|
|
Post by American hist on May 23, 2024 4:31:38 GMT
raharris1973, You did it again!  To answer your question, the Americans would stay out of the war. The British may assist the Dutch, but remember that this is Nevil Chamberlin, not Winston Churchill as Britain's prime minister. I do believe this could have prevented the disasters British capitulation of Singapore with more of the empires focus in the pacific theater. At anything the axis would welcome this Pacific distraction, but it could have properly led the British naval preparations. It makes me wonder if the British Royal Navy would have decided to send more of their ships in the Pacific theater provided there is a World War II as we know it wants to German U boat threat pewter’s out. To the closing of the war The British navy did assist Okinawa(rightfully so) What are the reasons why the British came later to help the Americans was because the British fleets had to be retrained for the Pacific theater of operation.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 23, 2024 12:37:59 GMT
raharris1973 , You did it again! To answer your question, the Americans would stay out of the war. The British may assist the Dutch, but remember that this is Nevil Chamberlin, not Winston Churchill as Britain's prime minister. I do believe this could have prevented the disasters British capitulation of Singapore with more of the empires focus in the pacific theater. At anything the axis would welcome this Pacific distraction, but it could have properly led the British naval preparations. It makes me wonder if the British Royal Navy would have decided to send more of their ships in the Pacific theater provided there is a World War II as we know it wants to German U boat threat pewter’s out. To the closing of the war The British navy did assist Okinawa(rightfully so) What are the reasons why the British came later to help the Americans was because the British fleets had to be retrained for the Pacific theater of operation.
Actually its Stanley Baldwin who was PM until May 1937. He was also slow to rearm and repeatedly denied the need for more military spending but also made some efforts in his last government to improve the military a little:
As such there is still a serious issue with appeasement and pacifism in the country. However with an actual attack on a friendly power and one that so greatly threatens British interest I think there will be pressure to act. Its one thing claiming pacificism is the way to avoid war but when its actually occurring that's a different matter.
Another issue is that if Britain doesn't support the Dutch Australia and New Zealand are going to be very unhappy to put it mildly. They will be putting any pressure they can on London to make a clear stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on May 23, 2024 21:35:45 GMT
Would ww2 have started earlier due to this pod ? It was the Italian military that sent significant portions of their military to help the Spanish fascist During the Spanish Civil War. I don’t really know if Britain would ride away side with The Dutch I do think this would speed up additional involvement in World War II.
I wonder if the Germans would benefit from this ? The Spanish Civil War did it until World War III began.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 23, 2024 23:09:50 GMT
Would ww2 have started earlier due to this pod ? It was the Italian military that sent significant portions of their military to help the Spanish fascist During the Spanish Civil War. I don’t really know if Britain would ride away side with The Dutch I do think this would speed up additional involvement in World War II. I wonder if the Germans would benefit from this ? The Spanish Civil War did it until World War III began.
Assuming a conflict in the Far East between Britain/Netherlands and Japan a lot would depend on how things go and what happens in Europe. Britain would definitely ramp up military production faster although this would be of earlier units and could delay more advanced systems entering service. Also major projects such as CVs and BBs probably couldn't be accelerated to any great degree.
What does France do when Hitler occupies the Rhineland. OTL It did nothing and here there's no prospect of British support. At the same time it leaves France more desperate and if this is before the Italian attack on Ethiopia the common concerns about Hitler in both Paris and Rome could mean that the French could get support political support from the latter. We know that if the French had sent any units into Germany the Germans would have withdrawn but if so what happens then? How much face have the Nazis lost from such a humiliation or does it simply prompt Hitler to try and rearm even faster? Although according to many reports he was doing it even faster than the economy could afford but there would be the idea of trying to move while Britain was distracted.
If France does nothing but probably starts rearming as well then Hitler has a better position with Britain distracted but possibly worse relations with Italy and also he has a time limit before the Japanese war ends. If it does as is likely with a Japanese limited defeat then it means the potential of a more heavily armed Britain with experienced forces having more weight in Europe. As such Hitler would be on an even tighter schedule than OTL. Also if things go roughly as OTL til late 39 France might not guarantee Poland's western borders in which case Hitler can attack it but that probably means no M-R pact so there is the chance of a Nazi-Soviet clash before either are ready and with a rearming France in the German rear. Or if there's a Paris-Rome alliance does war come over German attempts to force Austria?
