Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Challenge: How could Japan have done better in WW2?

  1. #1
    Spajjder's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    1,069

    Default Challenge: How could Japan have done better in WW2?

    Hi.

    I'm writing a role playing game campaign for my friends, and I want to set it in a what if scenario.

    I want it to take place in the US, but I want it to be that in one way or another Japan has wrestled control of the western Seaboard all the way to the Rocky Mountains, just because it asks a lot of questions how that world would look like, how the population would react, and how they act in that world etc etc. However, I don't really see how Japan achieving that would have been plausible in any way.

    But I need to explain how this came to be for the setting to work, so my challenge is, what events would have had to happened/not happened, what mistakes made, what innovations innovated, for that to happen?

    I would like it to be as close to reality as possible, so no magic or mech warriors if possible.
    Head Scout: You've got three days to earn a badge.
    Peter:Three days? That's tomorrow! We gotta get going!

  2. #2
    HannibalExMachina's Avatar Just a sausage
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    11,244

    Default Re: Challenge: How could Japan have done better in WW2?

    are you familiar with The Man in the High Castle, because your scenario sounds just like that story? i havent read the book, but afaik it gives quite a bit more background information than the tv series.

  3. #3
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Challenge: How could Japan have done better in WW2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spajjder View Post
    Hi.

    I'm writing a role playing game campaign for my friends, and I want to set it in a what if scenario.

    I want it to take place in the US, but I want it to be that in one way or another Japan has wrestled control of the western Seaboard all the way to the Rocky Mountains, just because it asks a lot of questions how that world would look like, how the population would react, and how they act in that world etc etc. However, I don't really see how Japan achieving that would have been plausible in any way.

    But I need to explain how this came to be for the setting to work, so my challenge is, what events would have had to happened/not happened, what mistakes made, what innovations innovated, for that to happen?

    I would like it to be as close to reality as possible, so no magic or mech warriors if possible.
    How far back in history are you willing to diverge from our timeline? There are several points at which a change in events might weaken the US or strengthen Japan (or both). I assume you don't want "the CSA wins and the US is hemmed in to the East Coast by a rival power".

    IRL the Japanese base economy was about one thirteenth that of the US. So for a start you have to close that gap. Some ideas:

    FDR dies early, a nationalist takes over in the 1930's and leads the US to war in South America: the US conscripts an army of occupation and diminishes its fleet to pay for this. Huge private fortunes are made but public support is non-existent: its basically like Vietnam but the country can't afford it.

    The Japanese play a larger role in WWI and are credited with larger colonial rewards in the Pacific. They take a leadership role in the League of Nations and are given a mandate to pacify China. Rather than occupy by force they create a friendly republican Government and back industrial development in the coastal regions (this bit would require unbeleiveable luck). There is mild economic development and consumer demand that allows the Sino-Japanese alliance to ride out the depression and even purchase more territory from broke European colonial powers (maybe the buy the Philippines from the US?). No coups, the Japanese government is dominated by Zaibatsu business conglomerates and a strong Confucian ethic of loyalty.

    The aggressive expansionist US provokes Japan by claiming the Philippines back but the fleet is unexpectedly destroyed in a swift surprise attack. The loyal Korean and Chinese provide the army support for an invasion of the continental US, completely unexpected and the US has spread its forces to suppress rebels in Latin America and hold its few remaining Pacific Islands (protecting business interests rather than US citizens). By the time the corrupt Government in Washington is tipped out (and the boys are brought home from Mexico and Argentina) the Japanese have advanced to the Rockies...its not really that plausible though.

    So some combination of "US weakens itself" and "Japan doesn't plough their army into China"
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  4. #4
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Challenge: How could Japan have done better in WW2?

    I want it to take place in the US, but I want it to be that in one way or another Japan has wrestled control of the western Seaboard all the way to the Rocky Mountains, just because it asks a lot of questions how that world would look like, how the population would react, and how they act in that world etc etc. However, I don't really see how Japan achieving that would have been plausible in any way.
    More or less impossible without space bats. The List of changes amount to that and they are internally inconsistent. No near term alterations (that is starting any time after say WW1 or so as is - and certainly no actuall at arounf WW2 type changes that are plausible) can get you to the point your looking for in any case

    just because it asks a lot of questions how that world would look like, how the population would react, and how they act in that world etc etc. However, I don't really see how Japan achieving that would have been plausible in any way.
    If those are the questions you are interested in than really just go with a unexplained one off space bat event but move forward realistically from that point.


