If the Axis powers had won WW2 would Germany and Japan had Stayed allies?
Debate Rounds (3)
2nd, 3rd round argument
4th round rebuttal
Their alliance would not have lasted long.
Thank you for taking this debate.
Ok there was no clear plan to split the world between the two countries. On December 15 the Japanese presented the Germans with a drafted military convention that would delimit the continent of Asia into two separate "operational spheres" (zones of military responsibility) by a dividing line along the70th meridian east longitude, going southwards through theOb River's Arctic estuary, southwards to just east of Khostin Afghanistan and heading into the Indian Ocean just west of Rajkotin India, to split the lebensraum land holdings of Germany and the similar spazio vital areas of Italy to the west of it, and the Empire of Japan (and the greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere) to the east of it, after a complete defeat of the Soviet Union by the Third Reich. The Germans initially disliked this proposal, as its diplomats feared that it was a front for establishing a precedent for the specific delimitation of political spheres. The German army was also disappointed that it failed to contain any promises for Japan entering the war against the Soviet Union, or even to halt shipments of American supplies through the Pacific Soviet port of Vladivostok.
source is http://en.wikipedia.org...
Also the Japanese view on Jews was completely different from Germany. A little known fact is that the Japanese would defend the Jews from the Germans that lived in their nation. "After the start of the war in the Pacific the Japanese were pressured by the Germans to do something about the Jewish communities under their control - principally Shanghai. The Japanese were aware that Berlin's cancellation of German citizenship of all Jews who had left Germany that affected several thousand Jews in Shanghai. And in May 1942, an intercept of a message from the Japanese embassy in Berlin revealed that Alfred Rosenberg, Nazism "philosopher " and Minister to the Occupied Eastern Territories, had urged the Japanese to do some thing about the Jews living in their territories before they became a "problem." He was particularly anxious to limit their free travel through the rest of southern Asia. Yet, the Japanese refused to go along with the German demands. In late January 1942, even as the German authorities met at Wannsee to finalize the mechanisms for the Holocaust, Tokyo's policy was, as some of their diplomats said, "to go easy in our policy towards the Jews." In mid-March 1942, the Japanese policy towards the Jews was set out in a message broadcast from Tokyo to all diplomatic stations in the Far East. The message declared that the fundamental policy towards Jews, as set out in a Japanese Diet declaration in 1938, would be only partly modified to account for the Axis alliance. Jews would still be considered as any other group of foreigners, although the distinction of "Jewishness" would be based on race and culture. But this distinction applied only to stateless refugees - which meant German and Polish Jews. Any expulsion of Jews from Japanese-controlled territory was considered contrary to the stated Japanese national policy of the Common Brotherhood of Mankind (Hakko Ichiu - literally "8 roofs, 1 house"). Therefore, Tokyo's official policy was this: Jews holding citizenship of any country would be accorded treatment comparable to citizens of that country. Jews without citizenship would be considered stateless, in the same category as White Russian émigrés. This group of Jews would be under surveillance because of their "racial characteristics." Another category of Jews, those who could be considered "useful" to Japan because of their political or economic influence, would receive the same treatment that they received prior to the war." If this this were to continue after a axis victory Germany would likely take millitary action.
source is http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
Politically, Germany and Japan were extremely similar at the time. They were both near autocracy, with Adolf Hitler as f"hrer of Germany, and Hirohito as Emperor of Japan. While both did have their team of trusted commanders who may have aided in making some decisions, the majority of the decisions were made by the f"hrer/emperor. Furthermore, their motivations for WWII were very similar. Hitler wanted more 'lebensraum' (living space) for the German people and so ordered his army to move into Czechoslovakia and later Poland, while Hirohito's army moved into Manturia in southern China for resources, as Japan had, and still has, very little of its own natural resources (http://www.dfat.gov.au...)
