|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2021 22:24:45 GMT
Deleted , what is your opinion on the political/diplomatic effects of Japan avoiding an invasion of French Indochina and focusing on China and the Soviet Union as targets of their political philosophy. For Indochina, it worked quite swell for them as they didn't need to spend much resources for a total invasion,resource they needed on other territories like the Philippines for instance. For the long term, the war of independence by the Vietnamese against the French gave them the experience needed to fight the U. S a decade later. Which wouldn't have been possible had Japan told the French to move over and went for a total occupation. For China, the effects are pretty obvious to this day: their deep dislike of each other usually them clashing in terms of foreign policy. For the Soviets, I would have liked to say that caused anything significant, but it's more unclear in that front. They did bungle up their diplomatic meeting there, as the higher ups didn't understand that Stalin would want to invade regardless as their diplomat their kept mentioning. This was around the time Germany surrendered.
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Oct 26, 2021 13:06:04 GMT
Deleted , what is your opinion on the political/diplomatic effects of Japan avoiding an invasion of French Indochina and focusing on China and the Soviet Union as targets of their political philosophy. For Indochina, it worked quite swell for them as they didn't need to spend much resources for a total invasion,resource they needed on other territories like the Philippines for instance. For the long term, the war of independence by the Vietnamese against the French gave them the experience needed to fight the U. S a decade later. Which wouldn't have been possible had Japan told the French to move over and went for a total occupation. For China, the effects are pretty obvious to this day: their deep dislike of each other usually them clashing in terms of foreign policy. For the Soviets, I would have liked to say that caused anything significant, but it's more unclear in that front. They did bungle up their diplomatic meeting there, as the higher ups didn't understand that Stalin would want to invade regardless as their diplomat their kept mentioning. This was around the time Germany surrendered. So then are you downplaying the effects of the American embargo on Japan as a result of the invasion of French Indochina? Or do you think it was important and merely chose not to include it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2021 15:07:42 GMT
So then are you downplaying the effects of the American embargo on Japan as a result of the invasion of French Indochina? Or do you think it was important and merely chose not to include it? Nah, i simply didn't add it. Reason being was that yes, it was the reason for the U.S freezing Japanese assets, but since Japan had plans to invade all of Southeast Asia to take their resource and "liberate" them from their western captors, it would be a matter of time that US would freeze Japans assets even if Japan decided to ignore French Indochina. That's my reasoning for not including it. And adding it would make me explain more than necessary. Simply put, US freezing Japans assets was a big deal when it happened, but if the invasion were not to happen, it would only be a matter of time for the embargo to realize due to Japan's overall goal in the war. Some of history might change, but the overall result wouldn't change much, atleast for who wins the war.
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Oct 26, 2021 16:02:41 GMT
Captain , was Burma an important political/strategic goal for the Japanese? Were the British an important enemy? Why? As we look more deep to history we can find Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's AZAD HIND FAUZ(a resistance force in india against the Britishers)also supported a lot to japanese forces while invading Burma and yes this the important political/strategic position for japanese, though later they were forced to move back from there by the allied forces, actually if they last more longer there and if the plane of AZAD HIND FAUZ's leader didn't crashed they might finally proceed to India(also they will obviously gave independence to India under Subhash'preseidentship if the really managed to defeat the Britishers in india) For me the Britishers were not so important for Japan because their main intent was to keep growing in Pacific-Asia. While US was the major power in Pacific (Soviets were also a major power but they thought Germany will keep defeating her) so their main enemy or challenge is US (British just helped US by maintaining tensions for Japanese in west or Asia) Britishers were though some what important enemy type for them during the battle in Burma(and some islands which in present day are indenosia) but soon they got victory over them. Overall US was the greatest enemy for the japanese Gerd von Rundstedt ,you didn't replied me, Am I correct? Yes, good.
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Oct 26, 2021 16:03:49 GMT
So then are you downplaying the effects of the American embargo on Japan as a result of the invasion of French Indochina? Or do you think it was important and merely chose not to include it? Nah, i simply didn't add it. Reason being was that yes, it was the reason for the U.S freezing Japanese assets, but since Japan had plans to invade all of Southeast Asia to take their resource and "liberate" them from their western captors, it would be a matter of time that US would freeze Japans assets even if Japan decided to ignore French Indochina. That's my reasoning for not including it. And adding it would make me explain more than necessary. Simply put, US freezing Japans assets was a big deal when it happened, but if the invasion were not to happen, it would only be a matter of time for the embargo to realize due to Japan's overall goal in the war. Some of history might change, but the overall result wouldn't change much, atleast for who wins the war. On this note, were the French still an important colonial or military power in 1937? I have heard it both ways.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2021 16:28:44 GMT
Nah, i simply didn't add it. Reason being was that yes, it was the reason for the U.S freezing Japanese assets, but since Japan had plans to invade all of Southeast Asia to take their resource and "liberate" them from their western captors, it would be a matter of time that US would freeze Japans assets even if Japan decided to ignore French Indochina. That's my reasoning for not including it. And adding it would make me explain more than necessary. Simply put, US freezing Japans assets was a big deal when it happened, but if the invasion were not to happen, it would only be a matter of time for the embargo to realize due to Japan's overall goal in the war. Some of history might change, but the overall result wouldn't change much, atleast for who wins the war. On this note, were the French still an important colonial or military power in 1937? I have heard it both ways. They are a power, but they were declining. Reason was simply how things were changing, with people wanting freedom from their colonists and all that. That, and they were still recovering from losses in ww1, and therefore their colonies were feeling the change in the wind basically. That, and the french didn't try enacting reforms to prevent any colonial uprisings, or strengthening their military, or just updating their technology to keep up with the other powers at the time. By the time ww2 was done, Algiers and Indochina immediately revolted, and the french lost them. It may not seem connected, as the loss of ww2 was the main reason, but it's more of a reason by proxy. If France was prepared to deal with Germany's military might, then their losses would've been more manageable and they would've been able to prevent such losses. Quite simple explanation tho, as the politics of the topic is more complex than that.
