well from what i understand Australia's fears of Japanese invasion prompted them to push for maintaining Anglo-Japanese relations, where as canada was less about being afraid of Japan but more about being worried about a possible American invasion if a war broke out between Britain and the US because of Japan.
(Alternate History) The Second Sino-Japanese War
- Thread starter KlinkerKing
- Start date
- Alt. History
- Location
- United States
'Pacific ambitions?' I was under the impression that the Philippines had largely sated America's little adventure with classical imperialism, so I'm not quite sure what's being implied here. In any case, anglo-Japanese alliance or no, a war with the United States would be a inevitable curbstomp no matter which way you twist it, so that seems like a poor line of logic to follow. I'm also unconvinced that racism would be a meaningfully more applicable issue there than any other western nation, but it's not a huge issue.
The most good we can really do our country is either intervening in the Russian Civil war or working to improve relations with the US, really. Siberia and the Dutch East-Indies are the nessesary bits of clay that'll allow us to compete in the coming age of Superpowers.
[X] Military Observer in the Russian Civil War (Army)
- Location
- United Kingdom
[X] Military Attaché to the British Empire (English speaker, Connections)
KlinkerKing
Man bites dog?
- Location
- The Lion's Den
That's... generous. No, America was looking to break the Anglo-Japanese alliance because they didn't want Japan as a competitor in the Pacific markets. Sure, they didn't necessarily care for taking control of anything, de jure, but de facto? Absolutely, just look at the fruit wars and whatnot. (this is the reason for the Washington Naval Treaty, and the Treaty of Four Powers - to invalidate the Anglo-Japanese alliance, already undermined by America's insistence on making sure racial equality wouldn't be a thing in the League of Nations)
As for America's racism... this is in the middle of the Yellow Peril and the Jim Crow laws. San Francisco has begun racially segregating children of Japanese descent in schools. It's kind of America's trademark right now. As for the USN taking the Royal Navy and the IJN at the same time... yeah, no. They would be outnumbered so far it wouldn't even be funny. Maybe they wouldn't be physically invaded, but a blockade wouldn't be good in the slightest.
Last edited:
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
[X] Military Attaché to the British Empire (English speaker, Connections)
War Plan Red-Orange!
War Plan Red-Orange!
- Location
- United States
So less 'looking to conquer territory,' and more 'maintaining our economic interest in the pacific from an expansionist and vaguely hostile empire potentially allied with the only other major naval force capable of reaching North America.' I'd also caution you from viewing the USA's adventures in Central America as to how they actually conduct themselves diplomatically with other nations.
The point I'm making is that this isn't something unique to America. The reason you don't hear about Britain segregating their schools by race is because they don't have significant minorities to segregate on their home island. Not because they were by any means less racist - just look at the British Raj.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, but the United States is not the South write large.
Now, this is something I blatantly and flagrantly disagree with. Major wars, when the combatants are separated by oceans and lack the ability to score decisive and quick victories - no matter how much the Japanese try to convince themselves it's possible - come down to what is effectively a battle of naval attrition. Sure, the current British and Japanese fleets could defeat the current American one ... but could they defeat the American fleet in a year? Two years? Could they force even a white peace by then?
So it's down to a battle of economies, where the nations struggle to maintain war footing, deal with trade interdiction, and strike at foes hundreds of miles away. And in this contest, America has so much of an advantage it's not even funny. I'm sure I wouldn't be the first person to outline the enormous geographic, economic, and military advantages the USA has, so I'm not going to waste everyone's time, but they'd win. Easily.
- Location
- Southampton, Great Britain
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Given that this is main reason behind your point of contention, I am going to say that you to need if only to actually back up your argument. You can't just make your argument based around the superiority of America and then say that you don't need to explain why they are superior when someone disagrees with you. Well, you can, but then evidence for why your argument comes down to "because I said so" which isn't very conductive to your side of the debate.