Overall I think things would be better for Britain as they have the chance to fight opponents sequentially rather than pretty much all together. Or at least have Japan on the back foot and facing increasing resource problems before they have to face the Germans.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on May 23, 2024 23:21:03 GMT
stevep, I believe that the Allies would benefit the most if the Japanese attacked the Dutch that would be interesting to see a bigger involvement in the Pacific theater on the British. Do you see significantly more propaganda against Hitler because Hitler is significantly closer to home than the Japanese are. Although if the British empire have to send many of their forces in Asia and the allies have four years to fight against the Japanese two of the European World War II happens. Add anything I think The Allie’s May start World War II earlier to the allies benefit. Japan was wise not to anger the Dutch yet. I wonder if Canada could be dragged into this war because they still are apart of the British empire . However by this time Britain simply couldn’t boss Canada and there other colonies around although I’m sure I’m bringing up a complicated subject that is relevant to this thread. If the British army may be stretched out too thin I wonder if they could push for even more soldiers to be sent from the colonies against the Japanese. I know in the British Caribbean regiments they were prevented from Seen action in World War II but this was not the case for World War I
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 24, 2024 13:58:51 GMT
stevep , I believe that the Allies would benefit the most if the Japanese attacked the Dutch that would be interesting to see a bigger involvement in the Pacific theater on the British. Do you see significantly more propaganda against Hitler because Hitler is significantly closer to home than the Japanese are. Although if the British empire have to send many of their forces in Asia and the allies have four years to fight against the Japanese two of the European World War II happens. Add anything I think The Allie’s May start World War II earlier to the allies benefit. Japan was wise not to anger the Dutch yet. I wonder if Canada could be dragged into this war because they still are apart of the British empire . However by this time Britain simply couldn’t boss Canada and there other colonies around although I’m sure I’m bringing up a complicated subject that is relevant to this thread. If the British army may be stretched out too thin I wonder if they could push for even more soldiers to be sent from the colonies against the Japanese. I know in the British Caribbean regiments they were prevented from Seen action in World War II but this was not the case for World War I
I would agree that it could be in Britain's interest especially if there's an early war with Japan, depending of course on how long it takes and what happens in Europe while Britain is pre-occupied. There will be concerns about Hitler, especially if he follows the same path as OTL given that Germany is a greater economic and potentially military power and is so much closer to the British homeland and hence can be a clear threat to it. This could mean greater appeasement in the short term to try and maintain peace in Europe or a more aggressive stance in terms of re-arming. Its possibly as I said that France, perhaps alongside Italy could deal with Hitler or at least delay things. I think what would be important would be the British and French reaction to the Italian attack on Ethiopia. I think there's a decent chance with Britain embroiled in a war with Japan it will take a more cautious stance and that without British support France would do likewise, The big advantage of this is that Mussolini wouldn't be alienated from the democracies, at least at this stage, so would still see Hitler as his primary rival.
It's not certain when the war in Europe will start and how long it will last. If France in desperation, or possibly with some promise of support from Italy stands firm on the Rhineland Hitler has to back down. This might lead to some sort of coup against him. If not then France and Italy might unite to defend Austria. Failing that if things go roughly as OTL and Britain is still engaged in the east then France probably won't offer a guarantee of Poland's western borders. In that case there probably isn't a R-M pact with the Soviets so what will they do? If they do nothing then the Germans are occupying all of Poland, taking them a good bit further east. That could prompt Hitler to drive east in late 40 or early 41 although that could be risky with the French undefeated to their rear and Britain probably by then having concluded the war with Japan.
