Where there any events in WW2 that could have led to an Axis victory?

[SeekTruthFromFx]

@KovaxYes, Japan broke itself by declaring war. But since the US, Britain and the Netherlands had totally embargoed resources like oil, that Japan did not have and absolutely must have, their options were all bad. To withdraw from China? Unthinkable to the generals in charge. And so, war - which the more worldly of the governing class doubted they could win... but the generals could be refused only at the cost of assassination or a coup.

There was a middle way for Japan: to attack the Commonwealth and the Dutch East Indies, but not the US. The Philippines didn't have the oil, rubber, and rice they needed, so there was no economic reason to attack it. It was a strategic threat in the middle of their system, but really, some bordergore should have been an acceptable price for a neutral US. I suspect that, like many totalitarian régimes, they didn't fully understand the democratic constraints Roosevelt was under. But I think it would have been difficult to get Roosevelt personally and Congress collectively to go to war to protect European colonies in Asia with a conflict looming in the Atlantic. Pearl Harbor was perhaps the greatest grand-strategy mistake in history.

 

[Director]

@SeekTruthFromFx - Going after the Dutch possessions alone might have slowed a US declaration of war, though I can't say by how much. Going for British and Dutch colonies would likely have pulled the trigger, or at most delayed the DoW while the US got its fleet, army and air force ready. Americans weren't massively in favor of going into a European war, though the numbers were rapidly changing in that direction, but they were 'all in' on going after the Japanese. The hatred may have been racist, but it was real - and war would have been popular, though perhaps less so than the real one after Pearl Harbor.

I can't quote from them but I think there were major power accords over the resource boycott - can't think the Dutch would agree to participate unless there were some great power guarantees.

Strategically, I can't see anyone - particularly the Japanese generals - going around US possessions to take British and Dutch territory. That would at the least give the US time to fortify, garrison and move more planes into the Philippines.

So I don't want to disagree with you, just offer a bit of nuance. I do agree with you that Roosevelt saw Japan as containable and Germany as the greater threat. And the Japanese decision to go to war with the US was absolutely disastrous. But the alternative was to give way, to (once again) hnd back conquered territory under western pressure, and no Japanese government could survive that. One headed by generals wouldn't even consider it. So war, no matter the odds, became the default choice.

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

@Director, yes, we seem to have quite similar views - I think the same 'big picture' view applied to slightly different sets of facts. Seeking truth from slightly different facts, you might say.

@SeekTruthFromFx -Americans weren't massively in favor of going into a European war, though the numbers were rapidly changing in that direction, but they were 'all in' on going after the Japanese. The hatred may have been racist, but it was real - and war would have been popular, though perhaps less so than the real one after Pearl Harbor.

I don't doubt the racism, but I'd be very interested to see any evidence of public clamour for a war with Japan before Pearl Harbor. Outside of the Free China Lobby, I've never seen a book or film before December '41 that viewed Japanese aggression as an American problem. The was no build up in Yellow Peril rhetoric - 'The Road to Singapore' was a comedy, not an apocalyptic horror movie. There was no war over Manchuria, China or Indochina - why would there be one over Malaya or Borneo?

I can't quote from them but I think there were major power accords over the resource boycott - can't think the Dutch would agree to participate unless there were some great power guarantees.

You can read much of the correspondence on the HyperWar website. The Americans made no guarantees to anyone about anything (to the intense frustration of the British and Dutch who desperately needed to focus on Europe and the Near East). The Dutch was pressured by London (which was hosting their government!) and London had commercial reasons for opposing Japanese expansion in China.

But the alternative was to give way, to (once again) hnd back conquered territory under western pressure, and no Japanese government could survive that. One headed by generals wouldn't even consider it. So war, no matter the odds, became the default choice.

I completely agree war was the default choice and Tokyo thought of it as all or nothing decision (they talked about 'ABCD encirclement' by America, Britain, China and the Dutch). But that was a departure from reality that (thankfully, in the long run) did them no good.

 

[Cavalry]

Pearl Harbor was perhaps the greatest grand-strategy mistake in history.

The US move their fleet to Pearl to threaten the Jap not to venture south. The Dutch as I recall had formed defense alliance with the British in South East Asia against Japan.

So the Japan don't want but need to attack Pearl Harbor or get caught off guard themselves. They talked with US a long time, it is very clear for them war is inevitable!