Right Wing Discussion Thread XIX

[Novus America]

So the U.S. keeps supplying Lend Lease but doesn't directly send forces? What stance on Japan?

We'd have to not piss them off and keep selling them oil. Just to turn the heat up on them though, I would say we probably jack up the prices. No reason to attack us, but they aren't just getting oceans of oil like they had been before.

Come our entry into the war, we turn the table and surprise attack them!

The price they should have to pay is leaving China alone and giving us the Pacific Ocean mandate.
Otherwise it is not a deal that would be worth it.

[Totally Not OEP]

Frees the IJA up to attack the Soviet Far East, cutting off that supply of oil while without U.S. logistical support the Persian Route is non-viable. Entirely likely the USSR collapses in 1942 or 1943, with just Britain barely left in the game by 1944.

I don't think Japan would do that. The majority of the IJA was already bogged down fighting a forever war in China, with other rather large contingents fighting in Southeast Asia. Adding the Soviet Far East Army would have been another huge undertaking for the Japs, one which I doubt they would have pursued. This, even without the US involvement.

By 1941, they had only mobilized about 1.5 million; over the course of WWII they would eventually raised over 8 million troops in ~270 divisions. Preparations historically were well underway for a strike North, until the U.S. embargo forced their hand.

[Diopolis]

We'd have to not piss them off and keep selling them oil. Just to turn the heat up on them though, I would say we probably jack up the prices. No reason to attack us, but they aren't just getting oceans of oil like they had been before.

Come our entry into the war, we turn the table and surprise attack them!

The price they should have to pay is leaving China alone and giving us the Pacific Ocean mandate.
Otherwise it is not a deal that would be worth it.

Cleansing the world of communism is always worth it.

[Joohan]

We'd have to not piss them off and keep selling them oil. Just to turn the heat up on them though, I would say we probably jack up the prices. No reason to attack us, but they aren't just getting oceans of oil like they had been before.

Come our entry into the war, we turn the table and surprise attack them!

The price they should have to pay is leaving China alone and giving us the Pacific Ocean mandate.
Otherwise it is not a deal that would be worth it.

We're gonna take it from them anyways after we begin: Operation Scott Pilgrim, and invade the world in 1944. Moralizing too soon and we just end up repeating OTL.

America must rule the waves!!!

[Novus America]

Why not just stay out of the war until 1944 and attack everyone? Japan still would have lost most of it's professional armies fighting in China. Germany would still be recruiting 16 year olds to fight on the Eastern front ( and maybe in Africa too if the Allies didn't drive out Rommel ). The Soviet Union would still be throwing 3rd echelon level division against the Wehrmacht meat grinder. Italy... hehe... Italy would still be Italy.

At this point, the Axis and the Soviets are way to committed to stop fighting each other - so it's pretty much a guarantee that they won't unite against us. We join the war at a point were all the bad guys are on their last limb and we're farm fresh with the world's biggest industry by leagues, a massive healthy population, and the are on the cusp of atomic weapons.

Scott Pilgram America vs the world. America Rules the waves!

I mean this is a pretty entertaining idea, although I like the concept I do not think it would be politically viable.

Although we should have demanded more. Actually France offered to sell its Pacific Islands to us in exchange for aircraft at the beginning of the war. We could have and should have required the UK and France give us their pacific and Caribbean colonies in exchange for all we have them.

[Totally Not OEP]

The Communists won in China because the KMT failed. Japan provided a check on the USSR in the Pacific and was our main trading partner in the region anyway.

The KMT failed because the Japanese destroyed it.
The KMT was winning before the Japanese invasion which was completely unjustified and so disgusting even the Nazis found it shocking.

Japan started the conflict with us and their desire to dominate the West Pacific meant they were going to go after the Philippines and Guam.

Just because they bough oil does not mean they were our friend.

Besides China was buying our stuff too, until Japan cut off our trade with China.

The Japanese didn't destroy the KMT, KMT incompetence and the lack of U.S. support did that. By 1946, they had confined the CCP as an organized fighting force and then completely botched their attempt to eliminate it; even General Marshall was telling them not to do it.

