What if...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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 [8|]. 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?

[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]

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 [8|]

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?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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 [8|]

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?

Of course it does.

For those people who actually think so, may I ask what they are on and where can I legally get some?

[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. [:D]

[warspite1]

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. [:D]

warspite1

Indeed he wasn’t. Churchill was a lot of things, a great man, but with almost as many faults as virtues. But he was 100% right about the USA, and the need for the USA to enter the struggle against Nazism. Any suggestion that he would even have considered, for one nano second, sacrificing that goal is total lunacy.

[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.

I was driving in the fog on a highway with one lane for southbound traffic and one lane for northbound traffic. I was traveling south in a river valley towards a town that had a cement factory. Very large bulk carriers traversed the road often. It was a dark autumn morning. It was very foggy. So much so that it wasn't possible to see more than 50 yards. From the south one of those bulk carriers lights appeared out of the fog. Next to it traveling directly at me in my lane was an automobile stupidly attempting to pass the bulk carrier in the fog. I had two options. Drive off the road to the right. Stay the course. Picking the wrong one would result in a headon collision. I left the decision of leaving the road to the idiot and stayed in my lane. The idiot drove off the road narrowly avoiding a collision. What if I had moved off the road also? What if the idiot had stayed on the road? Doesn't matter. What happened is what happened and no one died. It's history and it actually happened. That's real life. I could have activated my anti gravity device and hopped over. I could have activated my matter transporter and popped up beyond the potential collision. I could have disintigrated the oncoming car with my death ray. But of course those things don't exist any more than the U.S. siding with Nazi Germany in WW2. But what if... [:D]

[warspite1]

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.

warspite1

I thought we’d done this? You are happy with the counterfactual and I am not. That’s it.

Example, I could do a counterfactual on the space race. What if the Soviets decided to forget the moon race and go for Mars? Could they have got there by 1970? There that is a counterfactual. I mean the premis is total sloblocks on every possible level, but I’m sure someone would like the You Tube video........ just not many people who know about and are interested in the space race, how it developed and what happened. I suspect my counterfactual would be greeted appropriately........Some people are happy with anything (and thats fine) while others would like a counterfactual that actually has some degree of thought gone into it so that the outcome is believable (and that is fine too). Horses for courses.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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 [8|]. 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]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




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 [8|]. 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.....

[Lobster]

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

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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 [8|]. 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.....

If the UK and Japan were still allied, why would Japan even attack China? Japan might "liberate" Manchuria and put the Emperor on the throne there as in real life but what would have happened if the hotheads at the Marco Polo bridge did not have their generals gone from the area and the generals had worked things out? How about making it realistic and have China under Chiang and Japan both work on eliminating Chairman Mao and his cohorts so Chiang could do the land reforms and other reforms that he wanted done? China and Japan would have had synergies for many things if they would have worked together,

[Lobster]

So, looking at the map for the what if scenario presented by this guy exactly how would England hold out even for a little while? Seems to me not even the English fleet could save them for long. They do need fuel.

[Curtis Lemay]

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.

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.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

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.

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?"

Nazi atrocities were facts and not rumors in 1941.

A more "right wing" administration would have been isolationist and not in favor of the Axis.

[Curtis Lemay]

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.

Nazi atrocities were facts and not rumors in 1941.

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

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

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

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

Nazi atrocities were facts and not rumors in 1941.

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

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

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

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

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

[Curtis Lemay]

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.

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.

[warspite1]

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.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

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.

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.

While there were disagreements with Japan over China, the closest that came to actual war was in 1937.

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 . . .