- Location
- United States
Okay, very well. Britain and Japan are (relatively) small islands that rely on vast empires to survive. They literally cannot feed themselves, they have no local supplies of oil, and their economies are dependant on large-scale trade. Their populations are fractions of the size of America and they have other threatening nations (such as Germany) in their near vicinity. The United States, on the other hand, has gotten quite possibly the best geography, ever. They can feed themselves and then some, they have massive deposits of oil and other natural recourses, they have incredible amounts of industry and naval infrastructure, and perhaps most importantly - they're practically untouchable. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans are some of the most formidable barriers on earth to any kind of military action. The idea of a mass blockade (let alone an actual invasion) is completely absurd, the logistical difficulties are unimaginable. The British could possibly manage it on the eastern coast, assuming they easily swept the US Navy without major losses, they could draw ships off all the rest of their vast empire, they've managed to hold on to places like Halifax and Newfoundland when Canada inevitably falls, etc. And then it falls down to the original issue of the fact they'd have to keep it up for years, whereas the Americans can rebuild their fleet and choose another engagement at their convenience.
There are also all kinds of graphs depicting the vast difference in economic potential between the various nations in WWII. I think people's attitudes are being a little warped by the justification that it's a different time period, but it's only a twenty-year difference - and half of that time the US was gripped by the Great Depression, which hardly fostered economic growth and industrialization. If anything, Japan's in a worse position than WWII, where it had the advantage of spearheading naval aviation and two decades more of badly needed growth (Britain, on the other hand, only declined after WWI, but the point remains).
Last edited:
- Location
- The internet
Here's another peice of information: Grim Economic Realities
Short version: during ww2 Japan built 17 carriers of various sizes. The United States built 141. Japan built a bit over 4 million tons of merchant shipping. The United States built close to 34 million.
Short version: during ww2 Japan built 17 carriers of various sizes. The United States built 141. Japan built a bit over 4 million tons of merchant shipping. The United States built close to 34 million.
- Location
- USA
[x] Military Attaché to the British Empire (English speaker, Connections)
Edit: *sulks and changes vote*
Last edited:
sargentorion
Hunter of bunnycats
- Location
- West Sussex, England
one problem with this is that if you include the british empire working with the japanease empire at the start vs the us navel strength is overwealmingly in favour of the british japanease alliance yes the us has the portential to build ships faster but the problem is that the combined forces of both japan and the uk together during this time period would be enough to effectively shatter the us navy plus the british empire does have a land border with the us through canada as the uk had legislative control of canada until 1931 with the statue of westminster would mean the us is effectively in a three front war.
Also during this time period relations between mexico and the us were very tense and irl would not calm down until 1938 and even then it was more dislike between the mexican goverment and the us only had a standing military strength in land sea and air of about half a million while the uk had a standing strength of about 400,000 men in the army pre ww2 and 1,400 vessles on its own.
it would effectively come down to could the us train a big enough army and build a big enough navy to be able to out match the british empire that controled at this time 30% of the worlds land mass and 25% of the worlds population and japan's already built up naval strength before the japanese and british could do enough damage to the us to force the us to the peace table and even then that is not a sure fire thing that the us could out produce the british empire.
edit: i only mentioned the american starting strength as it is very important in the opening days of such a war as the us would not have it's usual advantage of trading space for time.
edit2: so yes the us would want to break up and anglo-japanese alliance.
Also during this time period relations between mexico and the us were very tense and irl would not calm down until 1938 and even then it was more dislike between the mexican goverment and the us only had a standing military strength in land sea and air of about half a million while the uk had a standing strength of about 400,000 men in the army pre ww2 and 1,400 vessles on its own.
it would effectively come down to could the us train a big enough army and build a big enough navy to be able to out match the british empire that controled at this time 30% of the worlds land mass and 25% of the worlds population and japan's already built up naval strength before the japanese and british could do enough damage to the us to force the us to the peace table and even then that is not a sure fire thing that the us could out produce the british empire.
edit: i only mentioned the american starting strength as it is very important in the opening days of such a war as the us would not have it's usual advantage of trading space for time.
edit2: so yes the us would want to break up and anglo-japanese alliance.
Last edited:
What? with what ships? a war with the usn as of 1915-16 would be Fisher's wet dreams in the entire USN they had somthing like 40 cruisers of which the newest one was commissioned in 1908 where as UK since 1908 had commissioned 40 new cruisers and 9 Battlecruisers which america had no answer to
- Location
- United States
Hence the point about (like a certain other war) the alliance making early gains, but lacking the ability to force the US to the peace table, at which point the complete industrial mismatch tells.
