Could the Axis Powers have won WWII?

[DrDeth]

@Little_Nemo

Not at all. The similarity is that Cuba and Japan both had access to supplies outside of American control which made the American embargo manageable.So to head off the risk of the United States declaring war, Japan declared war on the United States. Interesting move.There is the fact that they were both the heads of expansionist militarist regimes during World War II that allied together and declared war on the United States in the same week. That’s kind of comparable.

Also both War Criminals who commited various and many Crimes against humanity, including mass killings, human experimentation, slave labor & Biological warfare. In fact the Japanese went further with sytemized torture of POWs, rapes, cannibalism

Japanese war crimes | Human experimentation and biological warfare

Hideki Tojo

"He was tried by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East for war crimes and found guilty of the following:
Count 1 (waging wars of aggression, and war or wars in violation of international law)
Count 27 (waging unprovoked war against the Republic of China)
Count 29 (waging aggressive war against the United States of America)
Count 31 (waging aggressive war against the British Commonwealth of Nations)
Count 32 (waging aggressive war against the Kingdom of the Netherlands)
Count 33 (waging aggressive war against the French Republic)
Count 54 (ordering, authorizing, and permitting inhumane treatment of Prisoners of War (POWs) and others)
Hideki Tōjō accepted full responsibility in the end for his actions during the war, stating:
…
He was sentenced to death on 12 November 1948 and executed by hanging on 23 December 1948. In his final statements, he apologized for the atrocities committed by the Japanese military and urged the American military to show compassion toward the Japanese people, who had suffered devastating air attacks and the two atomic bombings.[28]
Tōjō is often considered responsible for authorizing the murder of millions of civilians in China, the Philippines, Indochina and other Pacific island nations, as well as tens of thousands of Allied prisoners of war (POWs).[citation needed]

[DrDeth]

They didnt even need to attack the DEI. Just the threat had been enuf to make the French roll completely over and cede Indochina, and the Dutch agreed to sell Japan all the oil it needed.

So, why did they need to attack, again?

Not for oil.

[Little_Nemo]

@Sailboat

Well, yeah, but it’s more like “To head off the risk of the United States declaring war and hitting Japan in the flank, at a time of the United States’ choosing, while Japan was overextended into Indonesia, Japan declared war on the United States and neutralized its navy in the opening move.”

You only get the +2 Flanking bonus if you attack from two sides. Although by launching a surprise attack, Japan cost the United States its dexterity bonus for the round.

[Little_Nemo]

@DrDeth

They didnt even need to attack the DEI. Just the threat had been enuf to make the French roll completely over and cede Indochina, and the Dutch agreed to sell Japan all the oil it needed.

So, why did they need to attack, again?

Not for oil.

The Americans and the British pressured the Dutch into joining the embargo.

[Ludovic]

@Little_Nemo

You only get the +2 Flanking bonus if you attack from two sides. Although by launching a surprise attack, Japan cost the United States its dexterity bonus for the round.

But even if the U.S. outflanked them, they still wouldn’t get a flank bonus, because Japan has too high a level in Monk.

[TokyoBayer]

@Little_Nemo

Not at all. The similarity is that Cuba and Japan both had access to supplies outside of American control which made the American embargo manageable.

Sort of like when two guys need some more cash, and one of them can go to the bank and get money and the other can rob someone. They both have access to money, so you shouldn’t feel any different about them. OK, I can see your definition of similarity.

@Sailboat

Well, yeah, but it’s more like “To head off the risk of the United States declaring war and hitting Japan in the flank, at a time of the United States’ choosing, while Japan was overextended into Indonesia, Japan declared war on the United States and neutralized its navy in the opening move.”

Ultimately a bad idea anyway, but that’s how they thought of it, instead of your formulation.

Exactly. what’s more, this view is documented.

@DrDeth

Also both War Criminals who commited various and many Crimes against humanity, including mass killings, human experimentation, slave labor & Biological warfare. In fact the Japanese went further with sytemized torture of POWs, rapes, cannibalism

Hideki Tōjō accepted full responsibility in the end for his actions during the war, stating:

If you truly believe that eliminating Hitler and eliminating Tojo would have the same influence on their respective countries, I can provide some historical books for reference.

You did leave off another similarity. They both are male.

@DrDeth

So, why did they need to attack, again?

Not for oil.

