If the Japanese won World War 2 how would the United States be changed?

[unclevlad]

Long was populist, but yeah, he was doing stuff in Louisiana that would've been problematic in a presidential run.  And, remember, he was going against a sitting president for the nomination.

[archer]

1 hour ago, massey said:

Huey Long was a scary dude.

 

He seemed like a good governor, for the era, as far as his policies went. He shifted taxes off of individuals and onto industry (mostly oil and gas), constructed roads and bridges so that commerce could happen more easily in the state, and put enough money into public education to buy school books so that children statewide would be allowed into locally-run public schools (children weren't allowed into public schools, at all, at the time if the family couldn't purchase school books for each of their children, which was a significant financial barrier for most families).

 

I could see myself coming up with similar programs if I found myself as governor in that time and place. (Which is saying something considering my politics.)

 

As governor, Long did a lot of underhanded maneuvering and heavy-handed politics to get his way. But considering the machine politics as it was practiced in many areas of the country, it wasn't anything particularly unusual. Distasteful, unethical, and illegal but not particularly unusual.

 

Long really didn't go completely off the rails from what I remember until he became a senator and got presidential ambitions. Then I agree that he became very scary....

[assault]

The British being kicked out of India is quite plausible, assuming they were sucking and failing elsewhere at the same time. There's not much chance that the Japanese would have been able to take over in their place though. An allied Indian government would be more likely. Ditto for Burma.

 

French Indochina is an interesting case. It was notionally ruled by the Vichy French, but occupied by the Japanese. The Vietnamese nationalists (communists) were more anti-Japanese. It's quite likely that the Japanese might have allowed the French to keep control, at least on paper. Historically they only destroyed the French administration in March 1945.

 

One of the great weaknesses the Japanese militarists had was an inability to work with the abundant supply of potential local collaborators in the colonies they took over. There were lots of people who hated their colonial rulers - it took true skill to convince them that the Japanese were worse.

 

Historically, of course the colonial empires collapsed after the war and their Asian colonies became at least nominally independent. In that sense, the Japanese kind of won!

[massey]

23 minutes ago, assault said:

One of the great weaknesses the Japanese militarists had was an inability to work with the abundant supply of potential local collaborators in the colonies they took over. There were lots of people who hated their colonial rulers - it took true skill to convince them that the Japanese were worse.

 

 

I don't really think it took much skill.  If you look at what they were doing in China, the Japanese really were worse.

[assault]

1 hour ago, massey said:

 

I don't really think it took much skill.  If you look at what they were doing in China, the Japanese really were worse.

 

The "skill" was on the part of the Japanese. They really were self-defeating boneheads.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

21 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

A few minor things changing could have really made a huge difference in the overall events of the war.

Hitler keeping the attack going in the Battle of Britain just a little while longer would have revealed that the Brits were basically out of airplane fuel.  They could have taken England, which means ZERO staging ground for the USA to join the war from.

Hitler not attacking Russia would have meant he could focus on solidifying his grasp of Europe and taking England.

Japan not attacking Pearl Harbor would have meant no US involvement in the war perhaps ever.

Huey Long not being mysteriously assassinated by his own bodyguards could have meant Roosevelt removed from office and a total shift in US policy to isolationism and cutting off England.

 

Its just the little things that usually are the turning points, but they're rarely obvious when you're going through it.

 

"Little things" - Pearl Harbor alone...

 

The Japanese were spotted on radar, but dismissed rather than followed up on.  If you want an ironic reason, assume that this was not dismissed, so the US forces were prepared and the Japanese bluffed that they were in transit (no attack on Pearl Harbor made).  As a result, the incentive for the US to join the war was removed, delaying their involvement and military buildup.  This provides Germany time to deal with England, and Japan time to gain ground in the Pacific.

 

Or assume the US carriers were in port, so Japan's plan for Pearl Harbor went off without a hitch, devastating the US fleet, destroying the repair facilities and fuel supplies at Pearl Harbor and delaying the US' ability to deploy in earnest.  No shortage of "want of a nail" scenarios to hypothetically change the course of the war.