More importantly than people convincing themselves that Japan could totally beat the US in a war, how the US was absolutely more racist than other nations, and they wanted to turn the pacific into banana republics ... let's start with perhaps one of the most absurd assumptions: that Britain would even fight a war with America in the first place. I mean, for crying out loud, they just let Germany dominate continental Europe! Why on earth would they start a war with one of the only remaining Great Powers with whom they have a cordial relationship and could threaten their increasingly tenuous and utterly critical naval dominance? For crying out loud, the British took a look at America in the Civil War and decided making a play wasn't worth it.
KlinkerKing
Man bites dog?
- Location
- The Lion's Den
The issue with this kind of take on the situation is that while America has a lot of potential, they are not actually 1945 America yet. When America entered WW2, they didn't have functioning torpedoes. The Mk.14 literally clonked on ships and failed to detonate.
Was America an industrial power to be feared? Yes, absolutely. Does America have the capability, in 1915, to beat the Royal Navy with the US Navy? No. In 1915, the Royal Navy outnumbered them by 2-1 in Dreadnoughts, and more than that in modern cruisers.
Against Britain alone, maybe it would be possible to be enough of a menace that the Royal Navy couldn't effectively concentrate their forces to raid and destroy US naval bases and dock yards, which would eventually lead to a US capable of slowly, after a long and costly war, force Britain to sue for peace.
When Britain has the assistance of Japan, whose navy is approximately 80% (I think) of America's in dreadnoughts, they can now force concentrate on either coast and just flat out win any naval engagement, meaning that they get free reign on shore bombarding dockyards, which aren't exactly rebuilt in an afternoon. And here's the thing: you can't get a dreadnought down a river, so you can't build the ships inland. You also can't get it on a train. Sure, Japan might need 6 months to a year or so to get to the U.S. west coast, but there's a limit to how fast you can build and commission ships that displace tens of thousands of tons.
Remember guys, this isn't WW2, this isn't FDR's well-oiled warmachine. This is 1915 America, where the standing army is frontiers men and the navy is a prestige project pushed by Teddy Roosevelt as a means s to project power.
But here's the thing, you can't interdict trade when your entire coastline blockaded, you haven't built new cruisers in almost ten years and your only modern ships are dreadnoughts. It doesn't work. The U.S. needs time to get going, and in 1915, it doesn't have that if it goes to war with Britain and Japan at the same time.
The U.S. wasn't exactly the only country gripped by the great depression - the reading Japan's economic history from 1920 to 1936 is basically one market crash after another, and the U.K. as mentioned, never recovered from WW1. America might necessarily "lose" said war in the sense that it could very well be status quo ante bellum, but it certainly won't win it either. Especially on the naval side of things.
So let me restate this one more time: the U.S. 30 years in the future is not the U.S. of 1915.
It is now 02:35 and I am going to sleep.
Last edited:
Satar
Xetares, Third Redeemer; World Drinker
- Location
- Sesh
It's important to remember that the USA was exceptional in its racism for the time period even when compared to other Western nations. Not saying that Britain and France were little angels, but they didn't have formal apartheid and the sort of monomaniacal devotion to white supremacy that is at the bedrock of American thought and belief in the time period (...and other time periods). Racism isn't an, "and also this!" in this time period, but "freedom, liberty, and the subjugation of the [censored], [censored], and [censored]".
So...yeah. I'm not sure how wise it is to be an envoy to a nation whose interests are diametrically opposed to ours and whose people see us as something between apes and aliens. I think the wiser course is to thwart American Pacific ambitions by allying with the British. Raise the costs of hostile action to the point where the Americans relent.
So...yeah. I'm not sure how wise it is to be an envoy to a nation whose interests are diametrically opposed to ours and whose people see us as something between apes and aliens. I think the wiser course is to thwart American Pacific ambitions by allying with the British. Raise the costs of hostile action to the point where the Americans relent.