The Japanese were our main trading partners in the Pacific, and were content to focus on China and the USSR until faced with the unavoidable prospect of war following American sanctions. Even then, most everyone but certain elements of the Navy were in favor of not attacking the United States. Unquestionable Japan's conduct was horrendous in China, but that's besides the point of a strategic calculation.

[Novus America]

The price they should have to pay is leaving China alone and giving us the Pacific Ocean mandate.
Otherwise it is not a deal that would be worth it.

Cleansing the world of communism is always worth it.

The KMT was the bulwark against communism in Asia.

[Joohan]

Why not just stay out of the war until 1944 and attack everyone? Japan still would have lost most of it's professional armies fighting in China. Germany would still be recruiting 16 year olds to fight on the Eastern front ( and maybe in Africa too if the Allies didn't drive out Rommel ). The Soviet Union would still be throwing 3rd echelon level division against the Wehrmacht meat grinder. Italy... hehe... Italy would still be Italy.

At this point, the Axis and the Soviets are way to committed to stop fighting each other - so it's pretty much a guarantee that they won't unite against us. We join the war at a point were all the bad guys are on their last limb and we're farm fresh with the world's biggest industry by leagues, a massive healthy population, and the are on the cusp of atomic weapons.

Scott Pilgram America vs the world. America Rules the waves!

I mean this is a pretty entertaining idea, although I like the concept I do not think it would be politically viable.

Emperor Roosevelt wants to know your location...

[Diopolis]

Cleansing the world of communism is always worth it.

The KMT was the bulwark against communism in Asia.

And we lacked the stomach to let MacArthur cleanse the chicoms when it was our turn. We didn't support the KMT against them either. The IJA, for all their flaws, would've destroyed the chicoms had they won. The KMT didn't.

[Totally Not OEP]

Cleansing the world of communism is always worth it.

The KMT was the bulwark against communism in Asia.

That would be Imperial Japan, which was the central focus of the USSR all the way until 1938/1938 when events in Europe necessitated a re-focusing. The KMT break with the Communists didn't occurr until the late 1920s, and even then a Left Wing faction, which enjoyed Soviet support, continued; there's a reason Stalin was ambivalent with Mao between 1945-1949.

[Novus America]

The KMT failed because the Japanese destroyed it.
The KMT was winning before the Japanese invasion which was completely unjustified and so disgusting even the Nazis found it shocking.

Japan started the conflict with us and their desire to dominate the West Pacific meant they were going to go after the Philippines and Guam.

Just because they bough oil does not mean they were our friend.

Besides China was buying our stuff too, until Japan cut off our trade with China.

The Japanese didn't destroy the KMT, KMT incompetence and the lack of U.S. support did that. By 1946, they had confined the CCP as an organized fighting force and then completely botched their attempt to eliminate it; even General Marshall was telling them not to do it.

The Japanese were our main trading partners in the Pacific, and were content to focus on China and the USSR until faced with the unavoidable prospect of war following American sanctions. Even then, most everyone but certain elements of the Navy were in favor of not attacking the United States. Unquestionable Japan's conduct was horrendous in China, but that's besides the point of a strategic calculation.

They did, although sure the KMT screwed up in 1946 this was because they had been so damaged and divided by the Japanese attacks, and they had lost literally millions on soldiers killed.

If not for Japanese insanity the KMT would have crushed Mao by 1938.

The Japanese attack on Japan was an attack on our interests in Japan, the Japanese Pacific Mandate was a strategic threat, and they viewed Guam and the Philippines as a threat.

Conflict between us was pretty much inevitable it was just a matter of when.

[Novus America]

The KMT was the bulwark against communism in Asia.

That would be Imperial Japan, which was the central focus of the USSR all the way until 1938/1938 when events in Europe necessitated a re-focusing. The KMT break with the Communists didn't occurr until the late 1920s, and even then a Left Wing faction, which enjoyed Soviet support, continued; there's a reason Stalin was ambivalent with Mao between 1945-1949.

Imperial Japan which did absolutely nothing to fight the Soviets after their defeat in Manchuria?
Who destroyed China for no good reason? Even destroying a US ship in the process?

