OT - alternative history

[temagic]

Hi there,

Just thought I'd see if I could attract some replies on this question of alternative history. The question is this:

Suppose Japan withdrew from China and Indochina in 1941 and didn't start any new war of conquest, would Japan be as good a country to live in today as it is?

[czert2]

I dont think, since it was nuking which put 180 degree in thinking to japanese heads. OTOH if japs decide voluntary to pull out from china and other states without war...well something similiar must happened to them without nuking.
And to more precisely tell that story, it will need here that someone who lived in japan during post-war ocupation (say 50-60s) - to tell us how much occupation changed japanese minds.
Since without this occupation and changing of minds it bringed - even with voluntary withdrawing and chosing stringly self-defence as happened post war, results will be different.

[tocaff]

The culture and mindset of Japan precluded a pullout from China. The Americans and British realized that the threat of the embargo would place Tokyo in a position that there was only one real choice, embargo and war.

[btd64]

I think if the Japanese pulled out, they would of had to think of some way to BUY resources. Would of had to convert to Regular product manufacturing or something. Then sold those products to buy the oil, steel, etc that they needed. GP

[mind_messing]

You'd still likely see Japan involved in a war of some sort. It was an expansionist power with imperial ambitions in a region of the world where there was very little territory to expand into.

Japanese culture would remain very traditional, as you'd not have the population as exposed to "American" culture as happened following the occupation.

On a regional scale, you wouldn't have a Japan commited to non-aggression, and as a result Japanese foriegn policy wouldn't be anywhere near as passive.

ORIGINAL: tocaff

The culture and mindset of Japan precluded a pullout from China. The Americans and British realized that the threat of the embargo would place Tokyo in a position that there was only one real choice, embargo and war.

It wasn't even a choice between embargo or war. By the embargo in 1940, Japan had already been shedding blood in China for three years, not a fact which would encourage Japan to back down to the United States (which was in the process of supplying the Chinese war effort).

[Werewolf13]

ORIGINAL: temagic

Hi there,

Just thought I'd see if I could attract some replies on this question of alternative history. The question is this:

Suppose Japan withdrew from China and Indochina in 1941 and didn't start any new war of conquest, would Japan be as good a country to live in today as it is?

Do the US/UK/NL call off their embargo? If so - that's a major game changer. No WIP and the allies beat the crap out of Hitler in Europe by 43. If Stalin is smart enough to stay out of the fray the USSR might get a pass but if they jump in and take their share of Poland I can see the Allies bombing the commies back into the Stone Age and maybe even Japan going into Siberia without molesting China.

[tocaff]

No, after beating Germany and Italy the US and GB would've been war weary and no war with the USSR unless something way out of line happened.

Japan in Siberia was a no go. The USSR had smacked the Japanese earlier with their armor and besides being mineral rich in Siberia who knew and who had the technology back then to get at it?

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326

ORIGINAL: temagic

Hi there,

Just thought I'd see if I could attract some replies on this question of alternative history. The question is this:

Suppose Japan withdrew from China and Indochina in 1941 and didn't start any new war of conquest, would Japan be as good a country to live in today as it is?

Do the US/UK/NL call off their embargo? If so - that's a major game changer. No WIP and the allies beat the crap out of Hitler in Europe by 43. If Stalin is smart enough to stay out of the fray the USSR might get a pass but if they jump in and take their share of Poland I can see the Allies bombing the commies back into the Stone Age and maybe even Japan going into Siberia without molesting China.

US entry into the war was triggered by the Japanese attack. If Japan doesn't attack the US doesn't (probably) enter and therefore send troops to Europe. So do the Allies, as you say, beat the crap out of Hitler. I doubt that would be the case unless Roosevelt found some other way to take the US in.

[Werewolf13]

ORIGINAL: Chris H

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326

ORIGINAL: temagic

Hi there,

Just thought I'd see if I could attract some replies on this question of alternative history. The question is this:

Suppose Japan withdrew from China and Indochina in 1941 and didn't start any new war of conquest, would Japan be as good a country to live in today as it is?

