn USA after they realise that their sick empire is falling.Only reason why USA still exist is becouse they all was cynics who wonted live and do not belived in anything.



3.Soviet night fighters was joke - so british Lancasters would massacre them,too.
 

Airedale260

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2020
Reaction score
1,508
1.Sanction on oil after Hitler attacked his soviet ally mean,that Japan could not attack soviets and help Hitler,but either attack USA or surrender.Knowing japaneese mentality,it mean attacking USA.And FDR must knew that,becouse in 1940 he send Pacyfic fleet from America to Hawaii,when Japan could attack it.
#NotThisShitAgain

FDR didn't order the U.S. fleet away from Hawaii. That's a myth that's been *repeatedly* shown to be false. Carriers were at the time secondary to battleships. In this case, the carriers were off delivering planes to other sites.

Also, the Soviets and the Japanese had a non-aggression pact starting in 1939. The oil embargo happened in 1940. What Germany and the Soviets were doing wasn't really given any thought.

3.You gave many of my threads,but without any your comments.So,i assume then you are taking about war with soviets in 1945.
1.Patton belived that he could easily beat soviets - and since soviets murdered him,he was right.
What the actual fuck.

Patton died after spending 12 days in traction, not in the accident (which nobody else actually died in, I would add). This was on top of the myriad of injuries he'd had, including multiple head injuries, which, as we've learned, can lead to personality shifts.

Moreover, by the time Patton was in the accident, he'd been sidelined from any sort of real leadership role in the U.S. military. There was no fucking way his suggestions meant anything other than "this guy is crazy." So he talked shit about wanting to fight the Soviets. He wasn't actually in any position to do that, and both the U.S. and the Soviets knew it, AND knew if he did try anything, his orders would be ignored if not outright countermanded.


2.Soviets air forces sucked - Rudel was attacking them in Ju87 during day till his unit was out of fuel.Hungarian air forces did the same/using Ju88/ till USA destroyed them.All in situation when soviets had 10:1 numerical advantage.
Which mean,that allied air forces would massacre them.

3.Soviet army depended on american trucks and trains.Which was first target of any air attack.Unless USA want continue support soviets when fighting them,after month they would fight on foot.

4.50% of oil come from Baku - which could be destroyed in one day.After that,soviets would fight on foot.


5.Most important - soviets was slave army.In 1941 german was making 20km per day or more/on foot/ becouse soviet surrender without fight.Hitler start murdering prisoners,so soviet soldiers start fighting,too - but all american need after destroing Baku is declare that every soldier who run after killing commisars and higher ranks would get warm meal.
Soviet army would be finished in weeks.
You're just not getting it, so let me explain this. The U.S. was not only in no shape to launch another war, and certainly not against a force with massive numbers. Better equipment isn't decisive enough to guarantee a win, especially against a force as large and battle-hardened as the Red Army. Furthermore, the logistics for such an operation are impossible to deal with in the 1940s. And, lest we forget, the people doing this fighting are INDIVIDUALS, not just numbers in a spreadsheet.

Remember, Europe as a whole is devastated. America is worn out from the fighting. The British Empire is falling apart. France, Italy, and Germany have been pretty much leveled. The sensible thing to do would be to rebuild Europe. Launching another war of aggression? Congratulations, you've just created massive support for Communism by fulfilling the claim that all the capitalist forces want to do is crush the enemy rather than actually improve people's lives.

So, no. It wasn't a betrayal. You're demanding that the U.S. not only act completely out of character, but in a way that the U.S. -indeed, ANY country with representative democracy- CANNOT act. Throwing away lives and sparking another war that can only end in EVERYONE'S destruction (most *especially* Poland's) is not a good outcome for anyone.

Seriously. Think of this, HONESTLY, from the perspective of the United States. Not from the perspective of an actually borderline psychotic general or a British politician with delusions of retaining the British Empire.

It wasn't just about Poland. It was about the fact that it would have been impossible to dislodge the Red Army from your country without destroying Poland in the process, as well as trying to rebuild Europe so that the world didn't sink into a second Great Depression and give rise to even worse extremism. The U.S. didn't have anywhere near the strong hand you think we did at the time.

This is way too off topic so maybe this discussion can be continued elsewhere. But your understanding (if it can be called that) of the 1930s and 1940s is frankly at odds with pretty much anyone who's seriously studied the era. Has it occurred to you that that might be because they know something you don't?
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
2,474
#NotThisShitAgain

FDR didn't order the U.S. fleet away from Hawaii. That's a myth that's been *repeatedly* shown to be false. Carriers were at the time secondary to battleships. In this case, the carriers were off delivering planes to other sites.

