political effects of a delayed start to WW2

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3528
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: political effects of a delayed start to WW2

Post by T. A. Gardner » 18 Dec 2022 20:44

OldBill wrote:
18 Dec 2022 19:48
This will also mean a lesser amount of money for the IJN and more for the IJA. A smaller IJN means less chance of conflict with the Western Powers.
This is not true. The IJA held political sway in Japan starting from about 1938 on. The IJN was playing second fiddle so-to-speak. If the IJA was willing to go to war with the US, then the IJN had to go along.

From the IJA's POV, mainland Asia (eg., China) and the DEI were the regions of importance. As far as they were concerned, the IJN needed only fortify islands in the Pacific like some sort of Maginot Line and hold off America until they decided that continuing the war wasn't worth it. That means the chances of a war remain about the same as they did historically because the driving factors are Japan's economy, public support for the government in power, and maintaining 'face.' All of those are driven by winning in China and being able to weather a serious US / Dutch / British embargo of raw materials that drove Japan's economy.

If the US et al., push an embargo like they did historically, while Japan continues expansion in China, then a war will result at some point because the Japanese economy and public support for the government will go into serious decline.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5605
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: political effects of a delayed start to WW2

Post by OpanaPointer » 18 Dec 2022 21:40

When Japan decided to exploit the Southern Resource Areas rather than the Northern Resource Areas the conflict with the US was inevitable, and Japan knew this.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10035
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: political effects of a delayed start to WW2

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 18 Dec 2022 23:52

For the USSR there is a similar effect as with the US. Absent a European war starting the Red Army and Soviet arms industry take a different course 1939-1942. The intended expansion may not be as disorganized and driven haste and overreach. A lot fewer men added, but more complete training.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3528
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: political effects of a delayed start to WW2

Post by T. A. Gardner » 19 Dec 2022 00:29

OpanaPointer wrote:
18 Dec 2022 21:40
When Japan decided to exploit the Southern Resource Areas rather than the Northern Resource Areas the conflict with the US was inevitable, and Japan knew this.
That happens when the US pressures the Dutch and British to go along with an embargo. Given the Dutch are heavily dependent on the US for military equipment and support--they want the US Asiatic fleet to assist them--and the British are counting on the US in the Philippines to be a diversion and precursor to any attack on Malaysia, war won't be far behind the US slapping a heavy embargo on Japan for what they're doing in China.

The French in Indochina won't particularly be building up a large military force as they would be both engaged in a build up at home along with likely drawing colonial divisions (1 or more) out of Indochina for use in France. Even in this scenario, the French are likely however to have made ties or deals with the other European powers and the US for mutual defense if invaded in Asia.

So, Japan going to war in 1942 versus the end of 1941--or earlier--is really likely to face military build ups in their opponent's colonies and land they can't overcome in a quick win.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5605
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: political effects of a delayed start to WW2

Post by OpanaPointer » 19 Dec 2022 01:35

FFS. Dutch oil was going to the Brits. Nobody wanted to give the Japanese more fuel to kill more Chinese, and, inevitably, to kill Euros and US. Supplying a member of the Tripartite Pact would have been beyond stupid.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: political effects of a delayed start to WW2

Post by Takao » 19 Dec 2022 19:01

The Dutch were not pressured to join the embargo, as the issue was not simply "oil." You see, the Dutch were willing to sell Japan oil, but the Japanese wanted more. Japan demanded a political presence in the DEI, they wanted civilian communities in the DEI, they wanted Japanese schools in the DEI, they wanted more Japanese businesses in the DEI, and they wanted a military presence in the DEI. Of course, the Dutch gave a hard "no!" To all these demands, and the Japanese deal to purchase Dutch oil fell apart.

Japan did not want just to buy Dutch oil, Japan wanted self-sufficiency...Which could not be had by just purchasing foreign oil.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3528
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: political effects of a delayed start to WW2

Post by T. A. Gardner » 19 Dec 2022 19:06

Takao wrote:
19 Dec 2022 19:01
The Dutch were not pressured to join the embargo, as the issue was not simply "oil." You see, the Dutch were willing to sell Japan oil, but the Japanese wanted more. Japan demanded a political presence in the DEI, they wanted civilian communities in the DEI, they wanted Japanese schools in the DEI, they wanted more Japanese businesses in the DEI, and they wanted a military presence in the DEI. Of course, the Dutch gave a hard "no!" To all these demands, and the Japanese deal to purchase Dutch oil fell apart.

