WI Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor

The true rival for the UK in the early years of the 20th Century, and the last decade of 19th, was the United States. The U.S. & UK both needed control of the Atlantic to defend their economic life blood. The U.S. was openly expansionist, having driven the Spanish from the New World, taken much of Spain's Empire in the Pacific and presented a nascent, but growing strategic threat to Malaya and even Singapore. The American Navy, while lacking in light forces possessed a growing number of absolute cutting edge capital ships equal to anything in the RN. It was this competition for national security needs that, in major part (along with both countries desire to counter the Tsar), brought about the Anglo/Japanese Alliance in the very early 20th Century. This afforded the UK (and Japan), at minimal cost, a nice counterbalance to the USN and any potential American aggression since it was a mutual DEFENSE arrangement. The demise of the Anglo/Japanese Treaty in 1921 was entirely the result of the UK deciding that it was far more useful to maintain close ties to the Americans (and not incidentally stop a naval arms race that the destitute post WW I UK had no hope of winning) than to antagonize Washington by supporting the Japanese against the U.S.

Calbear

I'm surprised your propagating this old myth.:confused: The alliance had nothing to do with America. It was only the US navalists and their supporters who claimed that to try and get more funds out of Congress. The alliance was always directed against Russia, and later Germany and in the 3rd edition Britain even weakened the alliance by insisting on a clause that would prevent it applying in the event of a US attack on Japan.

America was a major economic rival of Britain and for historical and reasons of vested interests sometimes took an unfriendly stance to the UK but Britain had already committed itself resolving any dispute with America by any means other than war.

Steve
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Calbear

I'm surprised your propagating this old myth.:confused: The alliance had nothing to do with America. It was only the US navalists and their supporters who claimed that to try and get more funds out of Congress. The alliance was always directed against Russia, and later Germany and in the 3rd edition Britain even weakened the alliance by insisting on a clause that would prevent it applying in the event of a US attack on Japan.

America was a major economic rival of Britain and for historical and reasons of vested interests sometimes took an unfriendly stance to the UK but Britain had already committed itself resolving any dispute with America by any means other than war.

Steve

The Alliance may have been significantly directed toward Russia, but the need to contain the USN was always a consideration. It was actually the Japanese who suggested the inclusion of the article regarding "any power which either country had a general arbitration agreement" in the 1911 renewal of the Treaty.

It was not until the Anglo-American Rapprochement in 1910 that the British and Americans seriously moved away from significant friction. Even then, as noted, it was the Japanese who initiated the idea of altering the Treaty.

The actions of the two countries, especially the UK, starting around that time, are also an exceptionally good example of how two countries can successfully deal with friction regarding security spheres. There was actually little reason for the two countries to resolve the friction points as peacefully as eventually happened. There was no love lost between Washington and London for most of the 19th Century. Still, both states saw that it was far more beneficial to make peace instead of war. This is a remarkably rare feat, one that the U.S. and Japan never even considered.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
If Japan booted us (Commonwealth) out of Singapore and the DEI, what could they do to overcome a blockade of 'contraband oil'?

A pipeline across the Malacca straight might allow land transport for some of the journey. A refinery in Jahor would make it hard to establish where the oil comes from. The IJN could fuel up in Singapore and unload in home ports. An offensive supplied from Malaya wouldn't need to take the oil home. Blockade of military supplies in a war zone? Would congress vote for that? Uncomfortable as it might make us feel, the Japanese could have taken over Asia with a little more political savvy.

Extra pressure on India would rule out a second front in Europe from the Commonwealth forces. Commonwealth lend-lease to Russia would still be enough to turn the tide of the eastern front though.
 

Cook

Banned
A pipeline across the Malacca straight might allow land transport for some of the journey. A refinery in Jahor would make it hard to establish where the oil comes from.

An undersea pipeline and Oil refinery in Jahor aren’t going to be built overnight. (The nit pickers are going to start shouting PLUTO now) And an oil refinery in Jahor would have been within range of the bombers at Truscott Airbase in the Kimberley.
 
An undersea pipeline and Oil refinery in Jahor aren’t going to be built overnight.



Cook,

How dare you bring logic and reason into this discussion...

(The nit pickers are going to start shouting PLUTO now)

Well, the nitpickers can be handled by pointing out it took the WAllies over two years to first design, develop, test, and manufacture PLUTO plus the mechanisms and shipping needed to lay it. Japan doesn't have the petroleum experience the UK's various Persian Gulf companies brought to the problem and Japan doesn't have the industrial capacity the UK and US could employ.

Even after all that effort it still took something over 15 PLUTO lines to deliver all of 3,000 tons of gasoline a day by early 1945.

And we haven't even touched upon the land pipeline that would necessary to move the production of the Sumatran field to the Straits or the undersea pipelines necessary to transfer the production of the Javan fields to Sumatra.

And an oil refinery in Jahor would have been within range of the bombers at Truscott Airbase in the Kimberley.

Not to mention the pumping stations and tanks all of the pipelines would require.

Of course, none of these concerns show up in the video games so perhaps we shouldn't worry about them. ;)


Bill
 

Cook

Banned
I apologise profusely to Bill for disgracefully introducing the two offending articles (Logic and reason) into the site; or at least as close as I can get to logic and reason anyway.

Interestingly enough the Japanese were never able to locate Truscott and mistakenly assumed that the bombers operating from there were flying from Broome instead. The absence of a runway capable of supporting bombers didn’t stop them repeatedly bombing the crap out of Broome and makes you wonder at the quality of aerial reconnaissance assessment the Japanese Imperial Navy employed.

One Japanese plane did fly over Truscott and was shot down before it could report back.
 
The Alliance may have been significantly directed toward Russia, but the need to contain the USN was always a consideration. It was actually the Japanese who suggested the inclusion of the article regarding "any power which either country had a general arbitration agreement" in the 1911 renewal of the Treaty.

I think you will find that that was in response to pressure from Britain. Britain had already excluded the idea of war with the US and even banned the armed forces from making precautionary plans for such an occurrence. [Although hopefully some of the professionals were making some precautions].

It was not until the Anglo-American Rapprochement in 1910 that the British and Americans seriously moved away from significant friction. Even then, as noted, it was the Japanese who initiated the idea of altering the Treaty.

It may have been then when American started moving away from considering force but Britain has made the move significantly earlier.

The actions of the two countries, especially the UK, starting around that time, are also an exceptionally good example of how two countries can successfully deal with friction regarding security spheres. There was actually little reason for the two countries to resolve the friction points as peacefully as eventually happened. There was no love lost between Washington and London for most of the 19th Century. Still, both states saw that it was far more beneficial to make peace instead of war. This is a remarkably rare feat, one that the U.S. and Japan never even considered.

On that point we can agree. Such a pity that such actions are so rare.

Steve
 
Top