What if?

[Lunatic]

If Japan had attacked British colonies in the Pacific, I believe the US was obliged to enter the war via treaty.

Without attacking either the US or Britian, Japan's war in China was stagnent. They did not have the fuel to pursue the war further - this was their motivation for attacking the USA after the USA/Britain cut off their oil supplies from the Duch East Indies.

In my opinion, the most viable change to the war to bring about German victory would have been an alliance between Germany and the Ukrain Sepratists. This would have transfered something around 1 to 1.5 million troops to the Axis side and probably brought Turkey into the war on the Axis side as well. It also would have eliminated the need for the southern attack into Russia, leaving more troops to attack Lenningrad and Moscow. And it would have provided a source of oil to the German army as well.

If this did bring Turkey into the war, it would have opened another route of attack, not dependant on control of the Med, into the Middle East and probably ensured the capture of Suez. With the capture of Suez and the securing of the Mid East, 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.

Fortunately, Hitler's racism prevented such an alliance, he would not ally himself with such "inferior" stock.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

In my opinion, the most viable change to the war to bring about German victory would have been an alliance between Germany and the Ukrain Sepratists. This would have transfered something around 1 to 1.5 million troops to the Axis side and probably brought Turkey into the war on the Axis side as well. It also would have eliminated the need for the southern attack into Russia, leaving more troops to attack Lenningrad and Moscow. And it would have provided a source of oil to the German army as well.

Agreed

 

[P38 Pilot]

In my opinion, the most viable change to the war to bring about German victory would have been an alliance between Germany and the Ukrain Sepratists. This would have transfered something around 1 to 1.5 million troops to the Axis side and probably brought Turkey into the war on the Axis side as well. It also would have eliminated the need for the southern attack into Russia, leaving more troops to attack Lenningrad and Moscow. And it would have provided a source of oil to the German army as well.

Exactly. This would've put some pressure on the Russians from all fronts.
The oil would've have really gotten the Germans going.

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.

Again, another great observation!

Fortunately, Hitler's racism prevented such an alliance, he would not ally himself with such "inferior" stock.

100% Pure Irony.

 

[syscom3]

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.

Without attacking either the US or Britian, Japan's war in China was stagnent. They did not have the fuel to pursue the war further - this was their motivation for attacking the USA after the USA/Britain cut off their oil supplies from the Duch East Indies.

True, but it was also oil and scrap iron from the US

In my opinion, the most viable change to the war to bring about German victory would have been an alliance between Germany and the Ukrain Sepratists. This would have transfered something around 1 to 1.5 million troops to the Axis side and probably brought Turkey into the war on the Axis side as well. It also would have eliminated the need for the southern attack into Russia, leaving more troops to attack Lenningrad and Moscow. And it would have provided a source of oil to the German army as well.

Agreed

........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.

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.

 

[Glider]

I think that there is a tendency here to underestimate India's feeling for the UK. An awful lot of Indian Troops fought for the Allies and they were not drafted in.
I know that India had developed to the point of rightly demanding independence, but don't think that they wouldn't have fought against Japan. The Japs went to a lot of effort to emphasise this division and got nowhere with it.

 

[plan_D]

This couldn't be more true. India contributed over ten-million soldiers and combat workers to the Allied cause in the CBI. They made up the majority of those troops fighting in the CBI, against Japan. It is a well-known fact in British historical circles that India would have much prefered a British rule, than a Japanese one. It was always a case of destroying the Japanese threat, then getting Britain out of the country.

There's no way India would have supplied more than they did in manpower to the Axis. In fact, I believe the Indians serving against the Allies never reached more than a couple of thousand. And these were shot to pieces by Indians as they marched against them chanting; "Freedom for India,". I'm surprised the loyalty of India is even in question in America, because it's certainly not in question in Britain.

 

[Glider]

I should point out that we still have good ties with both India and Pakistan.
When I was training we had a number of people from overseas countries serving the five year apprenticeship in the RN including people from the Indian and Pakistani Navy.

 

[syscom3]

This is a what if scenario. If the Indians thought the british were going to collapse, they would side with the victor.

Same thing happened in Indonesia with the Dutch.

 

[plan_D]

And what makes you so sure? The Indians made up the majority of combat troops in the CBI, for the British forces to collapse would mean only a small portion of the army facing Japan in the CBI collapsing. It's well known in this country that Indians hated a possible Japanese rule more than a British one.

The Indians would have fought the Japanese 'til the end. The Japanese were halted at Imphal, they had a long way to go even if they did break through Imphal. The Indians would not just collapse and join their side.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have to go with pD on this one based off of what he just said.

 

[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.

........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.

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

 

[Lunatic]

I think if you study the situation in India at the time you will see that there were serious devisions within that country. Had Japan successfully captured India, undoubtedly some of the troops would have switched sides. Others would simply have stood down, and others would have remained with the British.

This is why I gave the number of 1 to 1.5 million. Remember, that means only half that number actually switching sides, since each one counts as one less for the Allies and one more for the Axis, for a shift of 2.

I do not think the Indian's would have wanted to switch to Japanese rule, but I don't think it was necessary for Japan to sell their occupation that way.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If I recall, I might be wrong and I am going to have to do some research on this but there were Indian units in the Wehrmacht. Again I am not 100% on this and if htere were htye were very small units.