Sure the KMT early on were ambivalent at first but by the 30s were keeping a check on the Soviets.
The Japanese invasion of China was completely wrong and a strategic and economic threat to our interests in China.

That had it not happened Mao would be crushed by 38.

[Pyrghium]

America must rule the waves!!!

And I thought that was Momma Britain’s job...

[Novus America]

The price they should have to pay is leaving China alone and giving us the Pacific Ocean mandate.
Otherwise it is not a deal that would be worth it.

We're gonna take it from them anyways after we begin: Operation Scott Pilgrim, and invade the world in 1944. Moralizing too soon and we just end up repeating OTL.

America must rule the waves!!!

I mean this is a cool idea, although again not really political feasible.

[Pyrghium]

We're gonna take it from them anyways after we begin: Operation Scott Pilgrim, and invade the world in 1944. Moralizing too soon and we just end up repeating OTL.

America must rule the waves!!!

I mean this is a cool idea, although again not really political feasible.

I see nothing has changed since I left...

[Diopolis]

We're gonna take it from them anyways after we begin: Operation Scott Pilgrim, and invade the world in 1944. Moralizing too soon and we just end up repeating OTL.

America must rule the waves!!!

I mean this is a cool idea, although again not really political feasible.

Political feasibility is relevant to this thread now?

[Totally Not OEP]

The Japanese didn't destroy the KMT, KMT incompetence and the lack of U.S. support did that. By 1946, they had confined the CCP as an organized fighting force and then completely botched their attempt to eliminate it; even General Marshall was telling them not to do it.

The Japanese were our main trading partners in the Pacific, and were content to focus on China and the USSR until faced with the unavoidable prospect of war following American sanctions. Even then, most everyone but certain elements of the Navy were in favor of not attacking the United States. Unquestionable Japan's conduct was horrendous in China, but that's besides the point of a strategic calculation.

They did, although sure the KMT screwed up in 1946 this was because they had been so damaged and divided by the Japanese attacks, and they had lost literally millions on soldiers killed.

If not for Japanese insanity the KMT would have crushed Mao by 1938.

The Japanese attack on Japan was an attack on our interests in Japan, the Japanese Pacific Mandate was a strategic threat, and they viewed Guam and the Philippines as a threat.

Conflict between us was pretty much inevitable it was just a matter of when.

Everyone but Yamamoto in the Japanese Government was in favor of not attacking the United States. Likewise, by 1945 U.S. aid had saw the KMT developed as a force that could push back against the Japanese and then successfully conduct operations against the Communists until they botched the Manchurian op. The only ones who deserve blame for that at the KMT itself and possibly the United States; either we needed to go all in-or prevent them from over-extending themselves.

[Totally Not OEP]

That would be Imperial Japan, which was the central focus of the USSR all the way until 1938/1938 when events in Europe necessitated a re-focusing. The KMT break with the Communists didn't occurr until the late 1920s, and even then a Left Wing faction, which enjoyed Soviet support, continued; there's a reason Stalin was ambivalent with Mao between 1945-1949.

Imperial Japan which did absolutely nothing to fight the Soviets after their defeat in Manchuria?
Who destroyed China for no good reason? Even destroying a US ship in the process?

Sure the KMT early on were ambivalent at first but by the 30s were keeping a check on the Soviets.
The Japanese invasion of China was completely wrong and a strategic and economic threat to our interests in China.

That had it not happened Mao would be crushed by 38.

Imperial Japan was the strategic focus of the Red Army throughout the 1920s and 1930s, being considered by Moscow as their most realistic threat and for which they responded to by placing the best units of the RKKA within the Far East to counter the Kwantung Army of the IJA. In 1937 along the Amur River and 1938 at Lake Khasan the IJA decisively rebuffed the Red Army and then in 1939 at Nomonhan achieved a strategic draw. From there, the IJA remained a going concern for Moscow, with STAVKA declining to enact force transfers until late 1941 based on intelligence from Richard Sorge. Until 1945, the Soviets steadfastly maintained a neutrality vis-a-vis Japan, including completely shutting down American efforts to establish bases in 1943 and 1944.