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Oct 26, 2021 16:37:18 GMT
On this note, were the French still an important colonial or military power in 1937? I have heard it both ways. They are a power, but they were declining. Reason was simply how things were changing, with people wanting freedom from their colonists and all that. That, and they were still recovering from losses in ww1, and therefore their colonies were feeling the change in the wind basically. That, and the french didn't try enacting reforms to prevent any colonial uprisings, or strengthening their military, or just updating their technology to keep up with the other powers at the time. By the time ww2 was done, Algiers and Indochina immediately revolted, and the french lost them. It may not seem connected, as the loss of ww2 was the main reason, but it's more of a reason by proxy. If France was prepared to deal with Germany's military might, then their losses would've been more manageable and they would've been able to prevent such losses. Quite simple explanation tho, as the politics of the topic is more complex than that. Good.
|
|
|
Post by Captain on Oct 27, 2021 17:03:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Oct 27, 2021 18:15:16 GMT
Apply according to the rules on Page 1.
|
|
|
Post by Captain on Oct 28, 2021 17:32:26 GMT
Dear leader Gerd von Rundstedt, I already requested and showed mine interst to join this group Please accept mine request
|
|
|
Post by Captain on Nov 3, 2021 17:05:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Nhyjj on Nov 4, 2021 0:25:31 GMT
I guess it would be showing your history implicated posts. I don’t remember if it was removed from the requirements but it’s what I had to do before getting accepted in late May. It’s literally written on the first post of this thread. Try that.
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Nov 5, 2021 18:50:54 GMT
I guess it would be showing your history implicated posts. I don’t remember if it was removed from the requirements but it’s what I had to do before getting accepted in late May. It’s literally written on the first post of this thread. Try that. It's a debate with a leader nowadays. Also, Captain already did that and applied.
|
|
|
Post by Nhyjj on Nov 5, 2021 22:54:08 GMT
I guess it would be showing your history implicated posts. I don’t remember if it was removed from the requirements but it’s what I had to do before getting accepted in late May. It’s literally written on the first post of this thread. Try that. It's a debate with a leader nowadays. Also, Captain already did that and applied. Ik, but Gerd von Rundstedt says there’s another thing to do, and we can’t figure out what it is. This was my only guess. I would accept you Captain, but I’ve only been a leader for a month now. I lack of experience to accept IMO
|
|
|
Post by 𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘬𝘺 on Nov 5, 2021 23:25:12 GMT
[...] Communism on its own would most likely be heavily affected, as it could only rise due to the révolution, which was sparked by Russia losing the war and having no more supplies, which would be fixed in this alterante reality. Of course, the revolution would still most likely happen. This is because WW1 was merely the trigger to the revolution. There were also a huge number of extra reasons, that had been boiling for years. If not then, then maybe later, but the revolution would still most likely happen. But maybe it wouldn't be communism which would rise to power, but democracy? I have no idea. But communism would most likely not even start to spread, as it was mainly thanks to Lenin that it started in Russia. [...] because WW1 revolution was a golden opportunity for the Bolsheviks to take over. If this revolution didn't even happen, because Russia was receiving enough supplies, support and military help to win the war, then the Bolsheviks couldn't have staged their coup. Another opportunity like this wouldn't occur until 1939, when WW2 came along, or possibly 1929, the great bank crash. Sadly, the main character in communism, mr Vladimir Lenin, was already dead by then, meaning that Communism wouldn't have spread as it did in our timeline. Or atleast not in Russia. (As i've said, this is a what-if scenario, so anything could've happened. I'm merely going by the events which did happen in our timeline.) The reason why I have this tought, is because if Lenin died, there were really only 2 people who could've taken over: Stalin or Trotsky. Stalin was never a good leader, and would have not been able to organize the CCCP in it's early years (we all know how deals with wars and conflicts). The other option, Trotsky, would've been a better pick, but he didn't have the leader skills Lenin did. He was more of a military strategist. So, either way, the CCCP wouldn't have been able to become as influential and important as in our timeline. (I really hope this was the right answer ) Sorry for this brutal quoting Inactive user. Just a private question, what do you know about the role of Lev Bronstein in the russian revolutions?
|
|