How do you think it would be if...

Japan's main oil supplier was USA. About 90% of Japan's oil imports were originated from USA. The embargo could easily cripple IJN. Quite provocative move in such a little time, in my opinion.

Provocative?
What obligation did US companies or the government have to keep selling goods to Japan?
As for provocation I would have thought the main provocation was when Japan sank a US warship which was escorting US oil tankers that were being threatened by Japan. I would of thought that was sufficient provocation for the US to block all its trade with Japan.
But no, a country later blocking some of its trade with another country that is on the rampage across a continent is the real provocative move in some peoples book

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Provocative?
What obligation did US companies or the government have to keep selling goods to Japan?
As for provocation I would have thought the main provocation was when Japan sank a US warship which was escorting US oil tankers that were being threatened by Japan. I would of thought that was sufficient provocation for the US to block all its trade with Japan.
But no, a country later blocking some of its trade with another country that is on the rampage across a continent is the real provocative move in some peoples book

As I understand it, the embargo was to curtail the agressive Japanese in other Asia countries. Correct me if I'm wrong here. I would suspect all trade would stop after ships are sunk.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Lt.Fillipidis

...the Axis had won the war?

Im making this thread out of boredom cause i see the same threads getting bumped and bumped again. I've read the whole BALZ series already, if someone asks.

Well, i think it would be the end of communism and Germany (if not European Union as a whole) would probably be as USA is today when the reins would pass from Hitler to the next one.

*Its a giant topic this one, i know, but just xplain it in 2-3 lines.

There wouldn't be a SS here for you to create this thread...and regardles of the adverse comment/s I have read in relation to Roosevelt...it is because of him and his friendly actions in support of the UK that were one of the mainstays of our fight for survival.

IMO Roosevelt has been the best POTUS in terms of US/UK relations.

[Catfish]

Hello,

with the "Duce" Mr. Mussolini winning the war we all might have been ending up driving italian cars

Greetings,
Catfish

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Lt.Fillipidis

One thing i just remembered reading the post of Torplexed.
Japan's main oil supplier was USA. About 90% of Japan's oil imports were originated from USA. The embargo could easily cripple IJN. Quite provocative move in such a little time, in my opinion.

The image of a Japan backed into a corner by American boycotts and sanctions and finally lashing out in desperation has been a staple of anti-Roosevelt politics and revisionist history for a quarter century after 1945. Did the US use a powerful economic lever on Japan by resorting to embargo? Yes, because diplomatic protests through normal channels to a country essentially being run by a military clique who no longer answered to any civilian authority wasn't working anymore.

As I understand it, the embargo was to curtail the agressive Japanese in other Asia countries. Correct me if I'm wrong here. I would suspect all trade would stop after ships are sunk.

No, there were threats from countries about stopping trade with Japan because of the attacks on those countries trade with China but little actually happened for a coupe of years until they got really pissed off with the Japanese. Generally Japan would apologise, offer compensation and everyone was happy....till next time when Japan would apologise.....

It got complicated due to the legal limbo created both by the sino-japanese treaty and the failure to declare a state of war.
Under the 19th century treaties America, Italy, Portugal, France and Britain (and later Japan) protected shipping and guaranteed safe passage all the way from shanghai to chungking(and beyond in theory). Japans attempt after siezing the lower river to restrict that shipping and stop Chinas trade was illegal as due to her own treaty obligations and as the inheritor of German trade rights she had to guarantee free passage too.

Really it can't be put any other way, Americas eventual embargo was not a provocation, it was a very mild very delayed reaction to repeated and sustained provocations by Japan.

[Méo]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Assuming he was replaced by competent leadership before any of these happened, Germany might have had a chance of winning the war to some extent.

Even then, the U.S. were ahead of the curve with the nuclear weapon, who knows how it would have been if the U.S. had the intention to use the full potential of the bomb against Germany?

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Méo

Even then, the U.S. were ahead of the curve with the nuclear weapon, who knows how it would have been if the U.S. had the intention to use the full potential of the bomb against Germany?

A nuclear weapon does not win a war unless it it is either used in overwhelming quantities, which were not present until much later, or forces a surrender in a country that is already debating and on the brink of it (As Japan was).

Besides that, assuming a competent German leadership would have been able to force Russia into some kind of favourable peace (Also assuming that said leadership is competent enough to realize that conquering Russia is a lost cause), they could invade and occupy Britain and Iceland, which would make any sort of bombing attack from North America extremely dangerous if at all possible.