Also, the Soviets and the Japanese had a non-aggression pact starting in 1939. The oil embargo happened in 1940. What Germany and the Soviets were doing wasn't really given any thought.



What the actual fuck.

Patton died after spending 12 days in traction, not in the accident (which nobody else actually died in, I would add). This was on top of the myriad of injuries he'd had, including multiple head injuries, which, as we've learned, can lead to personality shifts.

Moreover, by the time Patton was in the accident, he'd been sidelined from any sort of real leadership role in the U.S. military. There was no fucking way his suggestions meant anything other than "this guy is crazy." So he talked shit about wanting to fight the Soviets. He wasn't actually in any position to do that, and both the U.S. and the Soviets knew it, AND knew if he did try anything, his orders would be ignored if not outright countermanded.




You're just not getting it, so let me explain this. The U.S. was not only in no shape to launch another war, and certainly not against a force with massive numbers. Better equipment isn't decisive enough to guarantee a win, especially against a force as large and battle-hardened as the Red Army. Furthermore, the logistics for such an operation are impossible to deal with in the 1940s. And, lest we forget, the people doing this fighting are INDIVIDUALS, not just numbers in a spreadsheet.

Remember, Europe as a whole is devastated. America is worn out from the fighting. The British Empire is falling apart. France, Italy, and Germany have been pretty much leveled. The sensible thing to do would be to rebuild Europe. Launching another war of aggression? Congratulations, you've just created massive support for Communism by fulfilling the claim that all the capitalist forces want to do is crush the enemy rather than actually improve people's lives.

So, no. It wasn't a betrayal. You're demanding that the U.S. not only act completely out of character, but in a way that the U.S. -indeed, ANY country with representative democracy- CANNOT act. Throwing away lives and sparking another war that can only end in EVERYONE'S destruction (most *especially* Poland's) is not a good outcome for anyone.

Seriously. Think of this, HONESTLY, from the perspective of the United States. Not from the perspective of an actually borderline psychotic general or a British politician with delusions of retaining the British Empire.

It wasn't just about Poland. It was about the fact that it would have been impossible to dislodge the Red Army from your country without destroying Poland in the process, as well as trying to rebuild Europe so that the world didn't sink into a second Great Depression and give rise to even worse extremism. The U.S. didn't have anywhere near the strong hand you think we did at the time.

This is way too off topic so maybe this discussion can be continued elsewhere. But your understanding (if it can be called that) of the 1930s and 1940s is frankly at odds with pretty much anyone who's seriously studied the era. Has it occurred to you that that might be because they know something you don't?
1.You do not undarstandt what you read.
Pacyfic fleet was send to America,becouse they knew that carriers could hit Hawaii.Then in 1940 FDR send Pacyfic fleet to Pearl again,so japaneese could hit it.In America they were save.

2.Read Target Patton.He was murdered by NKWD.

3.Soviets air forces sucked - fact.Baku and other refineries could be easily destroyed - fact.Soviet was army of slaves who would surrender if they could - fact.

You are looking at soviet numbers - but that numbers matter little.

I undarstandt,that you feel ashamed for your country betreyal,but it is no reason to brainwash yourself.
USA betrayed Poland - things happen,if you did so for good reason i would not complain.Politics look like that for everybody but us.
PROBLEM IS - USA BETRAYED POLAND WHEN THEY COULD EASILY DESTROY SOVIETS BEFORE THEY GET A BOMB AND COULD DESTROY USA.POLAND WOULD DIE - BUT SO WHAT? USA PRESIDENT SHOULD THINK ABOUT USA,NOT POLAND.

That was betreyal - but not Poland.USA.Becouse soviets with H bombs would burn USA when they undarstandt,that their ill empire is falling - if they were still lead by belivers.
Only reason why you live is becouse soviets leaderS in 1986 belived only in themselves.

Back to topic - there would be no USA/Japan war if FDR do not provoke it in soviet interest.
But even then,if Dutch leaders made smart thing and keep selling oil Japan,they would attack soviets,not USA.
And that was USA president duty - be sure,that USA enemies/Japan and soviets/ fight each other,not USA.
Becouse USA should fight for USA,not soviets.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom