The Official World War II Thread

[happyone]

[QUOTE=Moliere;599192]Taken today






I see you visited St. Mere Eglise - When my brother and I went to Normandy a couple of years ago we stayed in a B&B about 1/2 mile from that church. It is really sobering to visit the beaches and the cemeteries.

[happyone]

I think Japan would not have been checked by anyone so long as they did not threaten any colonial possessions.

Hong Kong, Singapore and India by the British

Vietnam by the French

Phillipines and Hawaii by US.

If they stayed out of those countries I believe the world would have turned a blind eye to what they were doing in Manchuria.

I'm not to sure about that - the US gov't had a fairly active China lobby and by the late '30s was getting really concerned about Japanese expansion in China - that is what the embargos were about, that and their treatment of Nanking. The war might not have happened a quickly and it did, but I think it would have come eventually.

[LA Ute]

I think Japan would not have been checked by anyone so long as they did not threaten any colonial possessions.

Hong Kong, Singapore and India by the British

Vietnam by the French

Phillipines and Hawaii by US.

If they stayed out of those countries I believe the world would have turned a blind eye to what they were doing in Manchuria.

Many assumptions there, including that the USA and others would have ceded control of shipping lanes to a warlike Japan. And that's just for starters.

[Flattop]

I'm a bit late with this, but. . . .

As long as Japan's war was confined to China, the most the U.S., England or anyone else would have done is enforce embargoes. Without the fall of France to Germany, Japan would not have occupied French Indochina. Without a major war going on in Europe between Germany, England and Russia, Japan would never have been so bold as to attack British, Dutch and American possessions.

[Flattop]

"Unconditional Surrender" Grant -- The FDR Version

http://flattopshistorywarpolitics.yu...he-FDR-Version

[Borderline Divine]

I'm a bit late with this, but. . . .

As long as Japan's war was confined to China, the most the U.S., England or anyone else would have done is enforce embargoes. Without the fall of France to Germany, Japan would not have occupied French Indochina. Without a major war going on in Europe between Germany, England and Russia, Japan would never have been so bold as to attack British, Dutch and American possessions.

Which is what I meant to say, you just said it much better. And I'm not clear on what LA means re: shipping lanes. Why would Japan block shipping lanes of non-belligerents? Particularly if that meant they would remain non-belligerents?

Pre-Pearl Harbor, anti-war sentiment in the US was huge. FDR couldn't even get us into the European conflict, let alone interest Americans in fighting Japan all over the South Pacific.

[Eddie]

Which is what I meant to say, you just said it much better. And I'm not clear on what LA means re: shipping lanes. Why would Japan block shipping lanes of non-belligerents? Particularly if that meant they would remain non-belligerents?

Pre-Pearl Harbor, anti-war sentiment in the US was huge. FDR couldn't even get us into the European conflict, let alone interest Americans in fighting Japan all over the South Pacific.

Sure, there was anti-war sentiment.

But isn't it also true that there were volunteers who were signing up to fight prior to the US officially entering the war? Perhaps not enlisted soldiers, but at least pilots were.

[LA Ute]

I think Japan would not have been checked by anyone so long as they did not threaten any colonial possessions.

Hong Kong, Singapore and India by the British

Vietnam by the French

Phillipines and Hawaii by US.

If they stayed out of those countries I believe the world would have turned a blind eye to what they were doing in Manchuria.

I don't know what you are trying to say here. Is it that powerless China was being oppressed and the only reason the military powers of the era got involved on China's behalf was because those powers' interests were threatened? If so, I don't see what's new about that in world history. It's not glorious but it's been going on for a long time. In the end the USA did the right thing in WWII and paid a terrible price to do so. Do you disagree?

[Borderline Divine]

Sure, there was anti-war sentiment.

But isn't it also true that there were volunteers who were signing up to fight prior to the US officially entering the war? Perhaps not enlisted soldiers, but at least pilots were.

True, and in both theatres of the war. This was also true in WW1 as young Americans signed up to fight Germany as private citizens. Also true of the Spanish Civil War.

But there was zero political will prior to Pearl Harbor on either side of the aisle. Just finished re-reading "A Traitor To His Class" about FDR and am pretty confident in my case here although others are welcome to disagree.

[Borderline Divine]

I don't know what you are trying to say here. Is it that powerless China was being oppressed and the only reason the military powers of the era got involved on China's behalf was because those powers' interests were threatened? If so, I don't see what's new about that in world history. It's not glorious but it's been going on for a long time. In the end the USA did the right thing in WWII and paid a terrible price to do so. Do you disagree?

Yes that is what I mean. While there was indignation about Japan's naked invasion of a prostrate China - particularly after the rape of Nanking - in my opinion none of the major powers would have overtly done a thing to check Japan militarily. The only possible exception to that may have been Russia if she felt her southern flank threatened, but the motherland had her hands rather full on the western front.

And no, nothing new here at all. The Allies only came to the defense of China because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Of course I agree that the US did the right thing in WW2. But just like every other country since the dawn of time we did it out of pure self interest. And I see nothing wrong with that.

[Flattop]

Sure, there was anti-war sentiment.

But isn't it also true that there were volunteers who were signing up to fight prior to the US officially entering the war? Perhaps not enlisted soldiers, but at least pilots were.

There were relatively small handfuls of volunteers, and many of the pilots were U.S. military officers who resigned their commissions to join the Eagle Squadrons in Britain or the American Volunteer Group in China.

Meanwhile, German U-boat attacks on American destroyers in the Atlantic did not draw America into the war.

[happyone]

I think Japan would not have been checked by anyone so long as they did not threaten any colonial possessions.

Hong Kong, Singapore and India by the British

Vietnam by the French

Phillipines and Hawaii by US.

If they stayed out of those countries I believe the world would have turned a blind eye to what they were doing in Manchuria.

I don't think Japan would have stopped at China no matter what was happening in Europe. The Army had the bit in its teeth and they were bound and determined to set up the Great Asia Co Prosperity Sphere. From what I understand they wanted Malayasia's oil and rubber resources to have a secure supplies of those critical resources and not to be dependant on anyone else.

[CJF]

My family and I are headed to Corregidor on Monday. We are going to try to squeeze in a tour on Bataan Tuesday. I'm really looking forward to seeing this piece of WWII history.

[Flattop]

I don't think Japan would have stopped at China no matter what was happening in Europe. The Army had the bit in its teeth and they were bound and determined to set up the Great Asia Co Prosperity Sphere. From what I understand they wanted Malayasia's oil and rubber resources to have a secure supplies of those critical resources and not to be dependant on anyone else.

Japan didn't start looking south until the fall of France. Up to the point the Army seemed to be more interested in fighting Russia in Mongolia.

Additionally, without a war in Europe, I do not believe that the Navy could have been persuaded to go to war against Britain and the United States.

[Flattop]

Barbarossa Month.

Tomorrow marks the 70th anniversary of Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union. Link:

http://flattopshistorywarpolitics.yu...ster/1/?page=1