[Méo]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

A nuclear weapon does not win a war unless it it is either used in overwhelming quantities, which were not present until much later, or forces a surrender in a country that is already debating and on the brink of it (As Japan was).

Well I don't think it's a valuable argument to compare Japan with other western societies (even Germany of that time).

Among all the Japanese military (and even the civilian) there was the Bushidō spirit (which is a hard thing to understand but it was part of their culture). Many (if not most) of their military leaders who saw their country on the way to defeat wanted to create a huge Seppuku (or harakiri) for the whole Japanese people.

Some are gonna say that Germans were as radical as the Japanese but I don't think so. The German society of that time (altough not as revolutionary as the French) were still a western society (they were not all SS). So I think that the effect of few nuclear attacks on Germany would have been greater.

Even then, I'm not sure if it's worth to speculate on which island or place they could have invaded or what U.S. would not be able to do. There are just so many imponderables.

I agree with you in some case, a competent German leadership has prove itself in defeating France. IMHO, this competent leadership could have win the war in western Europe with quick campaigns, but I don't see how they could have conquered the whole world.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Méo

Well I don't think it's a valuable argument to compare Japan with other western societies (even Germany of that time).

Among all the Japanese military (and even the civilian) there was the Bushidō spirit (which is a hard thing to understand but it was part of their culture). Many (if not most) of their military leaders who saw their country on the way to defeat wanted to create a huge Seppuku (or harakiri) for the whole Japanese people.

Some are gonna say that Germans were as radical as the Japanese but I don't think so. The German society of that time (altough not as revolutionary as the French) were still a western society (they were not all SS). So I think that the effect of few nuclear attacks on Germany would have been greater.

Even then, I'm not sure if it's worth to speculate on which island or place they could have invaded or what U.S. would not be able to do. There are just so many imponderables.

I agree with you in some case, a competent German leadership has prove itself in defeating France. IMHO, this competent leadership could have win the war in western Europe with quick campaigns, but I don't see how they could have conquered the whole world.

The Allied bombing of Germany was much more devastating than a few of the early A-Bombs could be, yet the Germans still fought on. The difference between dropping such weapons on an enemy that has been defeated militarily and is on the brink of collapse and an enemy that is victorious elsewhere (Short of dropping so many of them that it will completely destroy their ability to fight), is that a defeated enemy will be pushed over to surrender, while an undefeated one would just be galvanized to keep fighting in order to avenge their countrymen and defeat those that bombed them.

Speculating on which island could've been invaded and what the US wouldn't be able to do is perfectly worthy. The question was whether Germany could win the war, they could. Of course nothing is certain in war.

Note that I said they could win the war to some extent. Conquering the world would be highly unlikely, but gaining a final, favourable peace was IMO within their power had they been led properly.

[Méo]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

The Allied bombing of Germany was much more devastating than a few of the early A-Bombs could be, yet the Germans still fought on.

Well there's a MAJOR difference between a standard bombing and an nuclear one.

If you imagine yourself in a city being bombed in the old fashioned way, you have a certain time to react, there is place for hope, for survival. This is probably why they kept fighting.

On the other hand, if you imagine yourself in a city targeted for a nuclear attack, the second you realize you're attacked, you're vaporized. no time to react, NO HOPE.

I think this is the critical difference, nuclear weapons are inescapable, this is why they are so terrifying.

This must have an indescribable effect on populations...

Originally Posted by Méo

Well there's a MAJOR difference between a standard bombing and an nuclear one.

If you imagine yourself in a city being bombed in the old fashioned way, you have a certain time to react, there is place for hope, for survival. This is probably why they kept fighting.

On the other hand, if you imagine yourself in a city targeted for a nuclear attack, the second you realize you're attacked, you're vaporized. no time to react, NO HOPE.

I think this is the critical difference, nuclear weapons are inescapable, this is why they are so terrifying.

This must have an indescribable effect on populations...

Incendiary bombing has the same result because, the fires consume all the oxygen.

[Méo]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Incendiary bombing has the same result because, the fires consume all the oxygen.

I'm talking about the psychological effect.

And waves of bombers are easier to detect and easier to counterattack than a single plane.

[Méo]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Incendiary bombing has the same result because, the fires consume all the oxygen.

Even then, this is not the same effect, you still have time to react, to defend, you could have some air tank.

Originally Posted by Méo

I'm talking about the psychological effect.

And waves of bombers are easier to detect and easier to counterattack than a single plane.

You have a valid point.