Oddly enough, the requirement for oil is the one which is accepted by historians and extensively documented. So, let’s see. While this is a little simple, let’s link to Wiki and then please show why these cites are incorrect.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was intended to neutralize the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and hence protect Japan’s advance into Malaya and the Dutch East Indies, where she sought access to natural resources such as oil and rubber. War between Japan and the United States had been a possibility each nation had been aware of (and developed contingency plans for) since the 1920s, though tensions did not begin to grow seriously until Japan’s 1931 invasion of Manchuria. Over the next decade, Japan continued to expand into China, leading to all-out war in 1937. Japan spent considerable effort trying to isolate China and achieve sufficient resource independence to attain victory on the mainland; the “Southern Operation” was designed to assist these efforts.[15]

From December 1937, events such as the Japanese attack on the USS Panay and the Nanking Massacre (more than 200,000 killed in indiscriminate massacres) swung public opinion in the West sharply against Japan and increased their fear of Japanese expansion,[16] which prompted the United States, the United Kingdom, and France to provide loan assistance for war supply contracts to the Republic of China.

In 1940, Japan invaded French Indochina in an effort to control supplies reaching China. The United States halted shipments of airplanes, parts, machine tools, and aviation gasoline, which was perceived by Japan as an unfriendly act.[nb 5] The U.S. did not stop oil exports to Japan at that time in part because prevailing sentiment in Washington was that such an action would be an extreme step, given Japanese dependence on U.S. oil,[18][19] and likely to be considered a provocation by Japan.

Early in 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt moved the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii from its previous base in San Diego and ordered a military buildup in the Philippines in the hope of discouraging Japanese aggression in the Far East. Because the Japanese high command was (mistakenly) certain any attack on the British Southeast Asian colonies would bring the U.S. into the war, a devastating preventive strike appeared to be the only way to avoid U.S. naval interference.[20] An invasion of the Philippines was also considered to be necessary by Japanese war planners. The U.S. War Plan Orange had envisioned defending the Philippines with a 40,000 man elite force. This was opposed by Douglas MacArthur, who felt that he would need a force ten times that size, and was never implemented.[21] By 1941, U.S. planners anticipated abandonment of the Philippines at the outbreak of war and orders to that effect were given in late 1941 to Admiral Thomas Hart, commander of the Asiatic Fleet.[22]
Pearl Harbor on October 30, 1941.

The U.S. ceased oil exports to Japan in July 1941, following Japanese expansion into French Indochina after the fall of France, in part because of new American restrictions on domestic oil consumption.[23] This in turn caused the Japanese to proceed with plans to take the Dutch East Indies, an oil-rich territory.[nb 6] The Japanese were faced with the option of either withdrawing from China and losing face or seizing and securing new sources of raw materials in the resource-rich, European-controlled colonies of South East Asia.

Preliminary planning for an attack on Pearl Harbor to protect the move into the “Southern Resource Area” (the Japanese term for the Dutch East Indies and Southeast Asia generally) had begun very early in 1941 under the auspices of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, then commanding Japan’s Combined Fleet.[25] He won assent to formal planning and training for an attack from the Imperial Japanese Navy General Staff only after much contention with Naval Headquarters, including a threat to resign his command.[26] Full-scale planning was underway by early spring 1941, primarily by Captain Minoru Genda.[citation needed]

[Little_Nemo]

@TokyoBayer

Sort of like when two guys need some more cash, and one of them can go to the bank and get money and the other can rob someone. They both have access to money, so you shouldn’t feel any different about them. OK, I can see your definition of similarity.

I wish I could say the same but honestly I don’t see your point of view. The United States placed an embargo on Japan and the United States placed an embargo on Cuba. Both Cuba and Japan found another source for the supplies they needed. The Cubans got it from the Soviet Union and Japan got it from Dutch East Indies.

To me, these are pretty much the same idea. For some reason, you seem to feel there is a vast difference between the two. I’m not sure what point you’re making that one of them (Cuba or Japan?) was doing the equivalent of robbing somebody.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@XT

IIRC, Hitler was a heavy drug user anyway (I think cocaine or something like that…multiple drugs actually), so I don’t think slipping LSD or Ecstasy into his beer would have made that much of a difference. Hell, I was going to say it would be better to slip him something poisonous and fatal, but actually he probably did more for the defeat of the Axis than any other single individual, so was probably better overall to have him breathing until the end.

IIRC (and sorry no cite…read it somewhere but cannot find it on a quick Google search) the Allies actually decided to not attempt to kill Hitler since they felt he was the biggest impediment to the Germans winning. If they offed him and someone with a clue took over it would be worse for the Allies. As such they avoided trying to kill Hitler.

[DrDeth]

@TokyoBayer

Exactly. what’s more, this view is documented.
If you truly believe that eliminating Hitler and eliminating Tojo would have the same influence on their respective countries, I can provide some historical books for reference.

You did leave off another similarity. They both are male.

Oddly enough, the requirement for oil is the one which is accepted by historians and extensively documented. So, let’s see. While this is a little simple, let’s link to Wiki and then please show why these cites are incorrect.

