Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

Yes, the German and Japanese Empires would have taken its place. Hence the problem. You really can't be blaise about a population equivalent in size to the USSR in 1990 coming under the thrall of the Axis without seeing it as a significant problem for the other two superpowers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 647
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hence the idea we 'dragged them into the war' is ridiculous. The worst you can accuse Churchill of is pointing out the dangers to the US if Britain fell, not least the worlds largest fleet being split between the Japs and the Germans. Roosevelt understood that at an early stage. Churchill's efforts to campaign to get the US into the war were, looking back, a complete failure. It was the crass stupidity of the Japanese and the Germans that made it a reality.

There is a really great episode of the World at War, where they interviewed John Kenneth Galbraith, and he talked about a meeting among really smart people (in those days they really were) discussing how to get America into the war against Germany after being bombed by Japan. They talked for several hours, couldnt figure out a way to do it. Then they got a message, Hitler had declared war on them. Talk about making it easy....

I know reinventing  facts these days is very popular, but these are well known facts. They shouldnt need repeating on an open forum, particularly to people undoubtedly smart enough to know better.

 

As for closeness to the US, ive related before that US Coastal Artillery batteries had models of British warships for familiarization purposes. There is a reason for that, and it wasnt to ensure they didnt shoot at allies. The near cold war between the US and the British Empire through the 1930's was all but erased by the close relationship in the 1940's. But that doesnt mean it didnt happen. It was Roosevelts campaign to get access to the British Empire for American goods, to offset the depression.

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 5 year long weapons embargo has ended today.
 

Quote

 

TEHERAN (AFP) - A longstanding United Nations embargo on arms sales to and from Iran expired early Sunday (Oct 18) in line with a 2015 landmark nuclear deal, the Iranian foreign ministry said.

“As of today, all restrictions on the transfer of arms, related activities and financial services to and from the Islamic Republic of Iran ... are all automatically terminated,” the ministry said in a statement.

The embargo on the sale of arms to Iran was due to start expiring progressively from Sunday, Oct 18, under the terms of the UN resolution that blessed the 2015 nuclear deal between the Islamic republic and world powers.

“As of today, the Islamic Republic may procure any necessary arms and equipment from any source without any legal restrictions, and solely based on its defensive needs,” the ministry added in the statement sent out on Twitter.

It insisted that under the terms of the deal, struck with the United States, China, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the European Union, “the lifting of arms restrictions and the travel ban were designed to be automatic with no other action required”.

US President Donald Trump withdrew his country from the deal in 2018 and has unilaterally begun reimposing sanctions on Iran.

But Washington suffered a setback in August when it failed to win support from the United Nations Security Council to indefinitely extend the arms embargo.

It was “a momentous day for the international community”, the Iranian ministry said on Sunday, adding the world had stood with Teheran “in defiance of the US regime’s efforts”.

But it stressed that “unconventional arms, weapons of mass destruction and a buying spree of conventional arms have no place in Iran’s defence doctrine”.

Despite pulling out of the deal, the Trump administration insists it is still a “participant” and can therefore go ahead with reimposing sanctions.

Washington has said it has decided to unilaterally reinstate virtually all of the UN sanctions on Iran lifted under the accord.

But the US legal argument has been rejected by almost the entire UN Security Council, with European allies of the US saying the priority is to salvage a peaceful solution to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Moscow said in September that it was ready to boost its military cooperation with Teheran, while Beijing has also spoken of its willingness to sell arms to Iran after Oct 18.

Washington maintained it will seek to prevent Iran from purchasing Chinese tanks and Russian air defence systems.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said in a tweet that the international community had “protected” the nuclear deal and Sunday marked the “normalisation of Iran’s cooperation with the world”.

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/middle-east/iran-says-un-arms-embargo-on-teheran-has-been-lifted

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2020 at 2:48 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Hence the idea we 'dragged them into the war' is ridiculous. The worst you can accuse Churchill of is pointing out the dangers to the US if Britain fell, not least the worlds largest fleet being split between the Japs and the Germans.

Huh, I didn't realize you thought Sealion could have worked.  Was under the impression from the hundreds of posts you made to the opposite conclusion that you believe an invasion of England was rather out of the question.  

In terms of Churchill's attempts to get the US into the war, he did what was necessary, which was simply to continue the war and hope that the Americans joined it sooner or later.  The alternative option was to make peace in 1940 in the west between the Germans, French, and British, and let the Germans have a go at the Soviet Union in the east in 1941 even while the US ramped up production and made its own alliances in Europe.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said anything about Sealion? There was a Battle of the Atlantic and a North African campaign going on before America got into the war you know. In theory we could have lost one or both of those, which would have proven catastrophic to the UK, even without the Germans having to put a foot on UK soil.

That is, assuming the fiendish Swedish navy didn't get involved. :)

Oh, we campaigned, or lobbied, to change the US mindset. One such effort was the British film industry, where we made films like 'That Damned Hamilton woman' and one of my favourites, '49th Parallel'. We also had a unit that was ostensibly part of MI6 feeding good news stories to American media outlets about the UK, or bad ones about the Germans. Fake news about 70 years before its time, except we were concentrating on true stories (what a concept)

. But the idea we dragged them into the war, Id like to ask, how? We couldn't keep them onside in 1776, it hardly seems credible we suddenly had the ability 165 years to drag them into a war they resisted. And we didn't, because quite clearly the Japanese and the Germans declared war on them first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

...

