Cartertonian wrote:To coin a phrase, SD, I think Dak expects a certain 'willing suspension of disbelief' in order to engage with this thread.
Suspension of disbelief can still be broken by asking the reader to belief things that make no sense. Like a scenario where Britain goes against its own interests and allies and instead decided to help Japan with its imperial conquests. How can we forecast reasonable outcomes from an unreasonable series of assumptions?
Daktoria wrote:The Anglo-Japanese alliance was originally formed to counterbalance American Pacific naval influence due to the Washington Naval Treaty.
What? Anglo-Japanese alliance was brokered in 1902, the Washington Naval Treaty didn't eventuate until 1922. My prediction of universe implosion for warps in space-time are feeling more probable all the time.
Daktoria wrote:By remaining allied to Japan, the Commonwealth wouldn't have to fear Japanese aggression
Despite the previously existing alliance Canada and Australia clearly did fear Japanese expansion in the Pacific area, so I'm unclear why your scenario, where their fears are disregarded, eg. get dudded by their ally Britain, will make them feel any better.
Daktoria wrote: and could maintain a reliable trading partner that needed raw materials.
Australia and Canada were not short of trade partners. The country that needed reliable trading partners was Japan, and much of this scenario seems to be geared to fixing it so Japan comes out on top no matter what.
Daktoria wrote:I don't entirely buy this.
Despite Russian major victories, the border skirmishes were locally commanded and lacked air support, so tit for tat, the Japanese performed on par.
The Japanese often actually had air superiority over local Soviet forces on many occasions (read up on Japanese fighter aces from the period). What the Soviets did have was a massive manpower advantage, better logistical support and more tanks. The Japanese not only lacked similar material advantages but lacked a realistic doctrine for countering these advantages. Faced with Soviet armoured superiority the Japanese leadership didn't rush out and acquire more and better anti-tank weaponry, they just insisted on the supremacy of spirited infantry.
And the Japanese actually need to do better than on par, as the Soviets will, in your scenario, only be fighting on one front... while Japan is still fighting China at the same time.
Daktoria wrote:The Luftwaffe's major disadvantage was the redirection of resources to the Wehrmacht such that it couldn't replace pilots, aircraft, and officers quickly enough.
The infrastructure that meant the Luftwaffe couldn't replace its planes and pilots fast enough goes all the way back to the interwar period, rather than a quick decision by the General Staff/Hitler at the time. It's not as though factories previously churning out planes were re-tasked to tanks. And the shortage of aircrews might be a bit complex, since Goering later felt he was so flush with recruits he could afford to send them off
to fight as infantry in the Soviet Union.
Daktoria wrote:Hitler is often criticized for expanding too far, too fast. Taking his time to expand the air force would have engaged force concentration
So we have to add yet another point of divergence to make your scenario work. Now the entire German war economy has to be re-geared?
Daktoria wrote:You're not reading me right.
Your original sentence was poorly phrased. Further your fourth point still makes no sense, why is it notable that the joint invasion of Iran doesn't not take place if there was still no need to establish a land corridor in your scenario? It would change nothing.
Daktoria wrote:If Japan can stabilize oil, then I'm not sure why engaging America is necessary so fast.
Even if for some reason Britain decided it would prefer to export oil itstead of stockpiling it for the war effort, I'm not sure it would be enough for the Japanese. And there would still be a risk for Japan that the US might escalate its involvement.
Daktoria wrote:Are you saying Britain invades the Dutch East Indies?
Are you telling me Britain would still be okay with Japan invading the Dutch East Indies?
Daktoria wrote:It could redirect personnel and materiel ordinarily committed to the navy (similarly to the Battle of Britain above).
Given the political division between the army and navy in Japan during this period that is way more complicated than you think. My point about the lack of infrastructure/starting base also applies here. You can't just pull the crews off the ships, slap a rifle in their hand and tell them to be on their way, building military units takes time.
Daktoria wrote:They'd be allied......
Yes and having a big army, belonging to an expansionist power, on their door step wouldn't make them nervous at all. One famous for 'incidents' with neighbours in Asia that looked suspiciously like invasions
I reiterate that your scenario benefits no one except Japan, yet requires everyone to go along with it. It just isn't believable.
Preston Cole wrote:Didn't Hitler fail to neutralize the RAF because he changed focus from bombing air bases to bombing London like a total idiot? I think if he'd kept pursuing the first strategy, the RAF would have had literally no time to regroup and challenge the Luftwaffe.
Yes and no. The shift in focus from airfields to the cities was a bad move and certainly a boon to the RAF, but the Germans didn't have the means to defeat the RAF completely. Many RAF bases were outside the reach of Luftwaffe aircraft (lacking a true strategic bomber and long range fighters), as was a large chunk of their airforce. If worst came to worst the RAF can withdraw out of Luftwaffe range but still contest the skies over southern Britain. A withdrawal of the RAF would make a subsequent invasion slightly easier, but the Royal Navy would still remain an obstacle the Germans could not have overcome.