Admiral Beez
Major
No, they were thinking mutual interest and more importantly active participation on each other's behalf. Poland didn't see much of the latter, but that was the plan and motivation.
A6M - Germany Japan Technology Exchange Missed Opportunity?
- Thread starter NevadaK
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey Admiral Beez,
Or in more general terms: Enemies of our enemies (real or perceived, current or potential) are (may be) our friends.
Or in more general terms: Enemies of our enemies (real or perceived, current or potential) are (may be) our friends.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
To say Imperial Japan was Nazi or Fascist maybe a stretch or perhaps a rather vigorous discussion.
However, Japanese policy in terms of Lebensraum or racial superiority was certainly in line with their German ally.
So perhaps birds of a feather flock together.
However, Japanese policy in terms of Lebensraum or racial superiority was certainly in line with their German ally.
So perhaps birds of a feather flock together.
Admiral Beez
Major
Every great power wanted Lebensraum. I'm sitting here in Toronto, Canada on previous indigenous land because the British Empire displaced and eradicated the original inhabitants. That's a very founding tenet of the USA, manifest destiny et al. That both Germany and Japan sought Lebensraum does not bring them closer, IMO.
Indeed, but into the 1930s there was much indication that the USA was friends or certainly economic/industrial partners, not enemies of Nazi Germany. Germany was helping China fight the Japanese. It was Britain who was looking for friends as she watched the USA usurp Britain's naval and economic prominence. Imagine, 1936 Hitler re-militarizes the Rhineland, and Britain watches as a neutered France and a neutralized USA do nothing. Tokyo calls London, "we see things are going to hell with our previous mutual enemy Germany. We would like to once again stand by your side, and offer to send a battlefleet to the North Sea or Mediterranean to serve under RN orders. We only ask that you facilitate some face saving diplomacy with China and Washington." Britain, not Germany was Japan's natural ally and a renewal of friendly relations would keep the peace in the PTO.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
After the humiliation the Japanese experienced in Washington over naval treaty proportions, and then again with the LNT, I don't think they would be asking the UK with help saving face against Germany.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Only certain Japanese believed the Washington treaty to be a humiliation.
Sadly only the ones that counted but still it wasnt all cut and shut. Again Japan got themselves into what they got by their actions. Not because of bad luck. Had Japan happily stayed within the confines of the Washington Treaty then WW2 in the Pacific may not happen.
Sadly only the ones that counted but still it wasnt all cut and shut. Again Japan got themselves into what they got by their actions. Not because of bad luck. Had Japan happily stayed within the confines of the Washington Treaty then WW2 in the Pacific may not happen.
Admiral Beez
Major
We often forget that the UK was also humiliated at the WNT. The most powerful naval power the earth had ever known, with a battlefleet undefeated since 1781 brought to its knees by its former colonials and American financiers, who are actively planning to attack a now weakened British Empire.
A bewildered 1920's Britain pinched by Washington on one side and the USSR on the other will be looking for friends; this was Japan's chance to say, hey Britain we understand that under US pressure you have to leave our formal 1902 alliance, but we still have your back. Though the Lytton Report won't go over well.
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I'm not making any statement about how English statesmen or admirals felt about it. According to Hara Tameichi in Japanese Destroyer Captain the officer corps of the IJN was deeply offended by the London Treaty.
Admiral Abe was Japan's foreign minister in 1939, and because of the Japanese governmental set-up, the Navy could bring down any Premiership that insisted on placing IJN ships under RN orders after having their numbers restricted in part at Britain's behest. I don't see the Navy going along with that at all, especially with America glaring angrily at Japan across the Pacific. Those ships were needed at home, not helping a power that had so recently worked to limit Japan's standing in the world.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
I haven't heard that Britain was unhappy with the Washington Naval Treaty? It was pretty much fair for UK.