Do the US/UK/NL call off their embargo? If so - that's a major game changer. No WIP and the allies beat the crap out of Hitler in Europe by 43. If Stalin is smart enough to stay out of the fray the USSR might get a pass but if they jump in and take their share of Poland I can see the Allies bombing the commies back into the Stone Age and maybe even Japan going into Siberia without molesting China.

US entry into the war was triggered by the Japanese attack. If Japan doesn't attack the US doesn't (probably) enter and therefore send troops to Europe. So do the Allies, as you say, beat the crap out of Hitler. I doubt that would be the case unless Roosevelt found some other way to take the US in.

Lefties like FDR always find a way to get what they want - legal or not. He'd have figured a way to drag us into the war in Europe IMO. Had to. Hitler was a much greater threat to the US than Japan ever was. FDR would've figured out a way in.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326

ORIGINAL: temagic

Hi there,

Just thought I'd see if I could attract some replies on this question of alternative history. The question is this:

Suppose Japan withdrew from China and Indochina in 1941 and didn't start any new war of conquest, would Japan be as good a country to live in today as it is?

Do the US/UK/NL call off their embargo? If so - that's a major game changer. No WIP and the allies beat the crap out of Hitler in Europe by 43. If Stalin is smart enough to stay out of the fray the USSR might get a pass but if they jump in and take their share of Poland I can see the Allies bombing the commies back into the Stone Age and maybe even Japan going into Siberia without molesting China.

No oil embargo means Japan is free to focus on defeating China. The whole reason Japan went to war with the Allies was to allow the conflict against China to carry on in the hope of a successful conclusion.

No War in the Pacific means no direct US involvement in Europe, leading to Britain being kept out of mainland Europe.

Control of Europe will go to whoever wins: Germany or the Soviet Union.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: temagic
Suppose Japan withdrew from China and Indochina in 1941 and didn't start any new war of conquest, would Japan be as good a country to live in today as it is?

Suppose Spain followed in Portugal’s footsteps in the, 13th century, and leapfrogged down the coast of Africa, and thus didn’t feel the need to support Christoforo Colombo. Would Chile be as good a country to live in today as it is? [8D]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: temagic
Suppose Japan withdrew from China and Indochina in 1941 and didn't start any new war of conquest, would Japan be as good a country to live in today as it is?

Suppose Spain followed in Portugal’s footsteps in the, 13th century, and leapfrogged down the coast of Africa, and thus didn’t feel the need to support Christoforo Colombo. Would Chile be as good a country to live in today as it is? [8D]

Now that's a good question! [8D][8D][8D]

[zuluhour]

suppose Franco joins the axis just after "Torch".

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

suppose Franco joins the axis just after "Torch".

French forces in north africa were not that strong or well organized. Based on what I read about 20 years ago. Operational art of war III does have a scenario called Europe Aflame, I think, That has an option to have the French in north africa fight on the axis side. That is a scenario that covers from sept 1, 39 to the end of the war, from the horn of africa in the south to northern norway in the north, and from eastern usa to well past moscow in the east. Big game, 1/2 week or one week turns I believe. I haven't had the time to play it. WITPAE [8D] GP

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: General Patton

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

suppose Franco joins the axis just after "Torch".

French forces in north africa were not that strong or well organized. Based on what I read about 20 years ago. Operational art of war III does have a scenario called Europe Aflame, I think, That has an option to have the French in north africa fight on the axis side. That is a scenario that covers from sept 1, 39 to the end of the war, from the horn of africa in the south to northern norway in the north, and from eastern usa to well past moscow in the east. Big game, 1/2 week or one week turns I believe. I haven't had the time to play it. WITPAE [8D] GP

French forces in North Africa were not that weak. They did not put up much of a fight because they followed orders.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: temagic
Suppose Japan withdrew from China and Indochina in 1941 and didn't start any new war of conquest, would Japan be as good a country to live in today as it is?

Suppose Spain followed in Portugal’s footsteps in the, 13th century, and leapfrogged down the coast of Africa, and thus didn’t feel the need to support Christoforo Colombo. Would Chile be as good a country to live in today as it is? [8D]

I'll see you and raise you; what if the 3 legions were not lost and the frontier was permanently moved east at least to the Elbe? Would the 5th century western collapse thereby have been averted and the Roman Empire still exist.

