Japanese invade the west Coast...

@kaleu

So the story wasn’t true. But as I said, what if, in an alternate timeline, the story was true? And what if it was launched? What would have been the damage?

A “what if” has to be done to make this conversation work (or even have a chance of being “realistic”).

@abworsham4

I read that, and is one of my sources. Funny enough, KaLeu put a link to Quora asking the same question, and one of the answers just copied and pasted the article you sent me.

Japan had no interest in invading Africa, they knew that UK had that on lockdown and they didn’t have the resources to do it. I am 100% sure that Japanese High Command would of double down on invading Australia over that. The idea behind controlling Indian ocean was to do two jobs. First: Close Burma Road since the Chinese were getting heavy equipment from the US. People forget the bulk of the IJA was in China and China was always the end goal for Japan. Two: Cutting the Persian trade route was more of a request from Germany. People forget that the Battle of Madagascar was the only battle during WWII that had both Germany and Japan in the same battle.

I’m picking Hitler for 2 reasons first I’m assuming that I’m Hitler here and don’t have him screwing everything up. So I take Moscow in August. 2nd and most importantly I don’t have to march to Moscow but ride in a truck/tank/half-track or fly after my troops have taken it.

Gar,

––Yep, exactly. I didn’t want to be too detailed and make the discussion drift off topic. I have read three or more books with “valid” accounts concerning this.

----You know, sometimes I (almost) feel “old-school” because I’ve learned most of my military history knowledge through books I’ve bought rather than the internet. I’ve simply never taken the time to “surf” the net like that.

----And thank you very much “El Dominatro Magistero” for sharing your knowledge of Island History with us “normal folk”. :-D

“Tall Paul”

We would have cut off all ties with them. The next one would have been a declaration of war.

The US opted for imperialism.

USSR was the lesser of three evils between Germany and Japan, the only reason America backed USSR.  Also Japan and Germany threatened US imperialism and the US had to wait until an event like pearl harbor to appear to be the good guy.

USA opted for atrocities instead of invasion or truce in regards to Japan. The logic was, “make Japan surrender, take away their right to military, then try to offer them a right to a military when they are pro american.”

Problem is, Japan became isolationist after WWII, so US imperialism failed military in Japan, but economically it turned out pretty good.

Russia is a huge wrench in US imperialism, but not as bad as Germany would have been if in control of Europe (or Japan in Asia).

It is kind of sad the axis lost WWII, post war SEA would have been liberated while China would be oppressed… possibly liberated later. Europe would eventually collapse into nation-states again.

@CWO:

A similar situation existed in the Confederacy in the early stages of the U.S. Civil War, where it was believed that the material advantages of the North (in terms of industrial capacity, natural resources and sheer population numbers) could be overcome by (if I recall the quote correctly) “the gallantry and fighting spirit of the Southern Gentleman.”  The contrary (and ultimately correct) view was expressed by a certain Northerner to a friend he had in the Confederacy: “No nation of agriculturalists has ever defeated a nation of industrialists.  You are bound to fail.”

That’s an excellent example. I looked up the Civil War and found that the North experienced twice as many combat deaths as the South. That ratio would seem to partially justify Southern leaders’ faith in their strategy. However, the overall ratio of military deaths was 1.4 to 1. The reason for this is that so many soldiers on both sides died from disease, exposure, and other causes.

Later in the war, the North increasingly benefited from activities which did not necessarily involve a clash between the main Northern and Southern armies. The increasingly effective naval blockade is a good example of this, as are some of the coastal raids the North performed later in the war. The Southern economic collapse which resulted from the naval blockade is still another example. Later in the war, Grant capitalized on the Northern advantage in manpower by sending several secondary forces to invade the South, while the main Southern forces were occupied by their Northern counterparts.