How America planned for an attack on BRITAIN in 1930 - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Inter-war period (1919-1938), Russian civil war (1917–1921) and other non World War topics (1914-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13819224
pikachu wrote:Let's also recall that if there was to be any confrontation between the UK and US in 1930s, Japan would inevitably be on the British side. Which is why there was specifically a plan Red-Orange, for war against the UK and Japan at the same time. Keeping in mind the Naval treaty proportions (5-5-3 for US-UK-Japan), the USN would be at a disadvantage in size, especially if the UK manages to bring France on its side which I think is very plausible because the British and French interests during this period mostly overlapped. So if the UK found a reason to confront the Americans, the French would probably find one too. Would the US be able to make allies in this? Idk, perhaps Weimar Germany. But either way, the states which signed the Five-Power Treaty were the only ones with any navy to speak of. I would expect the USN to be able to defend the coastline from invasions, but not be a significant factor in disrupting the British shipping... at least for a while.


Yes. When I had first learned of all this, I was so mortified by the possibilities that existed. But it can't be helped.

The thing is, when people are getting all into relating the story of the Second World War and celebrating it and all that, what can you even do? It's like the popular conception of what happened and how, is so different from what we know actually was going on, but it's impossible to tell them.

There is no emoticon that can capture it, so I'll use a gif. This was basically the same as my expression every UK Remembrance day:
Image
"Alone."
#13819425
pikachu wrote:Let's also recall that if there was to be any confrontation between the UK and US in 1930s, Japan would inevitably be on the British side. Which is why there was specifically a plan Red-Orange, for war against the UK and Japan at the same time. Keeping in mind the Naval treaty proportions (5-5-3 for US-UK-Japan), the USN would be at a disadvantage in size, especially if the UK manages to bring France on its side which I think is very plausible because the British and French interests during this period mostly overlapped. So if the UK found a reason to confront the Americans, the French would probably find one too. Would the US be able to make allies in this? Idk, perhaps Weimar Germany. But either way, the states which signed the Five-Power Treaty were the only ones with any navy to speak of. I would expect the USN to be able to defend the coastline from invasions, but not be a significant factor in disrupting the British shipping... at least for a while.

Why is this certain? The British terminated the Anglo-Japanese alliance owing to US pressure in 1921, US-Japanese relations were quite good throughout the 1920s. It wasn't until the 1930s that they deteriorated, and they simultaneously deteriorated with the British for the same reasons--Japanese expansionism threatened the status quo in Asia, Western commercial interests in Asia, and Western colonies in Asia.

The Japanese were more structurally dependent on the US economy than the British as well. A greater fraction of Japanese exports went to America, and Japan was very dependent on oil, coal, and steel from America. Japan didn't develop self-sufficiency in (finished) steel or coal until after a decade of economic development in Manchukuo. The US was also a major inward investor in the Japanese economy, with American auto firms for instance dominating Japanese automotive production until 1936. Japan's most important SLOCs ran West, towards the United States, and the USN Pacific Fleet was stronger than the RN Pacific presence for obvious reasons.

I could see the French joining in, mainly as an excuse to shirk on its debts. However, France at the time was suspicious of Italy's intentions and growing strength in the Mediterranean. Furthermore, what security or economic interests did France have in the Western Hemisphere?
#13820165
US-Japanese relations were quite good throughout the 1920s.
Well, the scenario we speak of takes place in 1930s, when the US-Japanese relations were certainly nothing but bad. Still, I was under the impression that Japan and the US looked at each other with strong suspicion since at least the end of WW1 (if not earlier), when the American pressure thwarted the Japanese plans on China and Siberia. Japan saw the US as the single biggest threat to its security, the US perspective on Japan was likewise that of a rival. Competition over China continued throughout that period and into the 1930s when it got out of control. In 1931 the US imposed sanctions on Japan in protest of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. Sure, historically the British threw their lot with the Americans in this competition. But Plan Red supposes the opposite.

In the case of war in 1930s between the UK and the US, do you really expect Japan to stand by and do nothing? Not to take the opportunity to destroy the American Pacific Fleet and seize Guam and the Philippines?
#13820385
It's not so much that the UK was siding with the USA as Japan's expansionism threatened the interests of both powers in the region.

The USA was committed to an Open Door Policy in China, whereas Britain was committed to its concessions and sphere of influence. Both of these were considered important commercial interests (for baffling reasons given the low value of the China trade...but I digress), and both were threatened by Japan's attempt to dominate China and turn it into an exclusive zone for Japanese business.

Both powers maintained colonies in the region, and both were status quo powers compared to the revisionist Japanese who hungered for their colonies.

It's true the USA imposed (moderate) sanctions after the Kwangtung Army occupied Manchuria, but so did the UK. This was an inevitable outcome of the Nine-Power Treaty. The UK further protested in the League of Nations, ultimately sparking Japan's withdrawal.

Attacking Britain would be a lower risk strategy for Japan given the greater industrial might and Pacific power of the USA, but on the other hand that would leave a powerful, victorious America to deal with in the Pacific after British capitulation. The Japanese certainly were gamblers, so perhaps they would've gambled on taking out America feeling that preeminence over the British in the region was inevitable.
#13820909
I suppose pragmatism sometimes comes into conflict with ideological sympathy.

There was a legitimate U.S. interest in drawing Japan into a conflict it couldn't hope to win in the long term due to size and resources (a view shared by IJN head Isoroku Yamamoto), but one can't help but feel sympathy for the Imperial Japan of the era, as this was quite a beautiful society and their achievements were marvelous.

On the contrary, there was no legitimate U.S. interest in the war against the European Axis. The resulting superpower status owes more to the effects of U.S. mass mobilization and the disintegration of the British Empire and slow death of the French colonial empire.
#13820919
I am not particularly fond of Showa Japan. The Meiji and Taisho periods are a different matter. Meiji Japan to me represented a fine balance between liberalism and conservatism for a primitive society, which persisted in the Taisho period. Economic, bureaucratic, and military modernization were pursued, but traditional landed nobility remained in control. Rather reminiscent of the Kaiserreich...although the domestic population was treated much more poorly.

In the Showa era Japan simply went nuts, much like Germany under the NSDAP became increasingly nuts. Factional representation in parliament was eliminated, which had the advantage of unity but the disadvantage of reinforcing groupthink and preventing independent criticism from challenging and improving policy. This is a serious problem with all dictatorships.

Education and propaganda became so monolithic and propagandistic that the Japanese lost grip on reality. Even the senior leadership believed in this nonsense, aside from Yamamoto owing to his significant experience in the United States. The Japanese high command seriously believed that the United States and Britain were so morally weak and effeminate that they would give way under a great banzai across the Pacific.

The situation was even worse among junior officers, who because of their "patriotism" routinely threatened the stability of the state with attempts at coup d'etats. During the war, as I've mentioned elsewhere, junior officers routinely countermanded orders from their superiors they deemed insufficiently "patriotic" and squandered themselves in "patriotic" offensives against prepared defensive positions and overwhelming firepower.

I can't see much to appreciate in Japan domestically in that period. While the economic controls instituted by Showa technocrats succeeded in boosting electricity production and modernized a few heavy industries critical for the military-industrial complex, there were no market incentives for industrial investment and private capital became more, not less, dependent on agriculture. Land in Japan was owned by a few hundred landlords who brutally exploited their peasant tenants for a guaranteed rate of return. The peasants in turn were malnourished, as their diet consisted primarily of inadequate amounts of rice and millet. Adequate amounts would've threatened the profits of the landlords.

So I see Showa Japan as a sinister military dictatorship in which ordinary peasants were compelled to make extraordinary sacrifices for a delusional elite that was frankly out of touch of reality.

Ignoring the matter of ideological affinity, while I have nothing but respect for the Japanese as a great nation, I firmly believe in a European-dominated world order.

