Quote:
|
Originally Posted by syscom3 Quote: |
Originally Posted by Lunatic If Japan had attacked British colonies in the Pacific, I believe the US was obliged to enter the war via treaty. | If there was treaty regarding this, I have never heard of it in my 35 years of studying the war in the PTO. On the contrary, right up untill the morning of Dec 7th, congress and the senate had warned FDR not to use American "blood" to defend the British colonies. Only the defense of the PI was permitted, and only if attacked first. |
You may be right, if there was such an agreement it occured after the war in Europe had already begun as part of that secret meeting between Churchill and FDR (I cannot recall the name of the port where it occured and is named after). But regardless I think the USA was much more willing to engage in a war vs. Japan to defend British colonies, it was a war against Germany that was being discussed by Congress that you refer to.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by syscom3 Quote: |
........the Japanese could probably then have probably been convinced to focus their efforts on capturing India and controlling that part of the Sea, opening supply lines for mid-east oil. An alliance between Japan and the Burka's would have transfered approximately another 1 million troops from Allied to Axis control - the Indian's didn't like being under British dominion much more than the Ukrainian's liked Stalin's rule. With the German and Japanese connected via India, the US would have had a very hard time waging war against such an alliance on the Asian mainland.
| Interesting scenario. I think that the capture of India by the IJA would have another side effect. The Indians would chaff at being under the Japanese thumb and probably be a thorn in their side. Dont underestimate the difficulties of the logistics for both axis pwers to expoit. India is isolated on all the land approaches by mountainous terrain. Plus anything going by sea was still a long way off while the Germans and Japanese built a fleet to expoit the situation. |
Eventually I am sure you are correct. However initially the Japanese could have presented themselves as liberators. From there it would be a question of how they managed India. For a few years they could have easily presented a friendly face and made promises they'd no intent of keeping.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by syscom3 The US never contemplated an invasion of Japan via the mainland. Gen. Marshall and Adm. King always saw that the road to Tokyo was through the Pacific. |
Well sure, but that was faced with the Japanese expansion into the Pacific towards the USA. Had Japan confined its war primarly to the mainland the situation would have been much different. It would have been impossible to devote the same kind of effort to a war against Japan had they not attacked us first, and invasion of Japan itself would have been unthinkable. The losses were only concievable considering the fact Japan had attacked the US. A war over possesion of purely foreign territory would have been a whole different thing.
=S=
Lunatic
Linear Mode