Britain couldn't afford a naval arms race so it was certainly a plus to stop it. Plus kept Hood which seemed to keep under radar and got Rodney and Nelson. Plus all the 15 inch ships.
So it was a win win for Britain. Whether elements of the RN were unhappy is irrelevant as they were not the government. Britain was financially on her knees anyway and one major naval rival in the Kaiserliche Marine was gone and the French navy was done for.
The only other naval power was American and they signed too so from allround it was all gravy.
Britain couldn't afford a naval arms race so it was certainly a plus to stop it. Plus kept Hood which seemed to keep under radar and got Rodney and Nelson. Plus all the 15 inch ships.
So it was a win win for Britain. Whether elements of the RN were unhappy is irrelevant as they were not the government. Britain was financially on her knees anyway and one major naval rival in the Kaiserliche Marine was gone and the French navy was done for.
The only other naval power was American and they signed too so from allround it was all gravy.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
This is my understanding as well -- they were, after all, a "five" power. I thought as well that after the first London conference they were happy with it because it obviated the need of expensive replacements for the aging fleets of all parties.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Can you sauce the British unhappy with the Washington?
I ain't feelin it.
I ain't feelin it.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I think there were tensions in the Atlantic relationship, coming from both sides, but in this context of the restriction of fleets, I think both parties were fine with the arrangement. I certainly don't remember reading about any big discord in the relations between the two countries.
The USA did have a war-plan (Red, IIRC) dealing with a war with Britain in the 20s, but I suspect that was more a matter of military make-work/thoroughness than a serious consideration. The US was much more worried about Japan, and the Brits about European and/or domestic politics, at that time.
Had Britain aligned with Japan in the 20s, I think American naval thought would have been much more worried. Hence the American pressure for the UK to leave the Japanese to their own devices. America may have even pulled out of WNT, facing the possibility of a real two-front naval war?
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Was a war with America real? The Anglo Japanese was dropped on American say so. Britain was in debt to the USA so maybe get rid of debt by shooting it.
The Japanese hot heads were angry but they signed the treaty freely. They signed and that was that.
Of course, world conquest was off the menu for the British and so end of an era but if you don't have the cash then building battleships which on the whole did not do zip in ww1 anyway is not the wise choice.
War with USA is ok as we can get back our colonies. And avenge our tea.
The Japanese hot heads were angry but they signed the treaty freely. They signed and that was that.
Of course, world conquest was off the menu for the British and so end of an era but if you don't have the cash then building battleships which on the whole did not do zip in ww1 anyway is not the wise choice.
War with USA is ok as we can get back our colonies. And avenge our tea.
Admiral Beez
Major
Humiliation aside, Japan saw some real benefits from the WNT. The Treaty prohibited any further fortified bases in PTO islands outside of Manila, Singapore and Hawaii. Otherwise the US, ANZ/UK may well have fortified the Solomons, PNG, etc. On PNG the Australians have at least one B-17 capable airfield as a starting point.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
The reason Japan signed was because it was in the best interest of Japan.
However, it wasn't in the best interest of Leeroy Jenkins. And the Japanese decided that Leeroy Jenkins was a military doctrine and not a stupid internet meme.
However, it wasn't in the best interest of Leeroy Jenkins. And the Japanese decided that Leeroy Jenkins was a military doctrine and not a stupid internet meme.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
That's assuming that Grand Albion prevails - otherwise it'll be driving on the right side of the road and watching crappy sitcoms and reality shows on TV...
Nine pages and yet not one image such as this:
Source: How the Mitsubishi Zero won the Battle of Britain
Source: How the Mitsubishi Zero won the Battle of Britain
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Wow! Nice!
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
I do like the Fw 190.
The article is along the lines of 'let's whip up the future equipment for a beligerent force and get the best possible result out of it'. Me, I'm much more fond of the type of story that goes like 'making the best out of contemporary and available tech'; or, 'let's explore the path that was possible within what is available, but was not taken'.