 

. But the idea we dragged them into the war, Id like to ask, how? We couldn't keep them onside in 1776, it hardly seems credible we suddenly had the ability 165 years to drag them into a war they resisted. And we didn't, because quite clearly the Japanese and the Germans declared war on them first.

The FDR administration made policy to favor the Nationalists Chinese. If the US had taken a neutral stance in Asia, then Japan would have not taken hostile action towards the US or the South East Asia colonies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JasonJ said:

The FDR administration made policy to favor the Nationalists Chinese. If the US had taken a neutral stance in Asia, then Japan would have not taken hostile action towards the US or the South East Asia colonies.

Nonsense. The Japanese were in the process of conquering China and South East Asia, and a neutral US stance would not have changed that. Furthermore, Japan would certainly have invaded Malaya, British Borneo, the NEI (modern Indonesia) for the resources they desperately needed. In any event, the U.S.-British Staff Conference (ABC-1) early 1941 committed the USA to entering the war on the Allied side if the Japanese entered the war by invading the British and Dutch colonies in SE Asia.

--

Leo

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Leo Niehorster said:

Nonsense. The Japanese were in the process of conquering China and South East Asia, and a neutral US stance would not have changed that. Furthermore, Japan would certainly have invaded Malaya, British Borneo, the NEI (modern Indonesia) for the resources they desperately needed. In any event, the U.S.-British Staff Conference (ABC-1) early 1941 committed the USA to entering the war on the Allied side if the Japanese entered the war by invading the British and Dutch colonies in SE Asia.

--

Leo

Nonsense. The Konoye government made efforts to meet with the FDR administration after the oil embargo was put in place but the FDR side made no such efforts to meet. Afterall, the FDR administration didn't recognize the Manchuria puppet state but as a response, gave recognition to the Soviet Union instead. So the "out of China" would also mean out of Manchuria. Quite a massive demand that any country's Navy ought to defend against.

--

Jason

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Who said anything about Sealion? There was a Battle of the Atlantic and a North African campaign going on before America got into the war you know. In theory we could have lost one or both of those, which would have proven catastrophic to the UK, even without the Germans having to put a foot on UK soil.

The British fleet could not possibly fall into German hands unless the UK itself was conquered.  Ergo, you are saying that either you or Churchill was advocating Sealion or that Churchill was just spinning yarns in hope for an effect.

Quote

That is, assuming the fiendish Swedish navy didn't get involved. :)

Odd in Sealion discussions how dumbfuckery such as Chunnels are merrily discussed, but routine and possible things such as Germany using its victory over France to compel Spain and Sweden to declare war on the UK are mocked.  The fine line between traditionalism and dogma, I suppose.

The most interesting Sealion scenario, BTW, is one in which the Germans do not invade The Netherlands in 1940 and win the Battle of France with this country also neutral.

Quote

. But the idea we dragged them into the war, Id like to ask, how? We couldn't keep them onside in 1776, it hardly seems credible we suddenly had the ability 165 years to drag them into a war they resisted. And we didn't, because quite clearly the Japanese and the Germans declared war on them first.

The Americans entered the war for their interests and with their own agenda.  I completely agree with you that the British did not "drag them in".  This was simply beyond Britain's power to do.

Edited by glenn239
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Leo Niehorster said:

Nonsense. The Japanese were in the process of conquering China and South East Asia, and a neutral US stance would not have changed that. Furthermore, Japan would certainly have invaded Malaya, British Borneo, the NEI (modern Indonesia) for the resources they desperately needed. In any event, the U.S.-British Staff Conference (ABC-1) early 1941 committed the USA to entering the war on the Allied side if the Japanese entered the war by invading the British and Dutch colonies in SE Asia.

--

Leo

I don't think the Japanese were capable of conquering China.  They'd bitten off more than they could chew and knew it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, JasonJ said:

Nonsense. The Konoye government made efforts to meet with the FDR administration after the oil embargo was put in place but the FDR side made no such efforts to meet. Afterall, the FDR administration didn't recognize the Manchuria puppet state but as a response, gave recognition to the Soviet Union instead. So the "out of China" would also mean out of Manchuria. Quite a massive demand that any country's Navy ought to defend against.

--

Jason

Agreed that the FDR administration meant "out of Manchuria" as part of being "out of China", because the US position was that China had one government, and Manchukuo was certainly Chinese territory.

Tojo would shake his head at the stupidity of American policy, that they did not understand why the existence of Manchukuo was vital to the United States as well as to Japan.   As I've said before, the Republic of Manchukuo would look pretty good on a map of Asia in 2020.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JasonJ said:

Nonsense. The Konoye government made efforts to meet with the FDR administration after the oil embargo was put in place but the FDR side made no such efforts to meet. Afterall, the FDR administration didn't recognize the Manchuria puppet state but as a response, gave recognition to the Soviet Union instead. So the "out of China" would also mean out of Manchuria. Quite a massive demand that any country's Navy ought to defend against.

