What if the Dutch had surrendered?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

sorry - we talk about second world war, correct?

The american people would not support a president who tells everyone that the nazis are the evil enemy and then he declare war with japan?

Maybe i am stupid, but that sound ill. No way without a sneak attack the USA attacks Japan. Maybe declaration of war with germany - another incident, another sunk destroyer (hitler avoided declaring war until Pearl - even if his submarines wer openly attacked by us ships)

Now, explain why the american people would support a war with japan because of the "official" liberation (and new contracts between the "free" indonesian people with japan who "helped" to liberate the poor supressed people) from colonisation.

Sure - as i wrote - the strategic situation for the americans are bad. With the indonesian oil the japanese could not be struggeld for china (the american people cared nil for china - if it needs a war to end the situation)

How would R. explain his agressions? No - the american politics could do nothing against this. Don´t forget that a lot people in indonesia will greet the japanese as liberators.

The brits get hit by the elephant IF they try to embargo the free sea lanes to dutch indonesia. In this case the brits are the agressors - the japanese just defend themself and the poor indonesian people against the evil imperailistic slaveholders and colonisations criminals.

Hope you understand. How would the brits avoid full and total naval anhilation if the americans stay neutral? Don´t forget - war in europe runs bad and the russians are no great help cause the japanese can invade sibiria cause they have all resources they need.

It´s a what-if. Sure. But the scenario sounds realistic IF the dutch royals accept the defeat and - with pressure from germany - give up their colonies (basicly to japan - offical the indonesians gets liberty and the japanese are just at the next corner to "help") Say Hitler asks if the dutch want 200.000 people get slaughtered or the colonies goes to japan. The answer will be easy.

Historically the french and the allies could do NOTHING against the "liberation" of indochina by the japanese army. Why should this be different with dutch indonesia?

The allies never ever could explain war with "we want to struggle japan - so we start war cause if the japanese get the ressources of indonesia they are to strong". Yeah - that is the bad thing with democracy. You have to explain things

Warspite1

You see things as too black and white IMO - i.e. you state that if the US is not attacked then under no circumstances can they go to war. In real life the idiots in Tokyo and Berlin gave Roosevelt everything he wanted to get the nation behind the war - job done. But if the AXIS were not so obliging, the US would still have come into the war - albeit without the unanimity that they had in real life - because to not do so early enough would end up being very costly in American lives.

There is simply no way that Roosevelt would allow the Japanese use of NEI oil. By the way, you still have not explained how this peaceful oil grab actually happens? Who is negotiating with who?

You still have not answered the question re where the Japanese troops come from to take Delhi - and have now added a Japanese invasion of Siberia too?

Finally, there is a world of difference between French Indo China and the NEI. Harsh as it may sound, the former not having any oil made it irrelevant (sound familiar?).

[Adnan Meshuggi]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

sorry - we talk about second world war, correct?

The american people would not support a president who tells everyone that the nazis are the evil enemy and then he declare war with japan?

Maybe i am stupid, but that sound ill. No way without a sneak attack the USA attacks Japan. Maybe declaration of war with germany - another incident, another sunk destroyer (hitler avoided declaring war until Pearl - even if his submarines wer openly attacked by us ships)

Now, explain why the american people would support a war with japan because of the "official" liberation (and new contracts between the "free" indonesian people with japan who "helped" to liberate the poor supressed people) from colonisation.

Sure - as i wrote - the strategic situation for the americans are bad. With the indonesian oil the japanese could not be struggeld for china (the american people cared nil for china - if it needs a war to end the situation)

How would R. explain his agressions? No - the american politics could do nothing against this. Don´t forget that a lot people in indonesia will greet the japanese as liberators.

The brits get hit by the elephant IF they try to embargo the free sea lanes to dutch indonesia. In this case the brits are the agressors - the japanese just defend themself and the poor indonesian people against the evil imperailistic slaveholders and colonisations criminals.

Hope you understand. How would the brits avoid full and total naval anhilation if the americans stay neutral? Don´t forget - war in europe runs bad and the russians are no great help cause the japanese can invade sibiria cause they have all resources they need.