[Christopher R Taylor]

 

Quote

One of the great weaknesses the Japanese militarists had was an inability to work with the abundant supply of potential local collaborators in the colonies they took over.

 

Yeah in order for the Japanese expansion to really take hold and be successful you have to presume a lower level of bigotry and arrogance on the part of the Japanese leadership and culture.  So that when they conquer an area, they don't treat it with withering contempt and its people like subhuman trash.

[dsatow]

You could have them do a third wave on Pearl Harbor destroying the repair facilities and then take over Hawaii militarily using the islands as a base against the US.

 

I agree that you'd have to tone down the "All Asians hate all other Asians."* issues.

 

 

 

 

*Asians from one country generally have negative views of Asians of other countries.  Strangely, there is a racist pecking order in the East Asian countries.  Your Asian, other Asians, Caucasian, Hispanic, and other races in order of preference, best to worst.  

[Hugh Neilson]

Actually, there was a huge Japanese population in Hawaii in the early 1940's.  The commanders were more worried about sabotage than being attacked by the Japanese military (e.g. the aircraft were wing to wing, to make it tough for saboteurs, but that also made it tough to put planes in the sky quickly when the attack came).  Assume a successful effort to create a Japanese 5th column in Hawaii and takeover in Pearl Harbor could be explained.  Maybe a Japanese super with mind-influencing powers (he just thinks he appeals to their patriotism as superior Japanese people, but really he his long-term mind control powers that could effect anyone, were it not for his own failure to recognize this).

[Lucius]

14 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Actually, there was a huge Japanese population in Hawaii in the early 1940's.  The commanders were more worried about sabotage than being attacked by the Japanese military (e.g. the aircraft were wing to wing, to make it tough for saboteurs, but that also made it tough to put planes in the sky quickly when the attack came). 

 

It also made them perfect targets.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says at least the planes weren't sabotaged...

[unclevlad]

Having even one of the carriers in port for whatever reason, is probably enough by itself to consider alternate timelines, and to consider that the US gets heavily involved in Europe well before the Pacific push.  

 

And yeah...I don't remember how much was known when, about Japanese massacres, but there would've been details to potentially ignite the fervor of even a recalcitrant USA, say with no Pearl Harbor.  The Bataan Death March is *still* memorialized every year.

 

It's rather hard to see Japan ever coming out of things intact.  Not impossible, but trying to control that much ground, with no collaborative support to speak of....?  Almost inconceivable.  Another path here is the US never does all that much, but much of East Asia turns into a massive guerilla action, with a truly horrific death count.  MUCH higher than Hitler or Stalin were responsible for.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well I meant less a general indictment of bigotry by Japanese than a specific cultural attitude at the time of WW2, where after centuries of basically isolation and propaganda the Imperial nation had very high opinions of themselves and very low opinions of everyone else on earth.  And there was some reason for thinking so; their planes were much better than what the US had to put out there at first, for example.  But it did lead them to some pretty atrocious (atrocity-laden) treatment of conquered peoples and prisoners, sadly.  And as Assault noted, that led them to self-defeating behavior.

[death tribble]

Trump would not be president ?

[archer]

12 minutes ago, death tribble said:

Trump would not be president ?

 

I don't think you can take that as a given. The Drumf's came from Germany to the US in the late 1800's to early 1900's.

 

According to a NY Times article from the time, Donald's father (who had Americanized his name to "Trump") was arrested for rioting while taking part in a KKK rally in New York City.

 

I don't see any reason for someone of German heritage and a KKK upbringing to be automatically out of the running for becoming president in the kind of alternate world we're talking about.

