Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Japan avoids a Pacific War.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Japan avoids a Pacific War.

    Let's assume for a moment that saner heads prevail in Japan in the late 30's and early 40's and that incidents like Nomohan give them pause to reconsider their position. What I propose here is that Japan actually does back down in much of China and begins an orderly withdrawal to defend Manchuko and Korea. They hang on to Hainan Island and other off shore islands on the Chinese coast.
    In China proper they begin a withdrawal and leave in place a provisional monarchy / government that is sure to be a third side in a Chinese civil war. In fact, they encourage and support a divided internally weak China.
    But, because they withdraw from the Chinese mainland they are able to sufficently placate the various other powers and avoid a political escallation and embargo of strategic materials.
    As the war in Europe proceeds the Japanese simply allow it to run its course and stay out of the war entirely. Instead, they focus on repopulating Manchuko with persons of Japanese decent and marginalizing the indiginous Chinese population while fortifying and strengthening their hold on the region against Chinese and Russian incursion.

    With a Pacific War averted the Japanese come out in say, 1945 or so still holding Korea and Manchuko as possessions along with their Pacific and Chinese coast islands. China likely will still end up Communist but far weaker because of the loss of the largely industrial area of Manchuko. With the Philippines and other Southeastern Asia nations becoming independent Japan is poised to be the major power in that region of the world by the mid-50's.
    They sit on the Soviet doorstep with a now Cold War brewing. They sit next to China with rising tensions over Communism.

    Would the US embrace such a situation by allying with Japan? What other possibilities would this scenario hold?

  • #2
    Much as I regret to say this but USA will have no other choice to ally itself with nationalistic Japan to counter communists.

    Other possibilities (probably the best case scenario)
    We encourage a war between japan and Russia over china.And with stalin distracted in the east attack in the west like repeat of barbarossa and liberate germany, east europe and possibly dethrone the communists.

    Comment


    • #3
      Had the Japanese maintained the occupation of Formosa, I wonder where Chang-Ki-Chek (or however you spell it) would have gone?

      Comment


      • #4
        When does the US enter the European conflict? Without a Pacific theatre, all US production will be aimed at Germany. Therefore if the US enters the war in early '42, there is a good chance they will have created enough sea lift capacity to carry out an amphibious landing in western France in '43.

        Are the Cold War demarcation lines in Europe redrawn farther east? The inner-German border will not have been created, so the balance of power is quite different. East Germany was one of the strongest member of the Warsaw Pact.

        The western democracies allied with some marginal governments during the Cold War (Shah of Iran, South American juntas, etc). I don't see them having much trouble cutting a deal with Japan. Actually, Japan was an ally of Great Britain in the late 19th and early 20th century. Given that the Japanese are playing more intelligently, they will likely at least keep friendly relations with the UK. Maybe they are even a late entry into WWII on the Allied side?

        The addition of another major player in south-east asia makes the situation even more chaotic. Korean communist insurgents attempt to overthrow the Japanese colonial government. The Viet Mihn will still rise up against the French. China is a confusion of warlords.

        A real mess, different than history, but no less confusing and dangerous
        Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Roadkiller View Post
          When does the US enter the European conflict? Without a Pacific theatre, all US production will be aimed at Germany. Therefore if the US enters the war in early '42, there is a good chance they will have created enough sea lift capacity to carry out an amphibious landing in western France in '43.

          Are the Cold War demarcation lines in Europe redrawn farther east? The inner-German border will not have been created, so the balance of power is quite different. East Germany was one of the strongest member of the Warsaw Pact.

          The western democracies allied with some marginal governments during the Cold War (Shah of Iran, South American juntas, etc). I don't see them having much trouble cutting a deal with Japan. Actually, Japan was an ally of Great Britain in the late 19th and early 20th century. Given that the Japanese are playing more intelligently, they will likely at least keep friendly relations with the UK. Maybe they are even a late entry into WWII on the Allied side?

          The addition of another major player in south-east asia makes the situation even more chaotic. Korean communist insurgents attempt to overthrow the Japanese colonial government. The Viet Mihn will still rise up against the French. China is a confusion of warlords.

          A real mess, different than history, but no less confusing and dangerous
          I don't think it would be easy to postulate the difference in outcome of a war in Europe. I'm sure at some point the US would jump in. More interestingly would be the Japanese rather than remaining strictly neutral side to some degree with the Allies rather than Germany in this scenario in an attempt to make nice with them.
          Korea would not have a communist uprising. Without a communist China and no Russian invasion of Manchuko there would be no installation of a pro-Soviet stalinist government to rise up. Mao would still have an insurrection in Vietnam and the French would still probably lose. But, what would the US do given no Korean war and a Japan that might be allowing US reconnissance flights over Manchuko for the purposes of gaining intel on the Soviets?
          Would Japan who still possesses a relatively large army and navy possibly throw in with the French in this scenario? After all, they stand to gain much from access to French Indochina in both resources and good ports. The French were never ones to turn down having someone else fight their wars.....