It´s a what-if. Sure. But the scenario sounds realistic IF the dutch royals accept the defeat and - with pressure from germany - give up their colonies (basicly to japan - offical the indonesians gets liberty and the japanese are just at the next corner to "help") Say Hitler asks if the dutch want 200.000 people get slaughtered or the colonies goes to japan. The answer will be easy.

Historically the french and the allies could do NOTHING against the "liberation" of indochina by the japanese army. Why should this be different with dutch indonesia?

The allies never ever could explain war with "we want to struggle japan - so we start war cause if the japanese get the ressources of indonesia they are to strong". Yeah - that is the bad thing with democracy. You have to explain things

Warspite1

You see things as too black and white IMO - i.e. you state that if the US is not attacked then under no circumstances can they go to war. In real life the idiots in Tokyo and Berlin gave Roosevelt everything he wanted to get the nation behind the war - job done. But if the AXIS were not so obliging, the US would still have come into the war - albeit without the unanimity that they had in real life - because to not do so early enough would end up being very costly in American lives.

There is simply no way that Roosevelt would allow the Japanese use of NEI oil. By the way, you still have not explained how this peaceful oil grab actually happens? Who is negotiating with who?

You still have not answered the question re where the Japanese troops come from to take Delhi - and have now added a Japanese invasion of Siberia too?

Finally, there is a world of difference between French Indo China and the NEI. Harsh as it may sound, the former not having any oil made it irrelevant (sound familiar?).

Hmpf, how can i describe the problem?
The TS asked about the "dutch surrender => japanese takeover"-idea

We discuss this - now we discuss "historical events" with different labels. That can´t work

You say basically, the americans want to go to war with japan, beside any evidence? Roosevelt was not Georg Bush junior. So sorry, no war for oil. Just think about the situation.
It is 1940, say july. The german and japanese secretly discuss this possibility and as a result germany "force" the dutch to give up and liberate indonesia.
We do not talk about november 1941. Please read the written words (even if my english is so bad, i try to explain the things)

Rooselvelt can do NOTHING - he explained he would not let the USA be drawn into this war. And now - in the election phase - he say "who cares, just kick the yellow little dwarfs in their eastereggs?" Sounds not smart. Oil or no oil. He can´t do it. Hitler, Stalin oder some other mad dictator who do not need to care about the opinion of his people could do this. But NOT the President of the USA. Esp. not in "re-election".

Also - how should Roosevelt stop the dutch? Beeing a colonisationfreak is nothing you want to be in the USA - remember "election-time"

I said nothing about "USA not in a war under no circumstances". But - the USA cannot declare war against japan about the "economic" help for an liberated nation, true and only trying its first step after colonisation (by evil europeans).

The brits do nothing. In this moment, they fear hitlers "Invasion" - they would not start a war with japan in such a situation. Or do you think churchill is mad? If he declares war against japan because japanese developers (in khaki, okay, but well - they are just retiered from the japanese army) help indonesian people?

For the british getting hammered - yes they will. Not on the ground - in the air and at sea.

You know, the timeframe is summer 40. Not the time the brits have a lot ships in the indian ocean. Not enough for an embargo of NEI.
Later - with the japanese troops and japanese airforce in position, such attack (with or without declaration of war) is selfmurderer.
How do you explain your people (in britain) that you invade the harmless indonesians (only because they give oil to japan) in a time your cities get burned by german bombers? You did not declare war against the russkis cause one enemy at the time, but without force start a war against japan? Sounds mad

And IF they do it, the british naval forces will be sunk. Nothing else. But - being the agressor they can´t hope for american public help. Instead of supporting the american president has to deny these evil imperialist in London even 50 destroyers...

For the russians - please read. I said, the russians have to think about the situation. Japan with Oil and ressources COULD attack. I did not said that they attack, just that the russians could belive that some more troops in sibira would be smart. And these troops are missed in january 42. Nothing else.