I make no morale judgement on China, as obviously and without question the conduct of the China Expeditionary Army was flawed, to understate the situation. That is, however, irrelevant in strategic calculations. Understood through the prism of Imperialism and economic development, it made perfect sense for Japan; it secured them resources, a strategic buffer and a captive market, just like the Europeans enjoyed in Africa and the United States in Latin America. I do not begrudge them that although, again, their conduct was without question morally wrong.

Still, I fail to see the rationale you're proposing here. The KMT only ever fought the Soviets twice, in 1934 and again in 1946. Both times they failed. I likewise fail to see the value of the Panay Incident, given I don't exactly see you wanting to blow Israel to hell over the U.S.S. Liberty.

[Novus America]

They did, although sure the KMT screwed up in 1946 this was because they had been so damaged and divided by the Japanese attacks, and they had lost literally millions on soldiers killed.

If not for Japanese insanity the KMT would have crushed Mao by 1938.

The Japanese attack on Japan was an attack on our interests in Japan, the Japanese Pacific Mandate was a strategic threat, and they viewed Guam and the Philippines as a threat.

Conflict between us was pretty much inevitable it was just a matter of when.

Everyone but Yamamoto in the Japanese Government was in favor of not attacking the United States. Likewise, by 1945 U.S. aid had saw the KMT developed as a force that could push back against the Japanese and then successfully conduct operations against the Communists until they botched the Manchurian op. The only ones who deserve blame for that at the KMT itself and possibly the United States; either we needed to go all in-or prevent them from over-extending themselves.

The KMT in 1945 was much worse off than in 1936.
The had been bled dry. Literally millions of troops, as well as their best trained divisions.

The exhausted conscripts in 1945 were not a great force.

And it was not just Yamamoto although he was the one of the main ones wanting and attack at that time. The others wanted to wait longer, but still wanted us out of the West Pacific. They just wanted to attack us further down the line.

Japan was a major strategic threat, their Pacific Mandate cutting is off from the Philippines and Guam, and their attack on China was an attack on our interests there, again they even attack US ships in China.

It was intolerable and unforgivable.

[Nakena]

KMT got as late as 1944 being completly wreckt by the japanese. Imagine this happening while Nazi Germany was overrun by the allied-soviet onslaught.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ichi-Go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-AIOTIrI1w

[Totally Not OEP]

Everyone but Yamamoto in the Japanese Government was in favor of not attacking the United States. Likewise, by 1945 U.S. aid had saw the KMT developed as a force that could push back against the Japanese and then successfully conduct operations against the Communists until they botched the Manchurian op. The only ones who deserve blame for that at the KMT itself and possibly the United States; either we needed to go all in-or prevent them from over-extending themselves.

The KMT in 1945 was much worse off than in 1936.
The had been bled dry. Literally millions of troops, as well as their best trained divisions.

The exhausted conscripts in 1945 were not a great force.

And it was not just Yamamoto although he was the one of the main ones wanting and attack at that time. The others wanted to wait longer, but still wanted us out of the West Pacific. They just wanted to attack us further down the line.

Japan was a major strategic threat, their Pacific Mandate cutting is off from the Philippines and Guam, and their attack on China was an attack on our interests there, again they even attack US ships in China.

It was intolerable and unforgivable.

The KMT was actually much better off in 1945, without question. During WWII, it had grown from 1-2 million to a force of eight million, with a degree of motorization equal to the Imperial Japanese Army it faced.

Again, I fail to see your rationale; our trade with Japan was much larger than China and they were not interfering with our SLOCs?

[Totally Not OEP]

KMT got as late as 1944 being completly wreckt by the japanese. Imagine this happening while Nazi Germany was overrun by the allied-soviet onslaught.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ichi-Go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-AIOTIrI1w

Had there been no Southwest Pacific Front, they would've undertaken Operation No. 5 in 1942 against the Sichuan Basin, which would've destroyed the Chinese as an organized fighting entity.

[Novus America]

Imperial Japan which did absolutely nothing to fight the Soviets after their defeat in Manchuria?
Who destroyed China for no good reason? Even destroying a US ship in the process?