    @Cyclops
    a nationalist takes over in the 1930's and leads the US to war in South America
    Where did you come up with that from. A unilateral intervention to aid China is far more likely. US hegemony was pretty secure in Central America and the Caribbean. I can't really see anything to break the isolationist hold of US foreign policy such that a large or broad war in south America could occur. At most sans FDR polices the US might have blockaded Venezuela to ensure a less invasive Hydrocarbons Law (or rather a better split for the US possibly even possibly at the expense of UK interests).
    Last edited by conon394; February 20, 2017 at 06:52 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  5. #5
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Challenge: How could Japan have done better in WW2?

    To answer OP, not going to happen; I rather do a "China invade US through Zerg Fleet" scenario.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  6. #6
    Darkhorse's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kent, United Kingdom
    Posts
    5,355

    Default Re: Challenge: How could Japan have done better in WW2?

    (At least) two military events need to happen regardless of however the political/economic/strategic situation develops.

    1) The US fleet needs to be disabled.
    2) The resource (vitally, oil and rubber) rich Dutch East Indies and British Malaya need to be taken.

    If Japan appeared to be, for a longer time, more of threat, I would expect that Dutch garrisons and naval presence in the Far East would have been extensively reinforced, yes, to the detriment of home defence -but not lot is going to change there. At the same time, British garrisons in Singapore and Malaya would have received more investiture (both in finances and in operational administration)

    While British troop numbers and defence assets would almost certainly have been scaled back on account of war with Germany, the increased importance of the Far East as a theatre would mean improved defences, an effective, albeit small, RAF presence, and probably a permanent deployment of a enlarged 'Force Z'. By working with the Dutch, Australians, and New Zealanders, quite a powerful fleet could be assembled in the region, especially had ships such as Hood, Rodney, or Nelson been reassigned from the Home Fleet. we can even really dip into the world of fantasy and suggest that the Dutch Project 1047s are built in time.

    Consider that Japanese naval doctrine called for a mainly cruiser/destroyer led force for the invasion of the Dutch East Indies et al, a larger western naval presence calls for Japan to increase their invasion force, it becomes larger, more capital ship heavy, theoretically weakening the force going after American assets and the Philippines. Now, for Japan to be successful in this scenario, they too would have a period where they would develop and enlarge their own forces, but Japanese potential for such expansion is surely more limited than Britain or America.

    Then there is the US Fleet:

    If the Japanese military does not develop or enlarge, the actual attack on Pearl Harbour involved 410+ aircraft and 6 carriers. In 1937 I think the Japanese only had 5 in service by that point, Soryu, Hosho, Kaga, Akagi and Ryujo - carrying some 260 aircraft. Neither the A6M nor the D3A existed in 1937. So, fewer a/c, worse a/c. That said, the Americans themselves had fewer ships and a/c also of older types, and the USS Hornet had not been built in 1937, limiting a possible response.

    Then there is the fact that prior to 1940, the Americans were based at San Diego and not Pearl. Perhaps the situation in this scenario means that the move to Pearl is completed earlier, but unless there had been significant expansion of the Japanese Navy, I think they've had been better off trying to engage the US carriers directly, ambushing them when on exercise by carrier or by submarine, than attacking Pearl or San Diego itself.

    What if Lord Sempill never heads up the British mission to Japan? Or had his suspected spying activities been exposed on much sooner? Or the Italian fleet is defeated at sea, rather than being partially disabled at Taranto? There are a lot of variables here. But, presuming the timetable for war with Germany remains unchanged, the earlier the war against Japan begins, the better for the Allies - except in terms of codebreaking.

  7. #7
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Challenge: How could Japan have done better in WW2?

    Any senareo that makes Japan stronger has a problem.

    Basic problem is Two Ocean Navy Act or rather the whole line of US naval expansions from the early 30s

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-roosevelt.htm


    Overall expanding the Navy did not run into issues with most isolationist sentiment since it could be played a purely defensive measure. Any moves by Japan to expand its navy earlier or to a greater extent would simply have given the US more interest in expanding as well and the US had vast amounts of slack capacity, labor and resources to pour into the effort.

    Also Isolationism had a decidedly anti-Europe bias. Willingness to be tough with with Japan over China was diffrent than another war in Europe.