Your opinion about the usa - a war hunger monster - is just your opinion. But it is no fact. This is the point.
If in this scenario the dutch give away nei because of some clever plot between germany and japan the chance of sucsess is great. The chance of a war because of the NEI is small. The time and the way the japanese handle this need explaination, but it is far more realistic that they have sucsess. British war interests are small and the US-President can´t do it his way (sure, he would like to go to war), cause of the election of 1940 and his "we stay out"

The ignorance about the "yellow subhuman" would still be in the government of the usa, so propably they would think about it as a small problem.

In hindsightmode on we know that this must be the time of declaration of war. But we know abut Pearl harbour, the japanese abilities, etc.


I hope you can explain why the usa (not the president in election time) want to go to war with japan about the nei...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi


Your opinion about the usa - a war hunger monster - is just your opinion.

Warspite1

I think I`ll call this discussion a day - I don`t like words put in my mouth. The above is most certainly not what I said [:-].

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Well - these are the words BEHIND the said thing. Maybe i misinterpret it.

So i ask (kindly, at last it is just a what-if-scenario for War-in-the-pacific), what do you want to say?

The scenario i described and you answered say that the dutch (in some way) give their colony DEI to japan (by independence)

You said, that the USA NEVER would allow the japanese the DEI-Oil.
So you can explain, what else as an agressive strike against the "independent" Indonesia (friendly connected with the japanese) aka "war hunger monster" could they do?

I described how this what-if could work.
You said just "no way, USA will not allow Japan the Oil of the DEI"
I said: but this means war - war started by the USA.
And i explained why i belive this would NOT happen, cause the democratic systems, esp. in election times need good explanitions. Mr. Roosevelet delaring war because of "we don´t want the yellow demons to have free access to oil" woul be the same as hitlers "we need "lebensraum"". Even the nazis had an bad enemy with the smoking gun (Radio-station gleiwitz - the nazis tried to trick the own people about this war)

And in the USA the american president go to war because of oil? Sounds mad for me.

If you can explain why this isn´t mad - in june 1940 - you are welcome

I am the first who will openly explain that i misunderstood your words. But in the moment you basically declare that the US will attack japan because of DEI-oil. And this IS war hunger monster. How do you call this behaviour?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

But in the moment you basically declare that the US will attack japan because of DEI-oil. And this IS war hunger monster. How do you call this behaviour?

Warspite1

My question to you is: Is it ever acceptable for a nation to attack another nation if they themselves have not been attacked? The answer has to be, and is, yes - in extreme circumstances. Do you believe that the British / French declaration of war on Germany was the Allies being "War hunger monsters"? or a legitimate attempt to stop a madman who continually proved during the course of the thirties that he could not be trusted, that his word meant nothing and that come hell or high water he was after Lebensraum?

Had the US reacted with force to an invasion of the NEI by Japan then that does NOT make them a "War hunger monster". The Japanese regime in the thirties was every bit as evil as the Nazi's.

Would the US have responded with force? I do not know but my best guess is that they would. Afterall, July 1940 was little different to November 1941 in terms of outlook for the western democracies - if anything it was worse. France was finished and Italy had just joined with Hitler. Britain was on her knees and stretched to breaking point.

Roosevelt would not have been going to war for oil per se, but the Japanese with a plentiful supply of oil to feed their armed forces would have been a distinctly unpleasant development. He would have been trying to nip the danger in the US backyard in the bud. Would the American people - or at least a significant number really not have understood what was happening and not backed the president?

The second point is that I still do not understand how the Dutch rulers in the NEI are suddenly going to turn to the Japanese and say "please take over the country". Why would they do that? The type of regime the Japanese ran was well known and horrors of the Rape of Nanking were all to well known. What would the Dutch, who owned land and businesses expect would happen to them if they invited the Japanese in? Where would they go? back to Nazi occupied Holland?

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi
You say basically, the americans want to go to war with japan, beside any evidence? Roosevelt was not Georg Bush junior. So sorry, no war for oil.

Looking at the Pacific war as anything other than a resource war, those resources specifically including oil, is flying in the face of reality. Both the Strike South and Strike North strategies were founded on acquisition of resources. When America embargoed the US oil trade with Japan over the war in China and the seizure of Indochina that was the trigger for war. The US knew that that was a possibility and many Japanese officers regarded it as a declaration of war by the US on Japan, yet the US played hardball in the negotiations that followed.

Roosevelt was very much an interventionist. US forces were already conducting undeclared war in the North Atlantic in aid of the UK. He was limited by a neutralist Congress, but creative in finding ways around it -- 'The Neutrality Patrol' was anything but neutral, the defence force in Iceland freed a British division for operations elsewhere and lend-lease armed the Commonwealth forces for the ongoing fight.

The other thing you fail to explain is why the Dutch would cut the throat of their only chance of reclaiming the Netherlands. The US was engaged in a long-term struggle with Japan for control of the Pacific, dating back probably at least to the Anglo-Japanese treaty of 1902. The friend of my enemy is my enemy, and the Dutch are dependent on US and UK resources for the liberation of their homeland. Fall in with the Japanese and you fall out with the US, and any hope of going home.

[vettim89]

The political environment in the US in 1940-41 was complex. The country was deeply devided over the war. There were not so much Hawks and Doves as there were Gloablists and Isolationists. To say that the Americans did not care about what was going on in the rest of the world would be inaccurate and unfair. That said, the USA was still recovering from the Great Depression and there was a very strong sentiment that our own problems needed to be dealt with first. The US was not truly neutral. Lend Lease started in March of 1941. US merchants and warships were being attacked by U-boats from that point on. Many in the USA had little desire to be sucked into another global conflict but were faced with the undeniable truth that events were eventually going to force the American's hand. In truth the Japanese did the US leadership a great favor by attacking PH. After that, there was very little resistance to be involved in the war.

So that takes us to the whole DEI question and what would the USA do. There is no answer as this is pure speculation. That said, Roosevelt had taken a pretty hard line against Japan. He foresaw that if the Japanese were unchecked that Asia would become another occupied continent like Europe. At what point would the US consider diplomacy failed and actually start fighting? Was there a point? Is there anything Japan could have done other than PH that would have drawn the US into war? We do not know. There is no way we can know. Would the US intervene if the Japanese invaded Australia? Who knows. The US public was not indifferent to the war but just thought it was not their problem. At what point would they have considered it their problem? Without PH, would the US public ever support a war against Japan? Again, who knows.

That said, the Japanese were not exactly the most clear headed thinkers in 1940-41. The leaderships was highly militaristic, nationalistic, and xenophobic. Not a good combination to keep a nation out of war. It is a fair supposition that Japan would eventually do something to antagonize the US into war. It would probably start as an "incident" and escalate from there. With the DEI in their possesion, the Japanese might just get heady enough to demand the US leave the PI and the British leave Borneo and Malaya. In fact there is a very good possibility they would as that would be in keeping with the whole Greater East Asian Coprosperity Sphere concept. In 1941 Japan was not so much trying to avoid war with the US as they were trying to delay the start. The Embargo of steel and oil forced their hands.

I think there is an interesting what if scenario here. I will chew on it some more

[mike scholl 1]

The Dutch were going to fight for the East Indies.  They had been there a LOT longer than the French had been in Indochina, and the Indies were much more important to them.  France had large and more valuable colonial holdings in Africa and elsewhere..., but the East Indies were the "gem" and "heart" of Dutch holdings, and had a large Dutch population as well.

Add to this (as dwg mentioned) that they had nowhere else to go, and no other source of support or base of power, and you get a group with nothing to lose by fighting.  Britain and Australia would have no choice but to support them, and for the US embargo to be effective, America would have to follow.   Surrendering with the examples of Korea, Formosa, Manchuria and China in front of them was NOT an option.

[Jaroen]

Just like to put in a few comments I think will help with the argument that some German/Japan play is highly theoretical but not totally off the boards.