Alfred

[aspqrz02]

It is unlikely, based on later experience, that the Empire could have expanded to the Elbe *and* held those gains. They couldn't hold Dacia or Armenia, nor Mesopotamia, under Trajan and his successors who, arguably, had a stronger army and better leadership than the Julio-Claudians ...

The problem was, as with so many things historical, the economics ... the Roman economy simply couldn't support the sort of armed force needed to defend itself and expand itself much further than it did historically ... especially in the west where the potential conquests were basically sparsely populated trackless wilderness of no economic value in the short or medium (and probably medium-long) terms. It wasn't any better to the south - if anything, Africa was worse because of the sharp disease gradient - and to the east, well, the Sassanians and Parthians were a formidable foe that the Romans were never quite able to take down (again, largely because of economics).

You also have the problem that, historically, the plagues that hit the Mediterranean world in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD were an inevitable byproduct of the expansion of the Empire (and its neighbouring Macedonian Successor/Sassanian/Parthian Empires/Kingdoms as well) which linked the Asian, South Asian, African and European disease pools ... to the extreme detriment of the Empire's manpower (and therefore economic) base.

If you expand the Empire more, sooner, and into lands that will be an economic drain, then the impact of the plagues ... which can't be avoided with then current medical knowledge or technology ... will be worse, if anything, weakening the Empire sooner and much more than historically.

All in all, somewhat paradoxically, I'd suggest that the chances are that the very success you suggest would very likely (if not certainly, cogitations on alternate history being very much 'for the want of a horseshoe nail' sort of things) be a bad thing, survival wise.

Then, of course, given the manpower intensive nature of warfare where the technology of the day provided virtually no force multipliers while, on the other hand, *training* did ... the Romans won more often than not because of superior training (and the elan/morale that comes from that), but this could be shattered quite easily ... defeats like Teutoburgerwald, Carrhae and Adrianople all had long term effects that were very similar, it's just fortunate that the earlier ones weren't followed up (for whatever reason) by the victorious enemies ...

Some historians have suggested that Adrianople was, in fact, the end of the Roman (Professional) Imperial Army because so many of its trained Field Army troops (especially from the Western Dioceses) were lost, and there simply wasn't anyone (or any time) to train back up to strength ... the Late East Roman (Byzantine) Army being a very different creature and, of course, the West collapsing ... some of those historians go further and suggest that it is virtually a certainty that, even if Adrianople hadn't been a disastrous defeat, a disaster *like* Adrianople was simply inevitable because of the relatively slim margins the Roman 'force multipliers' offered their armies.

YMMV.

Phil

[temagic]

Thanks for you input guys. Much appreciated.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: temagic
Suppose Japan withdrew from China and Indochina in 1941 and didn't start any new war of conquest, would Japan be as good a country to live in today as it is?

Suppose Spain followed in Portugal’s footsteps in the, 13th century, and leapfrogged down the coast of Africa, and thus didn’t feel the need to support Christoforo Colombo. Would Chile be as good a country to live in today as it is? [8D]

I'll see you and raise you; what if the 3 legions were not lost and the frontier was permanently moved east at least to the Elbe? Would the 5th century western collapse thereby have been averted and the Roman Empire still exist.

Alfred

And also if Fangaur the bronthosaur, while trying to sidestep that pesky asteroid, accidentially had squashed King Riko the Rat, remote predecessor of Alexander the Great - would now my orange juice taste different?

[bartrat]

>>>And also if Fangaur the bronthosaur, while trying to sidestep that pesky asteroid,
>>accidentially had squashed King Riko the Rat, remote predecessor of Alexander the Great - would now my orange juice taste different?


Maybe....

Some scientists believe that small mammals (very early versions of rats and other small mammals) were out-competing the dinosaurs. The huge asteroid 65 million years ago that wiped out the dinosaurs may have just done them in quickly. So sqaushing King Riko the protoRat likely would have far greater effects than you might at first imagine.