There is an option that the with with Japan could be somewhat short, if probably bloody. Japan hasn't openly invaded the bulk of China yet, only Manchuria 5 years before. This means no was with the Chinese tying up a hell of a lot of resources but it does also mean that Japan lacks bases further south than Taiwan other than in the their mandated territories. As such while they can attack and take Hong Kong they can only really try and attack the DEI from its eastern reaches. Which are a bloody long way to get to the important targets of Java, Sumatra and once Britain is in the war Malaya. Such a route could also be vulnerable to attack from Australia. On the other hand Britain can't really close with Japan other than if they win air/naval superiority slowly through the Mandates. As such there could be a relatively short war before some settlement is agreed. - The main alternatives here would be if another power joined the conflict against Japan, either China because they think they can regain Manchuria or the US. I doubt the US would be China just possibly might. This would also possibly be unlikely but it would give a theatre for British forces to operate closer to China.
In terms of Canada I think it would join the war as it did OTL. Because of the greater independence of the dominions and the fact that Britain had learnt from its error in 1914 and it gave time for the dominions to declare war themselves. I'm pretty certain that Canada would join the conflict but the awkward one might be S Africa.
As to the West Indies I'm not sure about ground troops, although some from Africa served in Burma but at least some West Indian volunteers served in the RAF OTL.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on May 27, 2024 0:24:27 GMT
In case you're interested in a twist: WI Nazi Germany joined the war, but against Japan? In that case, they might get the formerly German colonies in the Pacific back. Some at least. (Wehrmacht fighting in the jungles of New Guinea... that must've never done before.) The LoN didn't outright forbid war, and Japan had left it in 1933 anyway. But they'll certainly look bad (again). Italy may use the situation that the main powers will be preoccupied, to expand - just to where? Albania, or Yugoslavia even?
Its possible that if Britain and Japan get into a war with Japan also at war with China then Germany might decide on such a step but I suspect its unlikely. Hitler wanted better relations with Britain, despite his policies doing just about everything he could to ruin them but I doubt he would be interested in a war so far away until France and the USSR are subdued. If Britain and Japan are fighting then he's got a lot more freedom of action in Europe unless it prompts a fearful France into acting while their still a lot more powerful than Germany.
If you mean Germany joining China alone - without an Anglo-Japanese war - I think that's even more unlikely. They would struggle to get forces to the theatre and don't have much spare in Europe current, especially if their probably already committed the Condor Legion to the Spanish Civil War which is arguably more in their interests. Plus they won't get New Guinea back as that's an Australian mandate, as are areas like the Solomon's. If they did somehow win such a war the places they might regain from Japan would be the Caroline and Mariana Islands and just possibly their former enclave in N China at Tsingtao, although that would be politically difficult for Chiang to accept. Such gains would be highly vulnerable to either a resurgent Japan or the western powers if [or rather when since we're talking about Hitler] Germany is involved in a major war in Europe.
Italy will play with fire when it can but I can't see it making a bid for Yugoslavia or Greece until the other great powers are at war as OTL. They might move to displace King Zog and annex Albania earlier, especially if Britain is engaged in war with Japan but I doubt more than that. Although could be wrong here if they think that Britain and France are too distracted by Japan and Germany respectively.
I agree with your logic, despite the attraction that the novelty of setting Germany and Japan against each other, as in the alternative, seems to hold for many people. |
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on May 27, 2024 0:39:45 GMT
“they could have problems developing the new colonies, at least in the medium and longer terms. Having faced Japanese racism and abuse I doubt that many civilians would be willing to help Japan in repairing war damage and getting things going again. “
Well the Dutch people in the Indies would probably go back to Netherlands when free to do so at the end of the war, if it is a bilateral thing that Japan wins before other powers get involved.