Japan did not want just to buy Dutch oil, Japan wanted self-sufficiency...Which could not be had by just purchasing foreign oil.
Either way, we end up with the British, Dutch, and US, and probably France, all embargoing Japan in one way or another meaning the Japanese have to go to war with them or their economy collapses. Japan is going to force this through their actions, and the IJA is primarily focused, if not entirely focused on SE Asia and China and they're the ones that are really running the show in Japan.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10035
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: political effects of a delayed start to WW2

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 20 Dec 2022 01:06

Takao wrote:
19 Dec 2022 19:01
...
Japan did not want just to buy Dutch oil, Japan wanted self-sufficiency...Which could not be had by just purchasing foreign oil.

a good point to remember. For whatever reason there's a over focus on oil. Japans access to the US banking system& credit there was at least as important. Tin, was critical to Japans industry, so was Bauxtite, Iron ore and scrap steel. Access to the Mekong delta Rice factory guaranteed cheap food for Japans growing industrial work force, in Manchuria and Korea as well as in Japan. Adjacent to the Mekong Rice fields were the Michelien Rubber Plantations. Its referred to as the Southern Resource Area. Not the southern petroleum source.

User avatar
nuyt
Member
Posts: 1664
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 13:39
Location: Europe

Re: political effects of a delayed start to WW2

Post by nuyt » 20 Dec 2022 20:02

Some points regarding statements on the Dutch and NEI above.

If there is no war in Europe in 1940, the Dutch/NEI continue to be neutral and arming themselves, with a lot of production gearing up in the motherland, plus purchases from Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, UK, Belgium and Italy, etc (no orders have yet to be placed in the US because Vickers can still deliver tanks and Böhler can still deliver antitank guns). So the NEI are not (yet) relying on the US for equipment - that only happened in the real life situation with Holland occupied.

In this scenario Holland is still free and they will be strictly neutral (until war breaks out AND they are attacked directly) and not willing to join a US oil embargo. Maybe the French will join the Allied proto-command (though that would not exist yet without a war) and it would not become ABDA but ABFA.

About the oil: it was not "Dutch oil", but oil owned by Royal Dutch Shell, an Anglo-Dutch private company, that - barring a war - was selling to anyone willing to buy, including Nazi-Germany and Japan. Anyone familiar with the relation between the Dutch government and Shell knows who was the most powerful of the two. Shell Japan was an important partner to the Japanese government until the embargo IRL. In this scenario it would be up to Shell management to accept a US embargo on oil sales to Japan and they would have lobbied against it.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10035
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: political effects of a delayed start to WW2

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 20 Dec 2022 21:12

(no orders have yet to be placed in the US because Vickers can still deliver tanks and Böhler can still deliver antitank guns). So the NEI are not (yet) relying on the US for equipment
More important is the US did not dial down the Neutrality Acts until after Europe went to war in 1939. With the Neutrality Acts intact Arms exports and war material from the US is not happening. No mass of European orders to jumpstart US aircraft industry into the war plane business. Maybe they can get DC-3 or Venturas to apply 'bomber kits' to but even that is problematic the way the Neutrality Acts were intended.

This leads back to the "political Effect" referred to in the OP. For the US the European War both galvanized the Isolationist movement, and undercut it. Without the inflammation of a war neither the Isolationis not Warhawks have as much fuel for their view. Without war disrupting the US/European trade the problems of the isolationist position are forced to the surface and the Warhawks don't have a major talking point.

The question of the 1940 campaign has already been raised. I agree its unlikely Roosevelt will run, & its possible the next president is Republican with a Republican legislature. This does not automatically mean a isolationist administration. The Warhawks were as likely to be a conservative Republican as Democrat and leftists or the merely left leaning were strong Isolationist supporters circa 1940. That many of the isolationists were actually anti Roosevelt is a factor as well. The course of US attitudes towards European tensions, continued rearmament, and general political climate can vary in unpredictable ways absent a war & who takes up the leadership in Congress and the Executive.

I'd make a guess this applies to Britain as well. The anti war feelings there cannot be easily dismissed, & neither can the fiscal conservatives who dislike military spending. Were the Polish crisis to pass without war there is a possibility any likely government would dial down support for France and rearmament to some small or greater degree.