--

Jason

There was no intent on the Japanese side to compromise. The Japanese insisted that they should be allowed to keep what they had conquered. As you write, FDR firmly stated that there was no way he would lift the embargoes until the Japanese relinquished their occupation of China, Manchuria included. Are you suggesting that the Allies should have allowed the Japanese to keep what they had forcibly taken? Never happen. So, the raw material extreme shortages would not go away. And those were in the British and Dutch colonies. No way the Japanese were going to abandon their plans for becoming a world power, and that was only possibly with the those raw materials. French Indo-China was already de-facto conquered. The Dutch were not going to sell the Japanese oil, so the Japanese were going to have to go and take it if they wanted any. Ditto to the British colonies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Leo Niehorster said:

There was no intent on the Japanese side to compromise. The Japanese insisted that they should be allowed to keep what they had conquered. As you write, FDR firmly stated that there was no way he would lift the embargoes until the Japanese relinquished their occupation of China, Manchuria included. Are you suggesting that the Allies should have allowed the Japanese to keep what they had forcibly taken? Never happen. So, the raw material extreme shortages would not go away. And those were in the British and Dutch colonies. No way the Japanese were going to abandon their plans for becoming a world power, and that was only possibly with the those raw materials. French Indo-China was already de-facto conquered. The Dutch were not going to sell the Japanese oil, so the Japanese were going to have to go and take it if they wanted any. Ditto to the British colonies.

Exactly. Had the US been neutral, there would have been no hostile action by Japan against the US.

 

What is China? What about Tibet? They didn't want to be part of it. What about Mongolia, it was part of the Qing dynasty just like Manchuria. The SU set up a puppuet regime in there by 1925. At the same time, Manchuria was controlled not by the KMT but by one of China warlords, the Fangtien Clique. But their economy fell apart by 1928 and the KMT never came in to fill the void. The SU reasserted control of an old Russian built railway in Manchuria. Harbin was built more so by old Russia than the Chinese. The Japanese were not justified to take Manchuria. But in a world of empires, they were in no way more wrong than any of the other world powers. Thus a none neutral US posture against Japan was not justified either. Big boy power play that's all. From a historical perspective, why take any side at all? Just an ehco chamber of old WW2 victor's narrative. Surely the region today can't speak positively about the result. Even the PRC today scores worse than 1930s Imperial Japan in the democracy score card. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Leo Niehorster said:

There was no intent on the Japanese side to compromise. The Japanese insisted that they should be allowed to keep what they had conquered. As you write, FDR firmly stated that there was no way he would lift the embargoes until the Japanese relinquished their occupation of China, Manchuria included. Are you suggesting that the Allies should have allowed the Japanese to keep what they had forcibly taken? Never happen. So, the raw material extreme shortages would not go away. And those were in the British and Dutch colonies. No way the Japanese were going to abandon their plans for becoming a world power, and that was only possibly with the those raw materials. French Indo-China was already de-facto conquered. The Dutch were not going to sell the Japanese oil, so the Japanese were going to have to go and take it if they wanted any. Ditto to the British colonies.

Other than Anglo-American pressure, why wouldn't the Dutch sell oil to Japan?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JasonJ said:

The Japanese were not justified to take Manchuria. But in a world of empires, they were in no way more wrong than any of the other world powers.

I have to chime in here. During the 1920s USA was isolationistic and didn't care what USSR was doing in China. During 1930s USA  had a Marxist President who felt more threatened by Tokyo than by Moscow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Soviets weren't putting pressure on China in the twenties, but the Japanese were and had been for decades.  The far from left wing leadership of the USN saw Japan as a threat since 1919 if not earlier.  The Soviets didn't carve off a chunk of China to form a puppet state then a few years later, invade China with startling brutality.

No matter how "Marxist" you think FDR was, Japan was clearly a more direct threat to American and Western interests than the Soviets then as were the Germans in Europe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, R011 said:

The Soviets weren't putting pressure on China in the twenties, but the Japanese were and had been for decades.  The far from left wing leadership of the USN saw Japan as a threat since 1919 if not earlier.  The Soviets didn't carve off a chunk of China to form a puppet state then a few years later, invade China with startling brutality.

No matter how "Marxist" you think FDR was, Japan was clearly a more direct threat to American and Western interests than the Soviets then as were the Germans in Europe.

Further, the IJN looked around after the Russo-Japanese War and decided its next likely enemy was the USN, and started to build with the US as enemy, irrespective of politics. Just that would put the Japanese on a collision course with the US, if only because they had the capability to menace US possesions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, R011 said:

The Soviets weren't putting pressure on China in the twenties, but the Japanese were and had been for decades.  The far from left wing leadership of the USN saw Japan as a threat since 1919 if not earlier.  The Soviets didn't carve off a chunk of China to form a puppet state then a few years later, invade China with startling brutality.

No matter how "Marxist" you think FDR was, Japan was clearly a more direct threat to American and Western interests than the Soviets then as were the Germans in Europe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Soviet_Republic

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...