    A careful read of the US expansion shows no particular battleship bias the US was building both large numbers of New fast battleships and large aircraft carriers with long range aircraft and long range subs. Critically the US had second mover advantage if you will. Only 3 navies in the world were in the race to build 'ideal' Pacific navies, that is navies with the range and capacity to fight alone against a land based foe across world wide distances. The UK was too tethered to Europe to really compete, leaving Japan and the US. Japan got there first but with enormous amounts of corner cutting. The US was behind but did not need to cut corners to catch Japan.

    Japan simply lacked the capacity to attack Hawaii in force, and certainly not the US at all. Any earlier moves would see the UK be in a much stronger position to counter Japan anyway. Similarly since unless you magically make the UK fall to an invasion by Hitler that could not work, the other option is the UK accommodates Hitler after the fall of France. But an explicit exit from Europe by the UK means a likely reorientation of UK priorities to its empire and thus a much larger presence of the RN in Asia and possibly direct support for China (given its an area were the US would likely cooperate under any president)(*). In other words it hard come up with a way to Japan uncontested control of The Dutch East Indies or British possessions. Realistically free trade with the UK and its acquiescence to German control of Europe was far more valuable than a fairly useless ally in Japan. I suspect its far more likely an UK deal with Hitler would involve the UK and not Japan getting the residual Dutch holdings.

    I just really can't see an combination of events that can lead Japanese US to the Rockies. I can see a lot a ways to end up with the war coming to close leaving Imperial Japan, UK and the USSR, Germany and USA in a sort of multi polar cold war but no the conquest of the US.

    * Hitler wanted his war in the East badly. Obviously he did not even wait for a second year to go at the UK with a year of planning. It would not have helped but it might have pushed the UK to the table sans the US in the war.
    Last edited by conon394; February 20, 2017 at 08:03 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  8. #8
    WhiskeySykes's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Bedlam, somewhere around Barstow
    Posts
    314

    Default Re: Challenge: How could Japan have done better in WW2?

    Among other things, I think if they'd attacked Pearl Harbor at Yamamoto's advised hour, after their ambassador had delivered the declaration of war, the Japanese would have stricken the US an early blow to their morale. As it was, they only stirred a sleeping giant.

    I think you should read/watch Man in the High Castle. The scenario's basically what you described, and there's a twist that puts The Matrix to shame.
    Last edited by WhiskeySykes; February 20, 2017 at 08:54 AM.

  9. #9
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Challenge: How could Japan have done better in WW2?

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    More or less impossible without space bats. The List of changes amount to that and they are internally inconsistent. No near term alterations (that is starting any time after say WW1 or so as is - and certainly no actuall at arounf WW2 type changes that are plausible) can get you to the point your looking for in any case

    If those are the questions you are interested in than really just go with a unexplained one off space bat event but move forward realistically from that point.).
    Indeed.
    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    @Cyclops

    Where did you come up with that from.).
    Out of my arse. As we both have observed, closing the gap between the US Goliath and the Japanese David is a pretty hard task, so (again as we have both observed) something stupid needs to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    A unilateral intervention to aid China is far more likely.
    Yes but that brings the US and Japan to the brink of war closer to the Home Islands, and in all likelihood happens before 1941, so Japan gets to face 100% of the US war effort (instead of the Germany First economy that licked them in four years) probably no Pearl and probably without the resources of SE Asia as they can't afford to sail away from China withy the US already there (and Germany hasn't smashed France and the Netherlands for them). This scenario is further from the Rockies than RL, its a pretty swift death for Japan IMHO.

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    US hegemony was pretty secure in Central America and the Caribbean. I can't really see anything to break the isolationist hold of US foreign policy such that a large or broad war in south America could occur. At most sans FDR polices the US might have blockaded Venezuela to ensure a less invasive Hydrocarbons Law (or rather a better split for the US possibly even possibly at the expense of UK interests).
    Yes a South America adventure upsets the applecart with the UK which still has (to this day) big slices of Latin America. I guess that gives the Japanese a little more play. Its unlikely as I did say, but it does even the odds a little.

    If you feed a hostile UK into the mix (which is getting double space bats with a side of Daleks) then you can have the US going toe to toe with the RN in the Atlantic, the US army storming into Canada, while Japan with the Dominions snaffles the West Coast from behind. That's Turtledove on and day though, it requires huge (Yuge!) deviation from our timeline (eg Australia not being racist against Japan in the 1930's lol).
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  10. #10
    bigdaddy1204's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dar al-Islam
    Posts
    1,896

    Default Re: Challenge: How could Japan have done better in WW2?