Now, the main reason that Germany and Japan's alliance would have lasted a long time is due to the fact that neither of them wanted to take over the world. Hitler wanted more 'lebensraum', and to be the dominant power in Europe, while Japan wanted more natural resources, and to be the dominant power in Asia and the Pacific. The point here, is that even if Germany had expanded to be large enough to give every German their own farm, and Japan had extended far enough to have natural resources for twice it's population, there still would have been no disputes over space, because there was so much land between Japan and Germany. My opposition mentioned the Japanese idea of the two military spheres, the border of which was quite clearly defined, but what my opposition didn't copy and paste from that Wikipedia article was the fact that Hitler later approved the Japanese proposal of this demarcation, as he didn't feel the German army would be able to capture much soviet territory beyond the Ural Mountains.(http://en.m.wikipedia.org...)
The Germans and Japanese also had very similar military methods, so there would be no disputes over human rights. Japan and Germany both used prisoners of war to achieve their aims, and conditions for these prisoners under both nations were extremely cruel and unsanitary.
Let me now conclude this round by summing up my arguments. The alliance between Japan and Germany would have lasted long into the future, as they had very similar political systems and ideas. The two countries also targeted entirely different sections of the globe during WWII, and so there would have been no disputes over territory. All in all, it is of my opinion that the alliance between Germany and Japan was clearly built to last. Good luck to my opposition in the next round.
volcan forfeited this round.
The opposition's case in this debate really boils down to two main ideas, the idea that there would be disputes over borders between the post WWII Germany and the post WWII Japan, and that these two nations would have disputes over the treatment of Jews. Firstly, let me explain why there would be no disputes over borders.
As I've stated earlier, neither Japan nor Germany wanted to rule the world. Therefore a plan to divide the world up into two spheres wasn't necessary at all. Before WWII, Japan was a 'have not' nation. They were a small group of islands to the east of the giant that was China, with very few natural resources, and very few fertile areas due to the nation's rugged, mountainous terrain. Emperor Hirohito decided he would change this, and so sent his troops to Manchuria, a province in the east of China, rich in Iron, salt, cooking coal and soybeans (1), all resources Japan greatly needed. The point here is that Japan's entry into WWII was solely for natural resources, with more than Japan would have needed for many years to come just in Asia.
Germany, on the other hand, entered WWII for land. Hitler saw the vast, open spaces in Czechoslovakia and Poland, undefended, and took it as an opportunity to expand Germany's borders to what they were historically (2). He knew that by just gaining these two nations, he could double Germany's size. With his main goal to gain more 'lebesraum,' or living space, for the German people, and Germany only being a relatively small nation in terms of population, Hitler could have easily gained enough space for every German to have their own farm, and still not leave the bounds of Europe. This means that there is no way that Germany and Japan would have ever come close enough in their expansion to have disputes over borders, as Japan had no need to go beyond China, and Germany had no need to go beyond the edge of Europe.
My opposition's other main point is that Germany and Japan had different views over Jews, and this would cause Germany to take military action against Japan. Although it may be true that the leaders of the two nations did disagree on policies regarding Jews, this would not lead to military action, due to Hitler's great respect for the Japanese and the great cost involved.
Hitler had a great respect for the Japanese (3), and part of this was allowing the Japanese to make their own decisions. The Axis alliance wasn't based on a common policy of anti-semetism, it was based on a common policy of expansionism. This meant that frankly, Hitler didn't care enough about the Japanese acceptance of Jews to do anything about it. Even if he did care enough to take military action, the monetary and human costs would be surely enough to dissuade him. WWII cost Germany $272 billion dollars, and 7.3 million casualties (4). These costs would be much higher in our alternate world where the axis alliance won, as the victors of WWII ended up spending a lot more money, as well as losing many more people. Because of this, Hitler wouldn't have had the manpower or the money to launch military action against Japan over a disagreement about policies over a minority race.
So by now, it must be blindingly obvious that I, the affirmative side of this debate, am correct in saying that if the axis alliance had won WWII, the alliance between Germany and Japan would have lasted well into the future, for the reasons I have stated in this debate. Thank you to volcan for a great debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.