They are not incorrect. All Japan had to do was "The Japanese were faced with the option of either withdrawing from China and losing face or seizing and securing new sources of raw materials in the resource-rich…

See those words "option" “either” “or”? Nothing was forcing Japan to attack China and French Indo-China. In fact as long as the Japanese limited themselves to just China, America was content only to make noises and send sharp notes.

The Japanese didnt NEED to attack America (or even the Dutch) for oil any more than Germany NEEDED to attack Poland for Lebensraum. They could have just accepted the conquests they had made so far and lived with that. In fact, it was a pretty huge increase of territory for Japan. Just Manchukuo alone (and America didnt do anything about that, other than refuse to recognize it) was a fairly big deal.

The whole idea that Japan was forced into this war by American acts is ludicrous. It wasnt oil. It was 100% pure Japanese belligerence, and this time the IJN wanted it’s turn.

[benbo1]

Well, long as we’re playing “what if?” - let’s bring Turkey into the arena. They were a German ally in ww1, and as a Moslem nation, heeded the genocidal leanings of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In the 1st war, it’s accepted that the Turkish front alone postponed the end for months, if not a year. 100s of 1,000s of Allied soldiers were tied up there who could’ve been sent to the France instead. A famous example of the Turkish cost to the Allied effort is Gallipoli.
Turkish neutrality in ww2 was not assured; a plot point of the movie ‘Tobruk’ is based on a legend; that in exchange for a decisive German victory, Turkey would throw in 4,000,000 men at a crucial moment. State of their weaponry notwithstanding, this addition of Axis manpower probably would’ve been too much for England to bear. It also would’ve inspired rebellion (against the British) thruout Arabia, all in the name of jihad. As far as the willingness of Moslems to fight & die for Hitler, there was an S.S. division of Moslems that committed a huge amount of atrocities in Yugoslavia & Albania (I think). There were rebellions in Iraq & Iran, put down by the Brits; had these been more widespread, organized, & forceful, the Brits would’ve been stretched to the limit. Then, at the time of the battle of El Alamein, there could’ve been a German victory or stalemate, with North Africa remaining divided for many more months rather than freed 6 months after the North African invasion. Stalemate or German victory @ El Alamein, or more cohesive Arab rebellion, would’ve very likely provided the catalyst for Turkish commitment to the German effort.

[TokyoBayer]

@Little_Nemo

I wish I could say the same but honestly I don’t see your point of view. The United States placed an embargo on Japan and the United States placed an embargo on Cuba. Both Cuba and Japan found another source for the supplies they needed. The Cubans got it from the Soviet Union and Japan got it from Dutch East Indies.

To me, these are pretty much the same idea. For some reason, you seem to feel there is a vast difference between the two.

I supplied a reference which showed that Japan was assuming at the time that attacking the Dutch East Indies would lead to war with the states. Note that this isn’t my idea, this was what Japan believed at the time.

Please cite where Cuba believed that obtaining supplies from USSR would lead to war with the US. Not your opinion, but a cite.

Then let’s talk more.

@DrDeth

The whole idea that Japan was forced into this war by American acts is ludicrous. It wasnt oil. It was 100% pure Japanese belligerence, and this time the IJN wanted it’s turn.

I take it that you are reading a different thread than me. If not, then please show me where anyone, including me said that Japan was forced into this war. It was Japanese belligerence, starting back when they decided they wanted Korea.

However, once the US and Dutch decided to place the oil embargo on Japan and diplomacy failed to reverse it, Japan decided that the would rather go to war then retreat as they needed oil. Please note, again, no one, especially me, is saying the US was the bad guy. You’re reading that into the discussion.

And, I’ll ask for a cite that Pearl Harbor was primarily due to the IJN wanting it’s turn.

[ralph124c]

I wonder what might have happened if Mussolini allied himself with France and GB. His army was pretty much obsolete, but in a defensive battle, they may have acquitted themselves well. Plus, the Italian Navy (with the Royal Navy) could have kept the Germans out of the Med.
Who knows.

[Little_Nemo]

@benbo1

Well, long as we’re playing “what if?” - let’s bring Turkey into the arena. They were a German ally in ww1, and as a Moslem nation, heeded the genocidal leanings of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In the 1st war, it’s accepted that the Turkish front alone postponed the end for months, if not a year. 100s of 1,000s of Allied soldiers were tied up there who could’ve been sent to the France instead. A famous example of the Turkish cost to the Allied effort is Gallipoli.

I agree Turkey could have been a significant factor. In addition to the reasons you mentioned, it would have opened up another front in the war with the Soviet Union. Axis troops could have attacked from a southern flank directly into the Caucasus region rather than having to drive all the way across the Ukraine to get there.

[Little_Nemo]

@TokyoBayer

I supplied a reference which showed that Japan was assuming at the time that attacking the Dutch East Indies would lead to war with the states. Note that this isn’t my idea, this was what Japan believed at the time.