    You are all forgetting one very important factor:

    In March 1867, the United States purchased Alaska from the Russian Empire. Let's assume Russia sells Alaska to the Japanese instead. From there, they could have pushed down the western seaboard and created a Japanese coastal empire.

    There is another factor though: the California Gold rush, starting in 1848/49. In 1848, the population was just 2,000 people. Then in 1849, 90,000 immigrants from the US and Europe and Latin America and China arrived. By 1855, about 300,000 people had arrived in California, most of them from the USA and Europe. This turned the area from a sparsely inhabited wilderness into a mainly English-speaking part of the USA in the space of just six years.

    Therefore, for maximum Japanese impact, ideally the Japanese colonisation of the western seaboard needs to happen before the English-speakers and the European immigrants arrive in California, i.e. before 1848.
    If we assume the Japanese had arrived in California in 1840 and started settling it in large numbers, building forts to control the approaches and not allowing anyone else in, then the whole area could have been colonised by Japanese and become ethnically and culturally Japanese. This seems to provide the best bet for your scenario.

    However, there is a problem: the Meiji Restoration, which turned Japan into a modern industrial nation, didn't occur until 1868. That's too late for our timeline, as all of the above events had already happened by then. Prior to the Meiji Restoration, Japan was an isolationist country still stuck in the Feudal Era of Samurai. Therefore it is impossible to imagine them colonising California in the 1840s, unless something major changes. Perhaps some form of Meiji Restoration takes place 30 years early, i.e. in 1838 instead of 1868.


    Last edited by bigdaddy1204; February 23, 2017 at 11:27 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    I am quite impressed by the fact that you managed to make such a rant but still manage to phrase it in such a way that it is neither relevant to the thread nor to the topic you are trying to introduce to the thread.

  11. #11
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Challenge: How could Japan have done better in WW2?

    Even a Mejii type unified Japan does not solve your problems. How and why would it want buy Russian claims, why would Russia sell and why any interest in Alaska. Mexico could barely hold it self together. Even if Japan had managed to find the money and convince Russia. Russia claims south of Canada were ephemeral at best. Why would distract Japan away it more obvious interests in Korea and China? A significant move into California would almost certainly have provoked a war with the UK or the USA - wars Japan could not win.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Challenge: How could Japan have done better in WW2?

    Japan could've attacked the Soviet Union instead of USA (say go straight for Vladivostok instead of Mongolia). Then there are no reinforcements for the battle of Moscow, and the Soviet Union collapses, Germans take over oil fields in Caucuses, and Japan gets their oil assuming they hold out until 1943-44.

    US might not enter the war without the Soviet Union, as they would be focusing all their resources to protect Britain from invasion by Germany.
    Last edited by pippenainteasy; May 13, 2017 at 09:21 PM.

  13. #13
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Challenge: How could Japan have done better in WW2?

    Quote Originally Posted by pippenainteasy View Post
    Japan could've attacked the Soviet Union instead of USA (say go straight for Vladivostok instead of Mongolia). Then there are no reinforcements for the battle of Moscow, and the Soviet Union collapses, Germans take over oil fields in Caucuses, and Japan gets their oil assuming they hold out until 1943-44.

    US might not enter the war without the Soviet Union, as they would be focusing all their resources to protect Britain from invasion by Germany.
    So the reason the Japanese attacked the US was the oil embargo. The war effort in China was running into difficulties and oil from Indonesia was needed for both the fleet and army. Attacking Vladivostok gives Japan one end of a nine thousand mile railway, not a back door to Moscow or a decent fuel supply.

    You think some divisions in Siberia leads to a Soviet collapse? If you can give me a realistic set of circumstances for that to happen I'd be grateful, Hitler ticked just about all the same boxes in Russia that he did in Poland and France and the Soviets told him to off. The question of whether taking Moscow would topple the government and bring about a surrender is a difficult one, but the Soviet army was destroyed several times over (it had a ration strength of around four million and suffered ten million deaths and many more casualties) and it ended the war in Berlin. Put another way, a lot of things went the Axis' way for then to achieve their historical gains. Given what they had and what they did, it can't get much better for them.

