Quote:
|
If Britains peace party had won and pulled out of the war in the summer of 1940 is an interesting question it seems improbable that Germany could have succesfully invaded successfully.
|
I think a lot depends on the specific peace terms the British manage to negotiate with Germany. If the British government simply signs an armistice which does not grant Germany any special terms or privileges, what in my opinion, would be most likely, then the effects you are claiming as probable would be highly questionable. neither Germany nor Japan would be be in quite an advantageous position as you seem to think.
Quote:
|
What would the long term effects have been if Britain was out of the war the dutch , Belgian and french colonies would have come under the control of the pro fascist or Nazi puppet governments.
|
What leads you to believe this, particularly as a blanket statement? When the European Netherlands were overrun, and the Dutch Home government went into exile, the NEI government in Batavia became to all extents and purposes, autonomous. When the Japanese tried to negotiate for the purchase of oil in 1940-41, the Batavian government steadfastly refused, not because of pressure from London or Washington, but because the NEI ministers were adamantly opposed to selling any oil which might then be transferred to the Nazi regime in Europe.
The Germans had absolutely no way of exerting effective political, economic or military pressure on the NEI. Ditto for French colony of Indochina. In fact, the Germans attempted to ship rubber and certain other raw materials from Indochina in the fall of 1940, only to find that it;s new ally, Japan, was greedily diverting the entire output to their own use. To assert that, absent the Royal Navy, Germany would be able to control exports from the former European colonies of Belgium, France, and Holland is without either logical or historical basis.
Quote:
|
Without the royal navy to block them they could have supplied Japan with the materials they needed for their China campaign and would probably meaning the Japanese would not have involved the US by attacking Pearl harbour in 1941 without the facing of the US sanctions imposed to punish their attck on china that cut off their supplies of key minerals such a petrol and rubber etc.
|
It may come as a very big surprise to you, but prior to December, 1941, neither the Royal Navy nor the US Navy were "blocking" supplies to Japan. Japan's assets were frozen In July, 1941;they
couldn't buy supplies. And before that, there had been a partial embargo on certain materials by the US, but not Britain (which needed all of it's imports for war production). It was Japan's involvement in the China war that caused her to fall short of being able to buy and import raw materials, not the Royal Navy, so your assertions regarding the absence of the Royal Navy are irrelevant.
Furthermore, should the Royal Navy somehow be eliminated, neither Germany nor Japan would have a free run of the seas, as you seem to assume. The KM was so tiny in 1940 that it could never hope to face the USN on it's own, and Japan's only wish was to stay out of a war with the US for as long as possible. The result would be that the USN would step in to keep the KM bottled up in the Baltic and North Sea. That means Germany could not;
1. Control any overseas colonies through the application of naval power.
2. Guarantee supply routes for any military units deployed outside Europe.
3. Attempt to import raw materials without risking the US assuming the
former British blockade.
4. Supply Japan with any significant amounts of raw materials (Japan and
German were essentially in competition for the limited supplies of
strategic materials).
Finally, Germany had no say in the attack on Pearl Harbor and didn't even have pre-knowledge of it. The attack on Pearl Harbor was entirely the idea of the IJN and was motivated by the fact that the IJN needed time to seize certain points in the pacific in order to assure the free flow of supplies from the Souther Resources Area.
Quote:
|
Japan would have stayed neutral or given its hand would have been free attacked russia and continued the war of 1936 in Manchuria.
|
Now you are postulating a counter factual occurrence in the summer of 1940, and claiming that it's effects would be retroactive to 1936? That's rather strange, but no stranger than claiming that the Japanese might want to consider continuing a war (Manchuria), which, to all intents and purposes, ended, in their favor, in 1933.
In reality, the most likely reaction of the Japanese to a peace between Britain and Germany would be abandon the "Southern Movement" and concentrate on a successful conclusion to the war in China. THe Japanese leaders didn't agree on much, but they all agreed that a necessary pre-condition to a successful move south was that both the US and Britain be pre-occupied with the war in Europe; if Britain signs an armistice, that condition is no longer met.
Would Japan attack the Soviets? Probably not, at least not very soon and probably not until China had been disposed of. The biggest reason would be that, in the summer of 1940, just six or seven months had passed since the Soviets had administered to the IJA the worst drubbing it has taken in modern times. The IJA leadership was painfully aware that it was very badly prepared to take on the Red Army, especially while the China war was still a festering wound.
All in all, your theories are highly imaginative, but exaggerate the importance of Churchill and the Royal Navy, particularly in the Pacific. You completely ignore the fact that the Roosevelt administration was determined that fascism would not only be fought, but defeated. The USN had started building up to the WNT limits in 1938, and launched the "Two-Ocean Navy" Act in June, 1940, that was specifically designed to produce a navy which could defeat Japan and Germany at the same time with no help from Britain or France.