Assuming this is may/june/july 1940.
Germany might have offered the Dutch something to negotiate a DEI surrender, like not murdering hostages or some similar extreme measure. At the same time promising to allow for a separate rule of the DEI by a puppet government which promises some selfrule by the Indonesion nationalists. This puppet government (German supervision) might have had seperate talks with the Japanese to allow for continuation of it's DEI rule but relax on oil/fuel/resource exports to Japan. That is a 'neutral' DEI position but controlled by the German/Japan powers.

But:
I can't really think of any plausible argument for the Dutch to surrender the colonies to the Germans?! But if, than it would most likely mean a local (guerilla) war by the former Dutch owners and local allies.

The US position was very much anti-Japan because of Japan being already at war in China/Manchuria/Korea so would oppose the installation of a 'neutral' nationalist Indonesian government supporting Japan. Most likely resulting in the strengthening of it's Philipinian position and other similar possessions. Perhaps even trying to blocade ports and sea traffic and encouraging other nations (British Commonwealth) to join this measures. Japan wouldn't allow for this to happen so the most likely result is a clash, meaning war at a much earlier date than December 1941 with a US/Allied position prepared for war against the Japanese.

German and Japanese cooperation wasn't much in peace and war which doesn't help the argument.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Hi,

basicaly i thought about such scenario you described.
It is what-if and we need some basement for.

"give the colonies to germany" is just the short description of the things you wrote.

The discussion about the us reaction just shows me, that some people can´t or won´t accept scenarios they dislike

Nobody said that this scenario is 100% realistic. Just that it could happen - and it is no StarWars-Fantasy.

Has anybody improved this idea?

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

The political environment in the US in 1940-41 was complex. The country was deeply devided over the war. There were not so much Hawks and Doves as there were Gloablists and Isolationists. To say that the Americans did not care about what was going on in the rest of the world would be inaccurate and unfair. That said, the USA was still recovering from the Great Depression and there was a very strong sentiment that our own problems needed to be dealt with first. The US was not truly neutral. Lend Lease started in March of 1941. US merchants and warships were being attacked by U-boats from that point on. Many in the USA had little desire to be sucked into another global conflict but were faced with the undeniable truth that events were eventually going to force the American's hand. In truth the Japanese did the US leadership a great favor by attacking PH. After that, there was very little resistance to be involved in the war.

So that takes us to the whole DEI question and what would the USA do. There is no answer as this is pure speculation. That said, Roosevelt had taken a pretty hard line against Japan. He foresaw that if the Japanese were unchecked that Asia would become another occupied continent like Europe. At what point would the US consider diplomacy failed and actually start fighting? Was there a point? Is there anything Japan could have done other than PH that would have drawn the US into war? We do not know. There is no way we can know. Would the US intervene if the Japanese invaded Australia? Who knows. The US public was not indifferent to the war but just thought it was not their problem. At what point would they have considered it their problem? Without PH, would the US public ever support a war against Japan? Again, who knows.

That said, the Japanese were not exactly the most clear headed thinkers in 1940-41. The leaderships was highly militaristic, nationalistic, and xenophobic. Not a good combination to keep a nation out of war. It is a fair supposition that Japan would eventually do something to antagonize the US into war. It would probably start as an "incident" and escalate from there. With the DEI in their possesion, the Japanese might just get heady enough to demand the US leave the PI and the British leave Borneo and Malaya. In fact there is a very good possibility they would as that would be in keeping with the whole Greater East Asian Coprosperity Sphere concept. In 1941 Japan was not so much trying to avoid war with the US as they were trying to delay the start. The Embargo of steel and oil forced their hands.

I think there is an interesting what if scenario here. I will chew on it some more

Good post. Japan and the US were basically at a total impasse by 1941 as seen by the Embargo. The US and UK would most likely prohibit/protest any Japanese move into the DEI regardless of Dutch status and cite that any such move would ensure the continuation of the Embargo. Result is thus the same. Japan opts for war as there is no way they will agree to the terms and conditions of it's lifting and their (largely unknown) attempt at compromise was rebuffed. I'd speculate PH still happens, on time. If for whatever reason it doesn't.....the original US estimation for war was around April of 42 (wishful thinking but there it is)

[aspqrz02]

Two things no-one seems to either a) know or b) considered which, if considered, make the situation somewhat less happy for the Japs.

1) The reason the IJN attacked Pearl Harbour was because they wanted to destroy the US Pacific Fleet, right? Everyone knows this.

But do they know, or remember for the purposes of this discussion, exactly why?

Because they wanted to prevent it from putting into action Warplan Orange (Oh. Isn't there a game by that name [;)] somewhere?) ... the relief of the Phillippines.

So. Why did this worry them?

Or, to put it another way, why did the Japanese feel the need to attack the Phillippines?

Really. I mean, the US was being unfriendly. She was not declaring war on them.

The Japs decided that the solution to US "unfriendliness" was to steal the oil they needed. The DEI was the obvious source, given their military weakness.

But the problem for the Japanese planners was that the invasion fleet would have to pass close by the the PI, and the Tankers bring fuel back from the DEI (or heading, empty, to the DEI) would have to pass close by to the PI. Given US "unfriendliness" they decided that US capabilities were such that the Empire could not take the chance that the US wouldn't up the ante, and try to do something even more "unfriendly" ...

So they decided to remove the US ability to do so ... and to do that, they needed to ensure that Warplan Orange couldn't be implemented.

Why is this relevant? Is it relevant?

Yes! Maybe the US was in the grip of isolationism (but the OHIO plan and the Two Ocean Navy plan were both implemented in 1940 ... the biggest peacetime buildup of military forces in US history to that point ... so the US wasn't as isolationist as all that ... and, really, the point is not so much what the US reaction might or might not have been ... it is what the Japanese believed that the US reaction might ... or could ... be.

Based on their rationale for attacking Pearl and the PI noted above, I think we can see that this is where the weakness of the considerations is ... I can't see the Japanese acting in such a kind, friendly, rational and unwarlike non-pre-emptive way as to not simply start the war sooner under slightly different conditions ... and not necessarily gain all that much benefit for doing so, because of ...

2) The US Embargo was so effective because the Japanese had, effectively, no real Tanker Fleet of their own (from memory, they had something like a dozen big tankers and around another dozen smaller ones ... yes ... that few) and almost all of the oil they had been purchasing prior to the embargo were shipped on US flagged and owned Tankers. The small amount that wasn't was shipped mainly on British flagged and owned ones.

So, even if the Japs get the DEI, they are really not that much better off than in real life, as they can't ship the stuff home any better than they could in real life. It was lack of tanker tonnage that screwed them as much as the fact that the DEI destroyed or damaged so much of their oil extraction and refining facilities.

So, while there would be some differences, I suspect that the most likely outcome is a DOW/Surprise attack some months earlier than in real life, almost certainly before the Japanese have a change to occupy the DEI anyway.

Oh, and ...

3) There were quite a number of CMF/Militia Divisions in Oz which could have been sent to secure the DEI, or even the 8th Division being diverted from Malaya.

Which would be a potential spanner in the works, too.

Phil

[xj900uk]

You have to remember also that the US Pacific fleet was normally based at San Francisco or elsewhere along the West Coast. It was a political decision (more like 'sabre rattling') to move it to Hawaii, even though it didn't have the screening/escort and replentish ships to operate out of that base properly. Also as the fleet was still on a 'peace footing' despite the move, a lot of the ships were undermanned, morale was low, and there was a slow rotation of sailors back and forth to the West Coast to try and alleviate said morale problems.
Officially the US fleet was moved 'forward' to try and bring pressure on the IJ forces after the oil, fuel and scrap metal embargos had failed to have the desired effect to make the politicians in Tokyo back down from their over-agressive stance in China and French Indo-China. Now the DEI had been the original aim of the IJ war planners all along because of the fuel oil, rubber, manganese, aluminium and other vital resources for its economy and industry (despite its severely limited means to transport said resources back to IJ, for an island economy Japanese shipping transport was extremely under-developed and poorly planned). When the US fleet arrived in PH rather than regard it as a diplomatic crises (a knife toTokyo's throat' was how one advisor described it) the war planners saw it more of an opportunity to try and destroy the US Pacific fleet (BB's and carriers) in one fell swoop or at least knock it out of action so that the PI could be invaded and polished off (so to secure lines of communication between the HI and DEI) before the US was in any position to try and intervene

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Look,

nobody said that it should be the "warwinner" for japan.

Just an alternate scenario with the japanese take over the dutch colonies (the discussion about "what would the USA or UK do" is another thing)

With this, the game could be more interesting.
As you said, the us navy could try to follow WPO... if they do so they will be utterly destroyed.
Old slow battleships in a harbour vers. old slow battleships 4000m below the waves.

We could still start the war with pearl-attack, just with lesser surprise (none?) and different invasion plans by the japanese side and fully intact dutch production facilities with also more ressources for japan.

the british and australian-us-forces are divided quickly after the fall of the phillipines.. (and normaly every average player could "win" that battle against us forces).

Just another interesting game...

Sure, the USA could attack japanese tankers... i just think that the differences between "Shoot without war" or even "War without force" by the USA 1942 is just not possible - against japan.
Roosevelt wanted full war against germany - his support for british interests was extreme. So why attack japan?
How will he explain it to the american people? I just can´t see it.
Sure - churchill could attack - but silly selfmurder wasn´t his normal behaviour.

So this scenario is interesting & possible

The numbers of american ships shouldn´t change, cause the great naval expansion had already started.
We can discuss the numbers of ships, the usa will produce more - because of the greater danger. But after all, the US underestimated the japanese people... why should they change this attitude because of the better support with oil

I think, a war, starting in March, 1942 - like the war started in December 41 could be possible - or to simplify it, same start, but with quicker support by us-production (say, 8 weeks earlier?) So, say, we start in february, 8, 1942

[JWE]

Back-up plans are pretty cool, but they don't work all'a time. I mean -

Did Patton have a back-up plan at Gettysberg?
Did what's her name have a back-up plan at Custards Last Stand agin the Mexicans?
Did Ronnie have a back-up plan when he shaved his pubes with a 2 month old Bic razor?

Woof !!

[Nikademus]

Did BP have a Blow Out Preventer?

[:D]

[vinnie71]

Also people seem to assume that the Germans were happy that the Japanese would take over the DEI. Well they weren't and if I remember well, part of the postwar settlement envisaged by Hitler was to take over the DEI for it raw materials. Incidentally the Netherlands would have been just another province the Reich and therefore there would have been little political discussion on the rights and wrongs of this move...[:D]
 
 

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

You have to remember also that the US Pacific fleet was normally based at San Francisco or elsewhere along the West Coast. It was a political decision (more like 'sabre rattling') to move it to Hawaii, even though it didn't have the screening/escort and replentish ships to operate out of that base properly.

Indeed. The point is still that, as I said, the move not equivalent to a US DOW. It was the Japanese response that was (as you agree) disproportionate.

ORIGINAL: xj900uk
Now the DEI had been the original aim of the IJ war planners all along because of the fuel oil, rubber, manganese, aluminium and other vital resources for its economy and industry (despite its severely limited means to transport said resources back to IJ, for an island economy Japanese shipping transport was extremely under-developed and poorly planned). When the US fleet arrived in PH rather than regard it as a diplomatic crises (a knife toTokyo's throat' was how one advisor described it) the war planners saw it more of an opportunity to try and destroy the US Pacific fleet (BB's and carriers) in one fell swoop or at least knock it out of action so that the PI could be invaded and polished off (so to secure lines of communication between the HI and DEI) before the US was in any position to try and intervene

Indeed. Exactly as I said.

Phil

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

As you said, the us navy could try to follow WPO... if they do so they will be utterly destroyed.
Old slow battleships in a harbour vers. old slow battleships 4000m below the waves.

The problem is that no-one really could be sure that this would be what would happen.

The Japanese, for a start, pursued the idea of a massive, decisive, surface fleet vs. surface fleet action with the USN through the whole war.

The fact that it didn't work that way is neither here nor there.