    Its pretty clear the US was absolutely gunning for Japan because their interests in China conflicted. The US dropped nukes on Japan until they surrendered unconditionally (in that they completely accepted the terms of the Allied offer) and that's the outcome for any possible scenario IMHO. I don't see a timeline where anything other than unconditional surrender to the US or the complete destruction of Japan occurs unless we deviate somewhere in the 1920's when the US forced the British Empire to destroy its Japanese alliance.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  14. #14
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Challenge: How could Japan have done better in WW2?

    More or less what he typed ^

    A few thoughts people forget US isolationism really was only directed at Europe. Once Japan went to war with China the US was broadly agreed politically in any action that led up to and included war in Asia with Japan. That fact leaves little room for alternatives for Japan pushing it it preferred direction (China) or against European colonies or the US in the Philippians, all meant war with some combination of the UK and US and sundry others.

    You can I suppose try going back to 1937 or so and try to see Japan not start a general war in China. That would slow the pressure in the US for embargoes and the Navy expansion acts and the push to fight Japan. I think you still need a space bat. The Kuomintang needs look to Uncle Joe, and the Reds are more common and more supported as a vehicle to oppose Japan in China. Now Japan has been delivered wiggle room. Sure the US will still build up its navy, and possibly impose embargoes, but neither the US or UK before Germany attacks Russia will look fondly on the ideal of breaking Japan's power in Asia just to Stalin walk in.

    So now I suppose is how can Japan play the game. If it does a really good job of PR and fighting the 'red menace', If Japan avoids a direct AXIS entanglement, If the War in Europe goes as normal, and critically FDR gets his Atlantic indecent(s) or provoking Hitler before an incident occurs in China or Japan is tempted to take Dutch possessions - I can maybe see Japan sitting out part of the war. But its really still hard to see how they avoid in the long run a defeat by either the US/UK or the USSR.

    I think Cyclops is right you need to go back even farther. Japan needs a more elegant government in the 1920's and 30's. One that gets its pound of flesh in Manchuria but is less crass at it, and realistically the USSR simply has to look a lot more scary everywhere (on the order of say Poland defeated at the Vistula, as above a lot more action in China, roles Finland etc) so to focus the US on worrying about it and not a supposed short victorious naval war over Japan fueled by racist thinking about how easy it will be.

    So really I guess I am still vote nothing. Unless at best a much more apparently scary USSR with less good PR (I am looking at you NY Times and your Stalin love - honestly really one editorial change in the 30s and big contract that Ford got stiffed on and Stalin would have been in world of hurt when Hitler started ranting about space in the East). But problematically that allows Germany to maybe get back to top tier (with the US and UK) and re-balance the Continent. However that still leaves Japan's aspirations distinctly at odds with the US and UK
    Last edited by conon394; May 25, 2017 at 10:49 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  15. #15
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Challenge: How could Japan have done better in WW2?

    I highly doubt Japan would jump on Siberia anyway since its motivation of war was to seek a self-sufficient internal market that enable to maintain its export economy (a motivation sparked by Japan's experience during economic depression right after WWI), so the number of consumers was a major factor in its expansion plan. General speaking Japan did not plan to expand its war outside Chinese border at first since it was confident that its own military might in partial mobilization could easily crush NRA and seal a deal in a control, limit war environment. Only when it realized that Chinese was pushing total war (which Japanese believed Chinese, logically, could not do it due to administration problem, and Japan technically was right as China only in total war state by name only throughout the eight years struggle) and a full mobilized Japanese military could not handle it directly, then Japanese government started thinking using alternative method, mainly the economic warfare by collapsing Nationalist economy through blockade, devaluation of Chinese money (by smuggling illegal printed note into Nationalist territory) and reduce Nationalist production capacity (mainly through bombing and raiding). This policy however means that Japan had to create a wall around China - including the SEA land route connecting with it. This hence means Japan had to expand its influence into SEA, hence conflicting with the European power there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  16. #16
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Challenge: How could Japan have done better in WW2?

    so the number of consumers was a major factor in its expansion plan
    No I get the logic of that in some crude way to a sword waving imperialist. But if I have my facts strait Japan's post WW1 boom was funded on high end goods export. So how does that add up in the cold light of day - we fund a vast millinery expansion to protect a China we broke 3 ways from Sunday to conquer and now we get rich because its dirt poor uneducated masses will buy expensive gruel?
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •