ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Even granting that, that would assume that it's military was run in a dictatorial fashion, unless you're talking dictatorship in a psuedo-Marxian meaning.
... in WW2 if Stalin decided to take on the Western Allies after the Fall of Berlin?
The Rhine?
Antwerp?
Paris?
Question:
America also heavily supplied China...what's to stop China from helping the Soviet Union or even China attacking to recover rightful territory from Russia?
Which China are you talking about?
Both?
(well, I'm guessing the Republic of China since I assume we're talking about 1945)
Why would the Nationalists aid the Soviets is beyond me, and I don't think they'd have been very happy about the prospect of fighting them either, especially so soon after defeating Japan (or even before its final surrender!).
And if they had (with massive Allied support), I am profoundly sceptical they'd have made a good impression. The Soviets could have easily established a solid line of defence in Manchuria, Mongolia and Korea.
But that's entirely backwards.Anyway, if the Soviets go to war with the West right after the battle of Berlin, which means early May, the Japanese are still very much in the game. I don't think the Soviets would be beyond re-arming the Japanese and aiding them in their resistance against the Allies, if only to make sure the Allies couldn't focus on Europe completely.
ParkCungHee said:The Japanese were entirely hoping this would happen in May, and they were ready to back America to the hilt. It is far more likely that the Americans would arm the Japanese to fight the Soviets then vice-versa.
That assumes the Americans are willing to accept a negotiated peace and rearm the Japanese in a significant way. The situation in Europe would have to be quite dire before that is likely to happen.The Japanese were entirely hoping this would happen in May, and they were ready to back America to the hilt. It is far more likely that the Americans would arm the Japanese to fight the Soviets then vice-versa.
Just wondering, which territories you mean here?or even China attacking to recover rightful territory from Russia?
The IJN laughs at pathetic notions that a Navy should stick to being on the water.Wasn't it the case that by this point in the war the Imperial Japanese Navy was close to being nonexistant?
A full scale Soviet Invasion sounds quite dire to me.That assumes the Americans are willing to accept a negotiated peace and rearm the Japanese in a significant way. The situation in Europe would have to be quite dire before that is likely to happen.
But that's entirely backwards.
The Japanese were entirely hoping this would happen in May, and they were ready to back America to the hilt. It is far more likely that the Americans would arm the Japanese to fight the Soviets then vice-versa.
Why not? We did it with the Anti-Semitic Vichy French, with the Italian Fascists, with you know, Stalin, who was depicted as in league with Hitler until the Invasion...anyone else of note I'm missing?Yeah, right
No, Free France was more accurately absorbed in Vichy. In Africa the governor remained the same, the psuedo-fascist rhetoric remained the same, the anti-semitism remained the same, and American troops enforced it.The US never directly faced the Soviets, they didn't launch a surprise attack on US soil. Vichy was more accurately absorbed into the Free French.
Oh right I remember! The Japanese. Right, we re-armed the Japanese in 1945 to help us fight wars, and kept doing that until 1947.No, Free France was more accurately absorbed in Vichy. In Africa the governor remained the same, the psuedo-fascist rhetoric remained the same, the anti-semitism remained the same, and American troops enforced it.