Sure the KMT early on were ambivalent at first but by the 30s were keeping a check on the Soviets.
The Japanese invasion of China was completely wrong and a strategic and economic threat to our interests in China.

That had it not happened Mao would be crushed by 38.

Imperial Japan was the strategic focus of the Red Army throughout the 1920s and 1930s, being considered by Moscow as their most realistic threat and for which they responded to by placing the best units of the RKKA within the Far East to counter the Kwantung Army of the IJA. In 1937 along the Amur River and 1938 at Lake Khasan the IJA decisively rebuffed the Red Army and then in 1939 at Nomonhan achieved a strategic draw. From there, the IJA remained a going concern for Moscow, with STAVKA declining to enact force transfers until late 1941 based on intelligence from Richard Sorge. Until 1945, the Soviets steadfastly maintained a neutrality vis-a-vis Japan, including completely shutting down American efforts to establish bases in 1943 and 1944.

I make no morale judgement on China, as obviously and without question the conduct of the China Expeditionary Army was flawed, to understate the situation. That is, however, irrelevant in strategic calculations. Understood through the prism of Imperialism and economic development, it made perfect sense for Japan; it secured them resources, strategic base and a captive market, just like the Europeans enjoyed in Africa and the United States in Latin America. I do not begrudge them that although, again, their conduct was without morally wrong.

Still, I fail to see the rationale you're proposing here. The KMT only ever fought the Soviets twice, in 1934 and again in 1946. Both times they failed. I likewise fail to see the value of the Panay Incident, given I don't exactly see you wanting to blow Israel to hell over the U.S.S. Liberty.

And the Japanese were perfectly willing to oblige the Soviets with the non-aggression pact, which was a massive benefit to the Soviets.

And it gained them no real resources. Eastern China is resource poor. It just tied up tons of Japanese troops and killed massive numbers of people. It was not beneficial to Japan, it just got them dragged into an unnecessary war. The KMT was not interested in a war.
And again it was a direct attack on our interests in China. Even if it was In Japan’s imperial interests it was against ours.

The Panay proves (and the attacked US flagged merchants in China too) that the Japanese attack on China was an attack on our interests in China.

[Novus America]

The KMT in 1945 was much worse off than in 1936.
The had been bled dry. Literally millions of troops, as well as their best trained divisions.

The exhausted conscripts in 1945 were not a great force.

And it was not just Yamamoto although he was the one of the main ones wanting and attack at that time. The others wanted to wait longer, but still wanted us out of the West Pacific. They just wanted to attack us further down the line.

Japan was a major strategic threat, their Pacific Mandate cutting is off from the Philippines and Guam, and their attack on China was an attack on our interests there, again they even attack US ships in China.

It was intolerable and unforgivable.

The KMT was actually much better off in 1945, without question. During WWII, it had grown from 1-2 million to a force of eight million, with a degree of motorization equal to the Imperial Japanese Army it faced.

Again, I fail to see your rationale; our trade with Japan was much larger than China and they were not interfering with our SLOCs?

No they were not because numbers mean nothing if the troops have lost the will to fight.
Their best troops had been killed, the forces they had by 1945 were mostly demoralized conscripts. Their best troops died in Shanghai, something they never recovered from.

And you cannot easily recover from loosing millions.

China was also a huge source of trade, which they destroyed.
And they were a threat to SLOCs as they had major forces between us and East Asia. The very existence of the mandate was a threat.

And they were going to go to try to drive us out of East Asia, sooner or later, it was only a matter of time.
They wanted to dominate East Asia, which left no room for us.

[Pyrghium]

Since we seem to be discussing the Kuomintang, it’s worth asking:

Aside from geopolitical alignment (and even then, who knows) what would fundamentally be the difference between a Nationalist Government in Beijing, and the current PRC Government? At the end of the day, isn’t Mao weeping in his grave for the policy decisions taken by his successors; they’re very - how shall we say - “Capitalist” (albeit Capitalism with State Controls; which is something a Nationalist Government might implement anyways). Aside from the aesthetics and other such cosmetic things, China isn’t really Communist anymore.