And Indonesians would be motivated to repair things and get them working not out of fondness or resentment of the Japanese, but simply because they have to live with a working or non-working economy infrastructure, and would prefer to have things work and get paid, rather than not.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on May 27, 2024 1:12:55 GMT
Can't really see Australia going the independent republic route and allying with the US, both because of the much closer links between Australia and the UK at this period in just about every way and also that while Britain might be arguing it can't send the amount of aid Australia it will send something and Australia knows if Japan attacks its interest that Britain will fight. A still fairly isolationist US would be a much less reliable protector even if some agreement was made. Given the proposed timing of the attack on the DEI its either running into the final stage of the US Presidential elections or shortly afterwards. A Japanese attack on a European colony is unlikely to get much attention in an isolationist US still largely concerned with its recovery from the depression. I don't think they'd *actually do it* of course, but I could easily imagine responsible politicians bringing it up privately as a threat, and the Australian penny press or yellow press and more demagogic, irresponsible politicians saying it out loud. You've never heard of FDR threatening to separately cooperate with the Dominions if Britain got too "soft" on Japan and made an Entente with her? That was apparently part of some rumored back-and-forth FDR-Chamberlain messaging in 1937. |
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on May 27, 2024 1:34:42 GMT
Would ww2 have started earlier due to this pod ? It was the Italian military that sent significant portions of their military to help the Spanish fascist During the Spanish Civil War. I don’t really know if Britain would ride away side with The Dutch I do think this would speed up additional involvement in World War II. I wonder if the Germans would benefit from this ? The Spanish Civil War did it until World War III began. Assuming a conflict in the Far East between Britain/Netherlands and Japan a lot would depend on how things go and what happens in Europe. Britain would definitely ramp up military production faster although this would be of earlier units and could delay more advanced systems entering service. Also major projects such as CVs and BBs probably couldn't be accelerated to any great degree.
What does France do when Hitler occupies the Rhineland. OTL It did nothing and here there's no prospect of British support. At the same time it leaves France more desperate and if this is before the Italian attack on Ethiopia the common concerns about Hitler in both Paris and Rome could mean that the French could get support political support from the latter. We know that if the French had sent any units into Germany the Germans would have withdrawn but if so what happens then? How much face have the Nazis lost from such a humiliation or does it simply prompt Hitler to try and rearm even faster? Although according to many reports he was doing it even faster than the economy could afford but there would be the idea of trying to move while Britain was distracted.
If France does nothing but probably starts rearming as well then Hitler has a better position with Britain distracted but possibly worse relations with Italy and also he has a time limit before the Japanese war ends. If it does as is likely with a Japanese limited defeat then it means the potential of a more heavily armed Britain with experienced forces having more weight in Europe. As such Hitler would be on an even tighter schedule than OTL. Also if things go roughly as OTL til late 39 France might not guarantee Poland's western borders in which case Hitler can attack it but that probably means no M-R pact so there is the chance of a Nazi-Soviet clash before either are ready and with a rearming France in the German rear. Or if there's a Paris-Rome alliance does war come over German attempts to force Austria?
Overall I think things would be better for Britain as they have the chance to fight opponents sequentially rather than pretty much all together. Or at least have Japan on the back foot and facing increasing resource problems before they have to face the Germans. While these speculations regarding Rhineland, or Ethiopia, or possible Franco-Italian cooperation are logical based on their premises, and would have some merit if we were talking about a Japanese invasion of the Dutch East Indies in 1934 or 1935 or an earlier year, that might bring in the UK, I think you're forgetting that I specified by the second post that the Japanese, in my concept, only make their move on the Dutch East Indies in December 1936, indeed they are a bit inspired and emboldened by the western non-reactions to the Ethiopia invasion, Rhineland remilitarization, and the Germano-Italian intervention in the Spanish Civil War, on top of the global failure to counter their own Japanese occupation of Manchuria. With the Japanese only making their move on the the Dutch East Indies in December of 1936: a) The 1934-35 "Stresa Front" of Britain, France, Italy for containing Germany already has been hit hard by the first blow, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, which convinces Mussolini the west, especially Britain isn't serious. b) The Ethiopian invasion war and crisis of 1935-1936 proved Britain and France were both unfriendly, and hostile to Italy, but also weak. The attempted Hoare-Laval Pact/agreement to let Italy have half of Ethiopia blew up when the democratic publics in Britain and France objected and the League of Nations condemned Italian aggression. The League of Nations put sanctions on Italy that were too weak (didn't cover oil, esp. American oil) and Suez) but painful enough to outrage and insult patriotic Italians and rally them behind Mussolini and the Ethiopian War. Chances of France and Italy working together against Germany after that were done-zo. c) Then in July 1936 the Germans airlifted Spanish coup forces in, and when it turned into the Spanish Civil War, Italian Volunteers started to help the same Spanish Nationalists the Germans were supporting, With Rome and Berlin working together to help rebels against Madrid's Popular Front government they were being hostile against the Popular Front government in Paris, even though the latter wasn't fighting back. That was even more dirt on the grave of chances for Franco-Italian cooperation versus Germany. d) Rhineland was remilitarized, reintegrated, and refortified by the Nazis by March 1936, so 8 full months *before* I had the Japanese moving on the Dutch East Indies. So a bit more of WWII "pre-cooking" or "cooking prep" has been done by the time the Japanese move than we've been supposing. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 27, 2024 13:39:32 GMT
“they could have problems developing the new colonies, at least in the medium and longer terms. Having faced Japanese racism and abuse I doubt that many civilians would be willing to help Japan in repairing war damage and getting things going again. “ Well the Dutch people in the Indies would probably go back to Netherlands when free to do so at the end of the war, if it is a bilateral thing that Japan wins before other powers get involved. And Indonesians would be motivated to repair things and get them working not out of fondness or resentment of the Japanese, but simply because they have to live with a working or non-working economy infrastructure, and would prefer to have things work and get paid, rather than not.
