Why would the US sit back and watch Japan encircling their possessions in the Pacific/Far East and securing supplies of oil and resources?
Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
Why would the US sit back and watch Japan encircling their possessions in the Pacific/Far East and securing supplies of oil and resources?
Because they can't sell a war? At least Roosevelt didn't think the American people would go to war over European colonies.
If the USA launches an unprovoked attack on Japan then same thing. Japan offers peace, no changes or even gains for the USA.
Would seem to go against Europe first by attacking Japan
Not sure if this is the right place, but it’s about a Chinese phrase. In the Hearts if Iron IV mod Eight Years of Resistance, Nationalist China has a spirit called something along the lines of “An Inch of Mountain, an Inch of Blood.” Googling this returns a couple of links with the similar “One inch of river and mountain one inch of blood,” but it appears to be a description of a campaign with the phrase as the title. Trying to look up Chinese propaganda in the Second Sino-Japanese War isn’t very effective, so my question is was this an actual phrase utilized by the Chinese? If so, what resources could I use to research it and other pieces of propaganda from WWII China?
McPherson
Banned
Two possibilities:
1. They get postponed?
2. A lot fewer voters?
Thank Murphy for JFK.
McP.
Probably the most likely option. When do they occur?
A lot fewer is probably an understatement. Lol.
McPherson
Banned
I have no idea. Honestly I have seen no competent study of a post nuclear exchange US political situation that is worth a damn. The best guess is that martial law has to be relaxed after "the broken back" war is concluded and that could be decades or never. Probably never since I think the 1960s RAND Follies are like the modern RAND Follies, full of optimism that there would be any kind of political structure or organized economic and social system recognizable left.
60,000,000 million dead? The post attack casualties are where the real dying occurs. Soviet bombs were "dirty".
Might write a timeline focusing on US politics after a Cuban Missile War. Or it could spiral into my more outlandish idea of Curtis LeMay pulling a military coup against JFK. Probably a bit of both.
Well, I guess they could rebuild infrastructure, but it would take a while. I'd say ten to twenty years until everything goes back to normal.
And there's also famine, post-war violence, radiation induced cancers, and more, to make the casualty count higher. Is there any estimate for how many people would die?
McPherson
Banned
(^^^) Out of the 2 and 1/2 billions involved, I think the global estimate was about 500 million at the low end in the most competent study I saw (RAND 66?). What the upper limit would have been is questionable, but with the collapse of international trade, and supply chains, international organizations that battled such things as epidemics, famine and that would be needed for post attack climate change and general chaos and would not be there to pick up the pieces, could 1/2 of humanity dead as an end result be that out of estimate? Your guess is as good as mine. Blowing everybody back to 1812 to start over is not my idea of a start model for making post attack estimates.
I'm not great on Turkish history, but I have this idea running through my head and I guess I'd like to throw it on the slush pile.
Atatürk stops drinking. He lives for another fifteen or so years, seeing Turkey through WWII and beyond. He also keeps Turkey neutral, but he sways towards the Allies after seeing how Britain especially could be a model for a democratic Turkey. Now, after WWII IOTL İnönü democratised quickly out of fear that it'd look bad if Turkey was a dictatorship and not a democracy after the war. Atatürk, however, doesn't do this, especially since the Allies aren't exactly committed to toppling the likes of Spain and Portugal after this, so he seeks guidance from the Allies on properly democratising Turkey without risking reactionary backlash.
Essentially, the CHP in Atatürk's twilight years becomes a pragmatic conservative party influenced by the likes of Adenauer's CDU and Churchill's Tories. They form the basis of the Turkish welfare state (more along British Labour lines), but they aren't dirigiste, especially since Celâl Bayar is influencing economic policy. As such, the left wing of the CHP splits off, forming a social democratic party in opposition to the postwar CHP's nascent conservatism. Thus, Turkish democracy is born naturally.
Atatürk dies around 1953, and if everything goes to plan, there aren't any internal military coups ITTL. That's the ideal, anyway. God knows if that's how it'd work in practice.
Atatürk stops drinking. He lives for another fifteen or so years, seeing Turkey through WWII and beyond. He also keeps Turkey neutral, but he sways towards the Allies after seeing how Britain especially could be a model for a democratic Turkey. Now, after WWII IOTL İnönü democratised quickly out of fear that it'd look bad if Turkey was a dictatorship and not a democracy after the war. Atatürk, however, doesn't do this, especially since the Allies aren't exactly committed to toppling the likes of Spain and Portugal after this, so he seeks guidance from the Allies on properly democratising Turkey without risking reactionary backlash.
Essentially, the CHP in Atatürk's twilight years becomes a pragmatic conservative party influenced by the likes of Adenauer's CDU and Churchill's Tories. They form the basis of the Turkish welfare state (more along British Labour lines), but they aren't dirigiste, especially since Celâl Bayar is influencing economic policy. As such, the left wing of the CHP splits off, forming a social democratic party in opposition to the postwar CHP's nascent conservatism. Thus, Turkish democracy is born naturally.
Atatürk dies around 1953, and if everything goes to plan, there aren't any internal military coups ITTL. That's the ideal, anyway. God knows if that's how it'd work in practice.
WI: On the 100th anniversary of the Great Earthquake of 1906, an Earthquake of equal magnitude to what hit San Francisco a century earlier strikes the city and it's people.
McPherson
Banned
200,000 casualties and between 100 and 150 BILLION dollars in damage, plus Silly-Con valley goes tango-uniform. IOW 2008 economic disaster comes earlier and the political chat section of this site becomes even more interesting. Not discussable here, though.