[archer]

On 8/22/2018 at 10:59 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Well I meant less a general indictment of bigotry by Japanese than a specific cultural attitude at the time of WW2, where after centuries of basically isolation and propaganda the Imperial nation had very high opinions of themselves and very low opinions of everyone else on earth.  And there was some reason for thinking so; their planes were much better than what the US had to put out there at first, for example.  But it did lead them to some pretty atrocious (atrocity-laden) treatment of conquered peoples and prisoners, sadly.  And as Assault noted, that led them to self-defeating behavior.

 

I don't think you necessarily have to have everything happen during the WWII years when you are talking about what things would be like in an alternate reality today. There's been 7+ decades gone by since then.

 

Yeah, there's going to be a lot of the old guard thinking passed along to new generations. But you're also inevitably going to get people who want to toss out old ways of thinking when it isn't being effective and want to do something else.

 

In the alternate campaign world I spoke of, the Japanese leadership was figuratively (and sometimes literally) decapitated by the rise of supers who took over their nation. The Japanese eventually went on to kick the British out of India and destabilized other British colonies throughout the Middle East. But that was only after the Japanese had consolidated their Pacific holdings and China, something which caused them to realize they didn't have enough soldiers to banzai charge their way through every situation and to realize that they'd been woefully under-equipping their troops when compared to other modernized armies.

 

But you could accomplish the same result just through attrition without wholesale replacement of Japanese leadership. Tojo was born in 1884. Yoshijirō Umezu born in 1882. All of their top level people who were part of the rise of the Japanese military state were born in the 1880's and 1890's and wouldn't have lasted through the 1950's regardless.

 

By the time a few years after the peak of the war had passed and the Japanese had absorbed SE Asia, Mongolia, and China, they'd be looking for trade partners, alliances, and destabilizing their remaining opponents on the world stage as much or more as they'd be looking for additional territory that they'd have trouble pacifying.

[unclevlad]

I don't think Japan would push a lot further west in China.  Again, it's a matter of how much territory they can keep controlled, and the cost in resources to do it.

 

That said, yes.  One thing we're implicitly arguing for is that the Japanese arrogance and denigration of all non-Japanese would *have* to change.  They can't maintain that much territory without collaborators, and their policies were too bloody for that to really happen.

 

If the US becomes involved in Europe but NOT Asia...for example, let's say Japan and the US negociate an agreement where Japan walks away from the alliance with Germany in November 1941, and thus never attacks Pearl Harbor, in return for the US not supplying China with support materiel.  First point:  US still reindustrializes.  A major consequence of WW II was the modernization of the US industrial base, and of course, none of it ever got attacked as happened in much of Europe.  We still have the discovery of the Holocaust and the perceived need for the Jewish homeland, ergo the motivation to create Israel.  This can proceed largely unchanged, I would think.  If the timeline in Europe doesn't change too drastically, we still probably have the Marshall Plan.

 

But first change...with Japan consolidating eastern China and the rivers, and SE Asia, they become a nastier threat, I'd say, to Russia.  There's no one to respond to them.  Australia and India probably still gain their independence, and I still think India's a bit too far away and too large to tackle...so I can see a much stronger alliance between India, Australia, and the US, with the focus on checking Japan.  America doesn't get involved in Korea or Viet Nam, but I'm assuming a Russia that's even more paranoid about invasion than ours was, and a serious force committed to monitor Japan just in case.  

 

Oh...no Mao, or at least Mao is just a secondary rebel leader.  Communism in China is a non-issue, and probably slows down the movement elsewhere.  Stalinist Communism is not a movement to copy.  The US isn't burned out on war, so Castro gets squished.

 

It's a more tense atmosphere in the 50's.  Less actual action but more tension.  I can see the American Empire building...Cuba for sure after red-misting that damn Commie stooge.  Ongoing tension with Japan suggests that the American civil rights movement has less traction.  Indeed, it's not that hard to see the current climate of fear-mongering developing in the 60's.  There's 2 threats...Commies and Nips.  Can't trust them slant-eyes, no matter we may be trading with em again.  