The point is that the Japanese thought that was the way it would (or should) work ... and generally planned accordingly where they could.

Unless your scenario is based on Alien Space Bats using Orbital Mind Control Lasers to send messages to the IJN High Command from the future and therefore giving them 20:20 hindsight [:D] ?

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi
We could still start the war with pearl-attack, just with lesser surprise (none?) and different invasion plans by the japanese side and fully intact dutch production facilities with also more ressources for japan.

Resources which you obviously didn't read, the Japanese had no real capacity to transport back to the Home Islands as they did not have the Tankers.

The only real change, resource wise, would be that they would have larger stockpiles of POL in the DEI ... stockpiles they still could not move from the DEI through lack of shipping ...

This was a war loser in the real world and still remains a war loser in and of itself.

Or, putting it another way ... it wasn't access to resources that lost Japan the war, it was their inability to move those resources back to Japan that lost them the war.

Your proposed scenario does not significantly, if at all, change that reality.

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi
Sure, the USA could attack japanese tankers... i just think that the differences between "Shoot without war" or even "War without force" by the USA 1942 is just not possible - against japan.

Again, you completely, totally and utterly fail to grasp the point.

Which is not what the US might, or might not do ... though I would disagree with the level of certainty in your claims as to their likely actions under the circumstances as would, I suspect, many other posters on this forum ... it is what the Japanese planners thought they could do ... what they thought the US had the capability to do (as noted elsewhere above re "Decisive Battle").

Military planners worth spit have to take into account capabilities and possibilities. The Japanese military planners did just that.

We can argue that their conclusions were crazy ... and they were ... there were any number of peaceful options that would probably have allowed the Japanese to keep their possessions in China, evidently ... but, within the parameters of their craziness, the plans they made were logical enough.

So, unless we're getting back to Orbital Space Bats and their Mind Control Lasers from the future [:D], the way in which the Japanese act in this matter is unlikely to be significantly different from the way that they acted historically ... hence the most likely outcome is a Pacific War that starts some months earlier, with all parties less prepared than they were historically.

In fact, given the complete stuff-up that the allies (the Brits and US, mainly) made of the thing, historically, the fact that they have fewer troops and resources committed to the PI and Malaya/Burma probably is a benefit to them as the troops and resources not committed at the point of an earlier Japanese invasion will be available for use against that invasion in places and at times where they may have more of an impact on the course of the war than they did originally ... or not. Who knows?

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi
So this scenario is interesting & possible

Well, maybe.

A scenario where the war starts months earlier than in real life with a Japanese occupation fleet being opposed by allied forces or a partial occupation of the DEI being opposed by allied forces facing surprise attacks against based in the PI and around Borneo and the DEI and Malaya ... the most likely outcomes ... would change things, sure, but, as noted, it doesn't change the fact that the Japs get little, most likely nothing, in the way of increased resources that they can ship back home to where they can be transformed into useful stuff that might stave off their inevitable defeat for a few months more than in real life.

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi
I think, a war, starting in March, 1942 - like the war started in December 41 could be possible - or to simplify it, same start, but with quicker support by us-production (say, 8 weeks earlier?) So, say, we start in february, 8, 1942

Why 1942?

In the circumstances you describe this makes no sense. The Japanese gain little or nothing from the 3-4 months delay.

Surely you mean 1940?

Phil

[RUDOLF]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Well, it was the occupation of French Indo-China that brought on the US Oil Embargo.  Hard to say what an attempt to occupy the Netherlands East Indies would have involved.   Of course there's also the probability that the capture of the Queen might have resulted in the creation of "Free Holland" in 1940.  The East Indies were a far more viable base than anything DeGaulle had.  Or of US "protective occupation" as was done in Iceland.

Some interesting possibilities..., but based on an unlikely premise.  Why would the Dutch Government not flee to England?  They'd already seen what happened to the  Governments of Austria and Denmark and Norway.

The Norwegian Government did the same as the Dutch did...
The Danish Government stayed in Power, but under heavy German influence.
Austria can not be comparted to either of them..