Last edited:
- Location
- nz
[X] Military Attaché to the British Empire (English speaker, Connections)
- Location
- Vicksburg, MS
Bear in mind that with the British Empire being so far-flung it is extremely risky for it to be too committed to any one area of the world. A substantial portion of that quarter of the world's population were not especially keen on being good colonial subjects for forever and the British empire in throwing its weight around in the world had made no shortage of enemies who'd like to take the chance to flout their independence and knock the British down a peg if given the opportunity. All the ships being used to blockade 20,000 km of coastline even assuming flawless victory are ones that can't be used to guard shiplanes elsewhere, transport troops and intimidate people into compliance. It's extremely expensive to keep such a vast blockade going on on the opposite side of a major ocean against a technically capable foe without getting anything for it, and the British empire was already finding it increasingly difficult to keep up and maintain the world's largest navy. That's why they were keen on getting a naval arms limit in place so they could stop hemorrhaging money on yet more battleships while they had other concerns that they would like to throw money at.
NuclearConsensus
Herald of the Thorned One
- Location
- the Philippines
[X] Military Attaché to the British Empire (English speaker, Connections)
- Location
- United States
Staff Notice Spaghetti Posting
[
I continue to maintain the stance that what you're describing, both in the USA's conduct and the hypothetical war, are erroneous, and hope this makes you reconsider some of these opinions.
That was an issue deriving from budget cuts in the Great Depression, I believe. The problem was that they couldn't afford large-scale realistic practice, and the technical glitch didn't reveal itself under conventional testing.
It bears keeping in mind that a good part of this navy is spread across the world protecting the largest empire in history, and most of the rest of it is currently patrolling the English Channel seeing as the Krauts just became their worst nightmare: a mainland European hegemon.
That attitude largely depends upon who declared war and why. Seeing as both nations are democracies, whoever'd win would largely correlate with whoever's capable of keeping their citizens' war support up.
The critical answer here is force concentration, I believe. Japan would probably concentrate on taking the Philippines, and if they're super successful, trying to occupy Hawaii. The US would probably decide to focus on the more immediately threatening foe, Britain, and thus concentrate their navy on the eastern coast. The English know they need to knock out the US very quickly, and decisively enough that they have enough freedom to destroy naval infrastructure through coastal bombardment (harder than it sounds) because otherwise the war effort is doomed. Assuming they can pull this off, presumably by forcing the Americans to battle through indiscriminate bombardment of urban areas, they'd then not only have to win, but win strongly enough that they can then enact a blockade and grueling campaign to dismantle the east coast's naval infrastructure. It just seems like proposing scenarios where the Nazis could win WWII - somewhat fantastical if technically possible propositions where a multitude of factors have to align and luck repeatedly work out in their favor.
I'd point out America has always gone into these kinds of wars with a pathetic military, and repeatedly proven their ability to rapidly mobilize and modernize. Using terms like "FDR's well-oiled machine" and "Teddy's prestige project" are also just blatantly incorrect. Considering the great depth of research and effort that has clearly gone into other nations in this quest, it's somewhat bizzaire that the United States is getting the half-assed pop-culture history treatment, to be perfectly honest.
... But it does. The scenarios you are describing are absurd. Every bit of this scenario is absurd, when you get down to it.
While Japan's economy repeatedly crashed, stuff like annexing Manchuria did wonders to help industrialized, and the militaries supremacy did mean that a great deal was spent on furnishing, well, the military. I think it's a fair statement to make that Japan would benefit from two decades of time more than the US.
I continue to maintain the stance that what you're describing, both in the USA's conduct and the hypothetical war, are erroneous, and hope this makes you reconsider some of these opinions.
Good night.
Oh no, of course not. Why implement apartheid in your own lands when you can just do it in your vast colonies.
I'd hardly describe the current situation as the nations being 'diametrically opposed,' nor racist prejudice (of which the Japanese were hardly clean of) interfering in Realpolitik to a meaningful extent.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Location
- Kansas
[X] Military Attaché to the United States (English speaker)
Because Murica.
Also, what better place to start turning mines then amongst the more racist country (apparently). Also, I'd rather see what the Americans are doing in this time period then the Brit's or the Germans. I think that the Americans will have a greater impact on Japan then Britain or Germany.
Because Murica.
Also, what better place to start turning mines then amongst the more racist country (apparently). Also, I'd rather see what the Americans are doing in this time period then the Brit's or the Germans. I think that the Americans will have a greater impact on Japan then Britain or Germany.
- Location
- Tarn-Vedra
[X] Military Attaché to the United States (English speaker)
[X] Military Observer in the Russian Civil War (Army)
Let's strangle Bolshevism/Reds in it's crib shall we.
Let's strangle Bolshevism/Reds in it's crib shall we.