 

But I can't project much past the 60's at the most, because I think this is too unstable.  SOMETHING big is going to happen, and it'll shape the direction further down the line.  

[Mick Price]

"Australia and India probably still gain their independence, "

Australia gained hers in 1901 so I don't see that changing.

[bubba smith]

the dominat languge would be japanese

[Cassandra]

On 8/16/2018 at 4:18 PM, unclevlad said:

Yeah, a lot depends on when things change.  People have talked about Pearl Harbor, but another turning point would've been Midway.  Say the Japanese took less damage in the Battle of the Coral Sea, which then led to a victory at Midway.  The US push is seriously blunted.  With that, the US pulls back and has to concentrate on building up the fleet...again...while concentrating on Europe first.  So, the relative timelines shift, enough so the Nazi atrocities in Europe are allowed to come to light *before* the island-hopping in the Pacific can advance.  The Russia-US aspect of the alliance gets shaky.

 

So...the US starts worrying more about the European situation.  Russia (say) is not as hammered, so a larger presence is necessary.  This, along with the urgent rebuilding, and the Holocaust aftermath, put the Pacific on a lesser footing.  Japan consolidates the eastern Pacific and coastal China, and doesn't become...an ally...but as the Communist Menace starts to loom, it's viewed as more expedient to let Japan and Russia battle it out.  Especially as this keeps the Chinese Communists more contained.

 

In this construction, the war with Japan never really ends.  Japan 'wins' by holding onto the old colonial holdings.  The islands (Marshalls, Gilberts, Wake, Midway) form the effective DMZ.  The Korean War, if it happens at all, has no US involvement.  The Cuban crisis, on the other hand, DOES recur because the Russians are feeling even more boxed in.  Here, tho, the US response is likely much more forceful, and Castro's tossed out.  Cuba becomes a protectorate.

 

Now, an interesting twist:  with Cuba and Puerto Rico controlled, and the ongoing decline of British influence, Jamaica and Bermuda agree to a Caribbean alliance, to which Haiti and the Dom Republic eventually join...it's a mini EU.  Cuba's economy never tanks.  South Florida develops much more slowly.

 

Moving forward...if the Russians remain belligerent...so they stomp in Hungary and Czechoslovakia as they did...then an uneasy truce, if not a full alliance, can firm up between the US and Japan, with the goal of keeping the Communists contained...especially if the Russian system of gulags is fanned to create an image of a Second Holocaust.

 

Would this be stable?  No.  The US never drops atomics here;  that creates different tensions.

 

Fundamentally, tho...I don't see Japan ever trying to occupy more than this:

 

http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archive/imperial_powers_pacific.htm

 

 

They never had territorial ambitions further west.

 

Territorial Ambitions are based on what someone thinks they can get away with.

[Tech]

This feels like it should have been started in the Non-Gaming Discussion forums.

[death tribble]

Another thing is that the Dallas Cowboys and the Los Angeles Clippers would not exist.

And Brooklyn would still have the Dodgers.

[Tech]

1 hour ago, death tribble said:

Another thing is that the Dallas Cowboys and the Los Angeles Clippers would not exist.

And Brooklyn would still have the Dodgers.

 

You'd probably have the "Dallas Jello Pudding Yes" team and the "Los Angeles Puffy Oatmeal No" team.

[Cassandra]

3 hours ago, death tribble said:

Another thing is that the Dallas Cowboys and the Los Angeles Clippers would not exist.

And Brooklyn would still have the Dodgers.

 

All Hail The Emperor!

[Cassandra]

3 hours ago, death tribble said:

Another thing is that the Dallas Cowboys and the Los Angeles Clippers would not exist.

And Brooklyn would still have the Dodgers.

 

And no Hawaiian Punch which was invented in Fullerton, CA.

[archer]

13 hours ago, Tech said:

This feels like it should have been started in the Non-Gaming Discussion forums.

 

I took the question to be in the context of a universe which has super-powered beings running around in it.