As for the matter of Europe, I am sympathetic to this argument. However, bear in mind that the geopolitical interests of the United States dictate that we must prevent the rise of a hegemonic power in Eurasia. Prior to the awakening of China, only a hegemonic Eurasian power could plausibly challenge the United States for global hegemony. While I like you am much more sympathetic to Germany than Russia, there is no difference for us between a Germany that stretches to the Urals or a Russia that stretches to the Rhine. And I suspect that victorious Germans would've provided more formidable global competition than the Soviet Union was able to muster.

The disintegration of European colonial empires was made-in-USA, and a tremendous strategic mistake which continues to haunt us to this day. Once sleepy parts of the world which were safe havens for European capital and military influence are now arenas of intense geopolitical competition and filled with anti-European ideologies.
#13820958
A war between the British Empire and the USA in the 1930's would have been interesting. In theory the USA had a very strong hand because it can invade Canada, but in truth the entire war would hinge on who won a battle in the Atlantic.

If the US won, then Canada would be difficult to save. If Britain won, then the east coast would have been wide open to British attack. One point to note, is the USA didn't have many carriers in the early to mid 1930's. In tonnage they may have had parity, but not in carriers which were critical.
#13820964
I'm not sure how critical aircraft carriers would've been in the early to middle 1930s. Aircraft at that time had limited range, speed, and payload capabilities. Certainly they could do damage, but nothing like what was seen in the 1940s. You're not looking at an island-hopping campaign either, since the North Atlantic is the main theater. The war would be much more Mahanian than the Pacific War was, so battlefleets matter. Very few battleships underway during the war were sunk by aircraft--more battleships underway were sunk by gunfire and submarines. Where battleships underway were sunk by aircraft, it was often against overwhelming odds...such as when the Yamato was attacked by 400 aircraft and struck with 27 torpedoes and 18 armor piercing bombs.
#13983699
Reading Goons masturbatory fantasy about the US defeating the UK and Canadians defecting en mass due to a 19th century letter is hilarious.

These little fantasies lead to idiotic amateur invasions of Canada by Fenians with the usual catastrophic defeats and utter failure of any sort of Anti-British uprising.

In reality we are dealing with 1930 with the USA in the depth of the great depression and a President (Hoover) who ceased the Roosevelt Corrollary and maintained a non intervention policy consistent with Republican policy. There is no chance that an invasion is actually politically feasable in almost any circumstace beyond Britain actually initiating war.
#13983875
hounded wrote:Reading Goons masturbatory fantasy about the US defeating the UK and Canadians defecting en mass due to a 19th century letter is hilarious.


TIG, in this very thread, wrote:I never said that [any side would win or lose]. However, the Canadian elites and London were worried about Canadian people in general defecting to the US en masse. It was actually such a concern that it flavoured the Home Rule movement - which is why I know anything about it.


hounded wrote:In reality we are dealing with 1930 with the USA in the depth of the great depression and a President (Hoover) who ceased the Roosevelt Corrollary and maintained a non intervention policy consistent with Republican policy. There is no chance that an invasion is actually politically feasable in almost any circumstace beyond Britain actually initiating war.


TIG, in this very thread, wrote:I'm not saying that we need to assume that they would be enemies - but dismissing 200 years of antagonism as something that would inevitably end simply because it did end is...poor history I think.
#13984132
It was actually such a concern that it flavoured the Home Rule movement - which is why I know anything about it.

Amusingly the action that galvinised the Provinces of Canada was outrage against the cross border raids by Fenians and the murder of Canadian citizens they committed.

You are a very poor historian indeed if your evidence consists of one letter 40 years out of date that merely expresses an opinion.

Really , of course, you are a poor historian because your obsessive anglophobia colours everything you look at.


If for some odd reason that the USA did invade Canada unless the USA won a lightning victory then the US public would very quickly object to another war of attrition with nothing to gain. Carrier warfare is irrelevant to 1930 any battles would be decided by ship to ship combat because the air deployed torpedo hadn't been properly developed.

Japan almost certainly would quickly re- ally with the UK which would put their pacific interests at risk. Any war would achieve stalemate and armistice.

It has already been explained that this type of c[…]

For me Republicanism is masculine and monarchism i[…]

Please provide it again. You have no problem aski[…]

Sure, keep thinking that. Election year is caus[…]