France has the deep running motivation of denying Germany any major influence politically or economically. While that is in the long a run a losing battle it still informed Conservative and centrist thinking. Unless there is some sort of massive Volte-Face in German policy and action France is going to continue its rearmament and political containment policies, however unsuccessfull.

Italy Im unsure of, knowing even less of its internal politics or Mussolinis thinking.

Germany is the wild card. If there is not further diplomatic or military success then the nazi regime is still vulnerable to a military coup. Perhaps Hitler will overreach in some decision or other & trigger that. The question then is if the new regime dials down the deficit spending, armaments programs, and seeks a stable foreign policy. If the nazis remain in power do they pursue better spending policies, or double down on fiscal smoke & mirrors and fraud?

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5605
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: political effects of a delayed start to WW2

Post by OpanaPointer » 20 Dec 2022 21:49

Takao wrote:
19 Dec 2022 19:01
The Dutch were not pressured to join the embargo, as the issue was not simply "oil." You see, the Dutch were willing to sell Japan oil, but the Japanese wanted more. Japan demanded a political presence in the DEI, they wanted civilian communities in the DEI, they wanted Japanese schools in the DEI, they wanted more Japanese businesses in the DEI, and they wanted a military presence in the DEI. Of course, the Dutch gave a hard "no!" To all these demands, and the Japanese deal to purchase Dutch oil fell apart.

Japan did not want just to buy Dutch oil, Japan wanted self-sufficiency...Which could not be had by just purchasing foreign oil.
"We get the prosperity, you get the sphere."
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3528
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: political effects of a delayed start to WW2

Post by T. A. Gardner » 21 Dec 2022 04:09

nuyt wrote:
20 Dec 2022 20:02
Some points regarding statements on the Dutch and NEI above.

If there is no war in Europe in 1940, the Dutch/NEI continue to be neutral and arming themselves, with a lot of production gearing up in the motherland, plus purchases from Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, UK, Belgium and Italy, etc (no orders have yet to be placed in the US because Vickers can still deliver tanks and Böhler can still deliver antitank guns). So the NEI are not (yet) relying on the US for equipment - that only happened in the real life situation with Holland occupied.

In this scenario Holland is still free and they will be strictly neutral (until war breaks out AND they are attacked directly) and not willing to join a US oil embargo. Maybe the French will join the Allied proto-command (though that would not exist yet without a war) and it would not become ABDA but ABFA.

About the oil: it was not "Dutch oil", but oil owned by Royal Dutch Shell, an Anglo-Dutch private company, that - barring a war - was selling to anyone willing to buy, including Nazi-Germany and Japan. Anyone familiar with the relation between the Dutch government and Shell knows who was the most powerful of the two. Shell Japan was an important partner to the Japanese government until the embargo IRL. In this scenario it would be up to Shell management to accept a US embargo on oil sales to Japan and they would have lobbied against it.
Shell was a big company in the US at the time too. They would have to kowtow to the US government to some degree if an embargo was imposed. The US might tell Shell You can't sell to Japan, and if you do we will put you out of business here, but we will also buy all the oil you would have shipped to Japan so you're losing nothing.

User avatar
nuyt
Member
Posts: 1664
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 13:39
Location: Europe

Re: political effects of a delayed start to WW2

Post by nuyt » 21 Dec 2022 08:48

That would be a luxurious proposal :)

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10035
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: political effects of a delayed start to WW2

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 21 Dec 2022 15:23

IIRC correctly the DEI oil was sold to the British empire to fuel the far east, Australia, New Zeeland ect... that helped fund the DEI government in the Far East & the Dutch war effort against Germany. Neutrality vis Japan was not much of a option for the Dutch since their exiled government, Navy, and merchant fleet existed at Britians pleasure. The same for the other raw materials & food exported from the DEI. The other problem with DEI neutrality is Japan was increasingly dependent on short term credit with the US banks. US embargos or war means difficulties with Japan paying for the oil or anything else.

User avatar
nuyt
Member
Posts: 1664
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 13:39
Location: Europe

Re: political effects of a delayed start to WW2

Post by nuyt » 21 Dec 2022 18:00

Probably, but that was IRL in a war situation, not in this scenario where Nazi-Germany attacks 18 months later. The Dutch (like everybody else) have armed themselves much better and ARE still neutral.

Return to “What if”