True if the Dutch aren't supported although there will be issues of ownership of resources plus I suspect that the Dutch in the colony had a majority of the technical and organizational knowledge and experience so if they do go its likely there will be a period before things get up and running again and also that the Japanese response to this shortage would very likely be to bring in their own people rather than train up locals.
The Indonesians, as much as such an identity existed at the time will quickly find that any actual 'liberty' is more talk and substance and that any signs of trying to improve their own position, politically, socially or economically is likely to be harshly crushed. As such any honeymoon period for them is likely to be short-lived.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 27, 2024 13:46:33 GMT
Can't really see Australia going the independent republic route and allying with the US, both because of the much closer links between Australia and the UK at this period in just about every way and also that while Britain might be arguing it can't send the amount of aid Australia it will send something and Australia knows if Japan attacks its interest that Britain will fight. A still fairly isolationist US would be a much less reliable protector even if some agreement was made. Given the proposed timing of the attack on the DEI its either running into the final stage of the US Presidential elections or shortly afterwards. A Japanese attack on a European colony is unlikely to get much attention in an isolationist US still largely concerned with its recovery from the depression. I don't think they'd *actually do it* of course, but I could easily imagine responsible politicians bringing it up privately as a threat, and the Australian penny press or yellow press and more demagogic, irresponsible politicians saying it out loud. You've never heard of FDR threatening to separately cooperate with the Dominions if Britain got too "soft" on Japan and made an Entente with her? That was apparently part of some rumored back-and-forth FDR-Chamberlain messaging in 1937.
Never heard of the latter or of any attempt at an entente at this time period. FDR had a reputation for double standards and dishonesty but if he did try something like that I suspect it wouldn't work. Britain if it tried such a deal, to allow concentration on the growing threat in Europe would be doing such to reduce their threat to their own interests in the Far East/Pacific region which would definitely include the security of Australia and New Zealand. Any US counter offer is unlikely to be attractive because they are unlikely to get any actual offer of military support if attacked.
The only dominion he might gain traction with would possibly be Canada because its so dependent on a friendly US to its south but it could react angrily to being pressurized like that.
I think its unlikely Britain would be interested in such an idea as it was doing at least as much as the US to support China in this period and had more interests in China than the US.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 27, 2024 13:52:27 GMT
Would ww2 have started earlier due to this pod ? It was the Italian military that sent significant portions of their military to help the Spanish fascist During the Spanish Civil War. I don’t really know if Britain would ride away side with The Dutch I do think this would speed up additional involvement in World War II. I wonder if the Germans would benefit from this ? The Spanish Civil War did it until World War III began. Assuming a conflict in the Far East between Britain/Netherlands and Japan a lot would depend on how things go and what happens in Europe. Britain would definitely ramp up military production faster although this would be of earlier units and could delay more advanced systems entering service. Also major projects such as CVs and BBs probably couldn't be accelerated to any great degree.