Please cite where Cuba believed that obtaining supplies from USSR would lead to war with the US. Not your opinion, but a cite.

Then let’s talk more.

How about you take a minute and figure out exactly what it is you’re trying to say. And then post it for the rest of us to read. All your posts seem to be you telling us you don’t agree with what we’ve said. But you seem reluctant to commit yourself to posting what it is you think.

This thread is not about what countries did in WWII. It’s about what they might have hypothetically done differently. So quit posting that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor like it’s a point in dispute. The question is what would have happened if Japan hadn’t attacked Pearl Harbor?

[TokyoBayer]

One of my favorite parenting books gives a hint when they attempt to change the subject by making it about you.

“Nice try.”

[Little_Nemo]

@TokyoBayer

One of my favorite parenting books gives a hint when they attempt to change the subject by making it about you.

“Nice try.”

We’re not children here. If you don’t want to discuss a particular subject, no problem. Plenty of other threads on the board. So why come to a thread about WWII hypotheticals and keep posting variations of “but that’s not what happened”?

[Quartz]

I think the European Axis powers could easily have won the European half of WW2. You need a number of factors:

1 - Italy finds oil in Libya.
2 - Italy and Germany do not declare war on America.
3 - Britain being willing to make peace.

Having a ready source of oil means that the North Africa campaign doesn’t suffer supply problems and Italy is richer and can afford a better military.

Italy and Germany not declaring war on America means that Britain still has to pay for its goods.

Britain willing to make peace is very important. If America only has to fight a one-front war against Japan, Japan will get crushed very quickly, and then America will have lots of war surplus materiel to sell to Britain. Britain will develop the atomic bomb, and then Germany gets nuked.

[DrDeth]

@Quartz

I think the European Axis powers could easily have won the European half of WW2. You need a number of factors:

1 - Italy finds oil in Libya.
2 - Italy and Germany do not declare war on America.
3 - Britain being willing to make peace.

Having a ready source of oil means that the North Africa campaign doesn’t suffer supply problems and Italy is richer and can afford a better military.

Italy and Germany not declaring war on America means that Britain still has to pay for its goods.

Britain willing to make peace is very important. If America only has to fight a one-front war against Japan, Japan will get crushed very quickly, and then America will have lots of war surplus materiel to sell to Britain. Britain will develop the atomic bomb, and then Germany gets nuked.

Jo Walton, in her interesting Alt-hist book “Farthing” makes this very point. In 1941 the Brits achieve “Peace with Honour”, and Hitler turns on Stalin. America elects Lindberg (so the IJN doesnt attack and USA stays neutral). *It’s 1949 and the Nazis and Stalinists are still fighting. *

[Little_Nemo]

Britain came very close to making peace. It wasn’t the two extreme alternatives that most people think about - fighting until victory and submitting to Germany. Hitler didn’t have a grudge against Britain the way he did against the Soviet Union. He’d have been willing to offer reasonable terms. Hitler had no problems with Britain keeping its independence and its Empire. All he wanted was for Britain to recognize continental Europe as Axis territory.

When Chamberlain fell from office in 1940, the two contenders to replace him where Churchill and Halifax. Churchill had a grudge against Hitler - he was going to keep the war going. But Halifax was willing to negotiate. So if Halifax had become Prime Minister rather than Churchill, Britain would have left the war.

[TokyoBayer]

@Little_Nemo

We’re not children here. If you don’t want to discuss a particular subject, no problem. Plenty of other threads on the board. So why come to a thread about WWII hypotheticals and keep posting variations of “but that’s not what happened”?

Because it’s not plausible and the point of an interesting hypothetical is something which is within at least reason and simply not Monday morning quarterbacking at best, or something completely nutty which is what we’re seeing here.

I’m not the only one who believes that attacking the Dutch East Indies would not be plausible. Other people have suggested it and other posters have said it would not be a good strategy.

There’s only one person who is continuing to insist that it should have been obviously the good choice, and yes, that point is easily shown to be naive. Most hypotheticals can’t be readily dismissed out of hand because they’re unknown: *what would have happened if the Japanese were more aware of the danger of America’s submarine warfare strategy? * so it’s an interesting debate.

The repeated assertion that Japan *should *have attacked DEI, because they *should *have known it would not have crossed the line into war fails because not only because it’s stupid but also because it can be shown historically that the Japanese had this option and never seriously considered it? Ever wonder why?

The Japanese felt that attacking DEI would lead to war with the US. That’s simply a fact. Now, if you want to argue that they should have attacked anyway, that’s another argument, and as I wrote above, other posters have said it would have been a terrible strategy. But to continue to simply argue that it was equivalent to materially different situations on the flimsiest of pretense is being deliberately obtuse.