Fall of France 1940

This will mean the war against France and United Kingdom but not USA, well is a logical supposition that Yamamoto could be consider logical to secure first some territories before to enter the war against USA
I have real concers about this. IJN considered U.S. & Britain inseperable OTL & attacked Pearl because it expected USN would immediately intervene, using P.I. as a base. (Recall your PTO geography: Luzon is athwart Japan's major SLOC to DEI, the Luzon Strait.) I'm more inclined to think Japan would leave IndoChina be, since France is clearly stronger TTL than OTL, & the OTL sanctions (& ultimately Pearl) only followed the invasion of IndoChina. Would Japan "go North", instead? Maybe, but I'm dubious of that, too, aftr the spanking the Red Army gave IJA in '38 & '39.:rolleyes:
Remember that Pearl Harbour was inspired by the British raid on Taranto (IIRC).
:mad: I am so tired of this piece of fiction. IJN had the best torpedo bombers in the world OTL 1940, & it's not like the Japanese were idiots who couldn't read a chart. (Which is more/less what the Pearl Harbor conspiracy loons would have you believe...)
But this invasion of Australia surprises me, although well is possible, very risky for the japanese to deviate troops from the principal objective (Netherlands Indonesia).

A question about this invasion of Australia, the japanese truly wants to conquer Australia (or at least North Australia) or is more a secondary invasion thought principally by the japanese to deviate the allies reinforcements from Indonesia and Indochina to Australia and so the principal force of the japanese could invade Indonesia easier because the allies reinforcement have been sent to Australia?
This one is ASB. IJA didn't have the shipping or manpower to even attempt it, & knew it.
10. December
Attacking on a Wednesday, & they catch 3 CVs in harbor?:confused: I really, really doubt it.
 
Last edited:
Top