What does France do when Hitler occupies the Rhineland. OTL It did nothing and here there's no prospect of British support. At the same time it leaves France more desperate and if this is before the Italian attack on Ethiopia the common concerns about Hitler in both Paris and Rome could mean that the French could get support political support from the latter. We know that if the French had sent any units into Germany the Germans would have withdrawn but if so what happens then? How much face have the Nazis lost from such a humiliation or does it simply prompt Hitler to try and rearm even faster? Although according to many reports he was doing it even faster than the economy could afford but there would be the idea of trying to move while Britain was distracted.
If France does nothing but probably starts rearming as well then Hitler has a better position with Britain distracted but possibly worse relations with Italy and also he has a time limit before the Japanese war ends. If it does as is likely with a Japanese limited defeat then it means the potential of a more heavily armed Britain with experienced forces having more weight in Europe. As such Hitler would be on an even tighter schedule than OTL. Also if things go roughly as OTL til late 39 France might not guarantee Poland's western borders in which case Hitler can attack it but that probably means no M-R pact so there is the chance of a Nazi-Soviet clash before either are ready and with a rearming France in the German rear. Or if there's a Paris-Rome alliance does war come over German attempts to force Austria?
Overall I think things would be better for Britain as they have the chance to fight opponents sequentially rather than pretty much all together. Or at least have Japan on the back foot and facing increasing resource problems before they have to face the Germans. While these speculations regarding Rhineland, or Ethiopia, or possible Franco-Italian cooperation are logical based on their premises, and would have some merit if we were talking about a Japanese invasion of the Dutch East Indies in 1934 or 1935 or an earlier year, that might bring in the UK, I think you're forgetting that I specified by the second post that the Japanese, in my concept, only make their move on the Dutch East Indies in December 1936, indeed they are a bit inspired and emboldened by the western non-reactions to the Ethiopia invasion, Rhineland remilitarization, and the Germano-Italian intervention in the Spanish Civil War, on top of the global failure to counter their own Japanese occupation of Manchuria. With the Japanese only making their move on the the Dutch East Indies in December of 1936: a) The 1934-35 "Stresa Front" of Britain, France, Italy for containing Germany already has been hit hard by the first blow, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, which convinces Mussolini the west, especially Britain isn't serious. b) The Ethiopian invasion war and crisis of 1935-1936 proved Britain and France were both unfriendly, and hostile to Italy, but also weak. The attempted Hoare-Laval Pact/agreement to let Italy have half of Ethiopia blew up when the democratic publics in Britain and France objected and the League of Nations condemned Italian aggression. The League of Nations put sanctions on Italy that were too weak (didn't cover oil, esp. American oil) and Suez) but painful enough to outrage and insult patriotic Italians and rally them behind Mussolini and the Ethiopian War. Chances of France and Italy working together against Germany after that were done-zo. c) Then in July 1936 the Germans airlifted Spanish coup forces in, and when it turned into the Spanish Civil War, Italian Volunteers started to help the same Spanish Nationalists the Germans were supporting, With Rome and Berlin working together to help rebels against Madrid's Popular Front government they were being hostile against the Popular Front government in Paris, even though the latter wasn't fighting back. That was even more dirt on the grave of chances for Franco-Italian cooperation versus Germany. d) Rhineland was remilitarized, reintegrated, and refortified by the Nazis by March 1936, so 8 full months *before* I had the Japanese moving on the Dutch East Indies. So a bit more of WWII "pre-cooking" or "cooking prep" has been done by the time the Japanese move than we've been supposing.
True. Good point as I had forgotten that and hence a lot of what I considered is inaccurate. That makes things a good but dicier in Europe for the democratic powers.  France is going to be distinctly isolated if Britain goes to war with Japan but I definitely think it would be in Britain's interests to do so depending on how things develop. Leaving Japan unopposed and so close to Malaya and Australia is a very unpleasant option. |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on May 29, 2024 16:56:27 GMT
Never heard of the latter or of any attempt at an entente at this time period. FDR had a reputation for double standards and dishonesty If you think about that topic - what does come to your mind first?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on May 29, 2024 17:20:29 GMT
|
|
France is going to be distinctly isolated if Britain goes to war with Japan but I definitely think it would be in Britain's interests to do so depending on how things develop. Leaving Japan unopposed and so close to Malaya and Australia is a very unpleasant option.