          Comment


          • #6
            I believe the US would still of joined the war in Europe albeit a bit later. I can see the liberation of Europe happening around about the same time, maybe 6-8 months later. Most industrial capacity in the US was aimed at Overlord.

            Good question regarding Japan, but with saner heads Japan was not the evil State we saw in RL. Remember the alliance with the British Empire could of been renewed in the 20s.

            The Japanese would of been a natural ally for the USA but that doesn't mean the Japanese would of embraced it themselves. They would of been drawn into a cold war position alongside NATO but would of been altogether separate. Maybe focusing their energies on getting a Chinese State more agreeable to Japanese thinking.

            Comment


            • #7
              America entered the war because Hitler was stupid enought to declare war on them off the back of Pearl Harbour. If there is no Pearl then how do they come because FDR up to that point had made no real moves to actually get the US into the war and most Americans pre Pearl didnt want to.

              Comment


              • #8
                America entered the war because Hitler was stupid enought to declare war on them off the back of Pearl Harbour. If there is no Pearl then how do they come because FDR up to that point had made no real moves to actually get the US into the war and most Americans pre Pearl didnt want to.
                __________________
                Majority of Americans (althought lessening) were against involvement before Pearl Harbor, but FDR was as unneutral as he could manage in favoring the British and wanting to thwart Hitler (leading to one of the sillier GOP conspiracy theories that he knew about Pearl Harbor attack but did nothing).

                ====================

                The scenario on this thread is indeed an intriguing one, but hinges on the failure of the Japanese militarists gaining control in the 1920s and 1930s.
                I've always been struck by the remarkable geographical and resource base the Japanese Empire would have enjoyed had it stopped at controlling Manchuria, Hainan, Taiwan, other islands while possessing an increasing industrial base and a powerful navy.

                Similarly, consider the German Empire position had it accepted an, on balance, defeat in the west but held on to much of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.)
                Last edited by Tuor; 27 Jul 10, 20:37.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                  America entered the war because Hitler was stupid enought to declare war on them off the back of Pearl Harbour. If there is no Pearl then how do they come because FDR up to that point had made no real moves to actually get the US into the war and most Americans pre Pearl didnt want to.
                  It would almost certainly be an incident involving the U-boat war in the Atlantic. Much like WW 1 with the Lusitania, sooner or later that situation would have drug the US into the war on the basis of continued outrage. Let's say a U-boat torpedoes a US battleship on partol near Iceland or something like that

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    It would almost certainly be an incident involving the U-boat war in the Atlantic. Much like WW 1 with the Lusitania, sooner or later that situation would have drug the US into the war on the basis of continued outrage. Let's say a U-boat torpedoes a US battleship on partol near Iceland or something like that
                    That did happen to a US Navy boat and more than once to civilian ships. It didnt cause the the scale of outrage and clamour for vengenance that you suggest.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      FDR was always for entering the European conflict. After re-election (I guess with no worsening of ties with Japan he would be re-elected) he would of had a stronger base to lead America towards war, thisw would of been ehlped by the fact that many Americans were softening as they saw the plight of the Brits.

                      Any small action would of been jumped on as reason for a declaration. This though might not have been around the same time. Maybe even 43/44.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                        That did happen to a US Navy boat and more than once to civilian ships. It didnt cause the the scale of outrage and clamour for vengenance that you suggest.
                        It would have eventually if it continued to happen.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Perhaps were the Japanese crisis defused soon enough the pro interventionists would be able to commit more of the USN & other resources to supporting Britain & later the USSR? A more robust & aggresive naval policy in the Atlantic might lead to a German DoW on the US sooner. What is the effect if Hitler throws a tantrum in October 1941 & declares war on the US, or if he does this in June 1941?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Japan needed to take Indonesia and her rich oil supplies once FDR slapped an embargo on them, otherwise the Japanese military machine would quite literally run out of fuel and stop. And as much as the Americans didn't like Japan's aggression towards China, racism being what it is they would dislike Japan's aggression to the asian colonies of Europe even more, and in the mind of the IJA and IJN that would entail the risk of a war with America.

                            So war was pretty much unavoidable, thus the IJA and IJN reasoned that if they could not avoid war, then they should stack the odds in their favor as much as possible, which was the reasoning behind the pearl harbor attack.
                            Standing here, I realize you were just like me trying to make history.
                            But who's to judge the right from wrong.
                            When our guard is down I think we'll both agree.
                            That violence breeds violence.
                            But in the end it has to be this way.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Czin View Post
                              Japan needed to take Indonesia and her rich oil supplies once FDR slapped an embargo on them, otherwise the Japanese military machine would quite literally run out of fuel and stop.
                              You completely miss the point of this what if. Japan makes peace with and/or does not attack China which completely removes the reason for the embargo. No embargo = no war with the USA.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X