What If Japan Wins WW2?

Hey y'all

So I'm not a frequent quest of post-1900 forum, I'm more of a pre-1900 kind of guy, but this thought just occurred to me.

I know there are lots of talks about if Germany won, or if the USSR made a more total defeat, or Sea Lions ;) But I haven't seen much discussion on if Japan won the war.

From what I understand, the Japanese Empire actually had a better chance of winning, and perhaps if they won the Battle of Midway, which is considered the turning point in the Pacific Theatre if my memory serves, things would have looked grim for the USA.

So, firstly, how could Japan win, and secondly, what would the outcome be?
 
I am no expert, but I've always heard that Japan stood like no chance at all, that Pearl Harbor was kind of a fatalistic gamble against an overwhelmingly powerful industrial power...

So I would be interested as well if someone has a case for a Japanese victory.
 
Skip Pearl Harbor.

The board has a rosier view of the WWII era USA than I. IMO, had there not been a galvanizing event, the Pacific War would have been more like Viet Nam or Iraq.

Lacking Pearl, if Japan invaded the Philippines, and the US public found out how much money and blood was to be spent before victory, there would have been a movement to let the Asians settle their own problems.

"NO BLOOD FOR OIL! And by that we mean NO AMERICAN BLOOD FOR DUTCH OIL!"
 
If Japan never touches any American possessions in the Pacific, Japan will probably not WIN the war per se, but they will not lose it either. China had become a true quagmire by December of 41, so "winning" the war might not be the best way to put success in this sense. Part of the Japanese military ethos was to not just defeat China, but to subdue it, rape it, pillage it, and punish the Chinese for daring to even exist.

In a perfect victory for Japan, you would never attack Russia, never attack China (except for maintaining the puppet situation in Manchuria), and FOR THE LOVE OF AMATERASU, do not attack the United States. Take Dutch holdings, take British holdings, take French holdings, avoid Australia though.
 

The

Banned
I don't know.

I just don't see Japan winning WW2. Sure, I know, go off on me with as many facts about the Empire of Japan as you want, but in my opinion, I can't find them rising to victory.
 
Skip Pearl Harbor.

The board has a rosier view of the WWII era USA than I. ...like Viet Nam...

"NO BLOOD FOR OIL! And by that we mean NO AMERICAN BLOOD FOR DUTCH OIL!"

Japan has zero chance against the U.S. Maybe less.

Japanese victory is impossible. China is too vast, the USA is too powerful. It would make about as much sense as Italy winning WW2.

I say again, just like Viet Nam was a US rollover. NVN had no chance of winning in Viet Nam. :p
 
Well, Japan was the one who had to deal with partisan resistance, not the Western powers. Their lack of respect for occupied nations inspired insurgencies and reduced the standing of Japan in the US. They're never going to be able to hold all of China, let alone all of modern-day Indonesia and New Guinea as well. And eventually Britain will want its colonies back as well.
 
The only way for Japan to win is not to play, ie, pull back and stick with developing Manchukuo and Mengjiang, or maybe even just Manchukuo.
 
I say again, just like Viet Nam was a US rollover. NVN had no chance of winning in Viet Nam. :p
Vietnam took over a decade for the US to get tired, and NVN had free logistics and the US was highly restricted in its operations against it

This ain't gonna last a decade, the 1940 naval building program will commission in 1943 and the IJN will die in 1943-1944, and in late 44 B-san will start visiting the home islands while in 1943 Starks wolves will start slaughtering the Japanese merchant fleet, and in early 1945 Operation Starvation will take effect and shut down what little water traffic remains

And in 1945 Oppenheimer's light will start shining over the home islands
 

Garrison

Donor
I say again, just like Viet Nam was a US rollover. NVN had no chance of winning in Viet Nam. :p

A poor analogy. Japan has no outside help, it has hostile locals in most of its conquests who are the ones who will form a guerilla army not the Japanese. Once it's conventional military is crushed the US can simply isolate it, destroy its infrastructure by bombing and let it starve if it doesn't decide to use nukes.

You're making the common mistake of trying to impose a 21st century viewpoint on a historical situation.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
In a big war like WW2 and in a secondary theater, the easiest POD is for the bad guys in the main theater to do better, so this is the POD I would write a TL using. And use some minor secondary POD. So a sample TL, and if you don't like the PODs, then use whatever you prefer. So the POD goes something like:

1) Since it was a naval war in the Pacific, I need the Germans to "a lot" better. Unlike some on the board, I see Hitler as an inexperienced NCO who was easily moved on military maters in early days. So you need to swap around the early Nazi leadership so they make a bit better decisions on naval matters. Basically pick your favorite WW1/WW2 naval officer, and have him join the Nazi much earlier. In most of these, you don't a Nazi win. You get the Nazi inflicting a lot more damage on the UK, so the USA has to help. Now a Nazi win likely works too, but not required.

2) The "suprise" attack was a big deal. Japan needs to deliver the message better/earlier. So for example, have the Japanese diplomat that comes down in the Fall of 1941 already have the verbal instructions of how to deliver the message. Make it a clear short message that is no more than a paragraph and clearly starts with "the empire of japan finds itself in a state of war with the USA.". You can skip this POD, but it makes it lot easier.

3) Now you need the Nazi to perform better. I like naval German POD's, so I will start with there. We have a better officer/leaders. We can't do something like have the Germans with a large RN size navy, but we can do one with a better War Plan. I like the idea of the Germans having naval aviation like WW1. I enjoy some precision weapons, radar, and magnetic mines. I would focus on these items, but you could do anything that greatly harms the RN. I would write the TL where the naval interdiction was much more efficient. Lot of magnetic mines and guide weapons. Heavy losses to the BEF and to lighter ships of the RN. IMO, the UK will make a lot of these losses good by pulling forces from the east. Then have a followup plan to harm the RN. Russia can happen on time.

4) Then we can start the Pacific War on time. Japan does as well or better in the first few months. Lot fewer UK forces in the theater, some less USA. The USA will be force to send more ships (read carriers) to the Atlantic because the UK will have lost a lot more naval assets. Midway and Coral Sea are butterflied away. The USA will have plenty of forces for attacks in 1943, but Japan will have more time to fortify. Say June 1943 is first big USA counter attack. With German doing much better than OTL, say Torch is cancel and Malta falls, the Italians stay in longer. Germany still loses, but a much more exhausted USA accepts a peace offer by Japan.

Or you could fix Japanese codes, maybe compromise USA codes. Say traitor in Magic program. It is a relatively hard TL to write, but no where near impossible.
 
So, how does Japan have less of a chance than Germany did?

Japan fought longer and harder against the Americans (the fighting beginning before D-Day, and ending after the war ended in Europe), the war with them was more costly for America (financially and in manpower) than the war in Europe was.

I know this sounds very Americo-centric, but if America was such a big factor to take into account in Europe, and the Japanese were doing better fighting the Americans than the Germans were, why do they have less of a chance?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
So why did Japan feel compelled to gangsterize Pearl ?

They wanted to cripple the USA capital ships, and they were largely successful. We had about 11 capital ships (3 carriers and 8 BB), and the neutralized 5-8 of them, depending on how you count damage. So to see what Japan hoped to accomplish, flip the luck a little bit more in their favor.

We planned to keep half of the BB at sea. So on December 7th, we have 4 BB, and escorts at sea SE of the Islands. Japan finds 6, not 8 capital ships. They sink the them all. Fewer targets and CV are more vulnerable than BB. Japan retreats before the remaining ships can join the battle. Then given them another break to get the last carrier. The Lexington was spotted by submarines, maybe multiple times. The Enterprise was exposed to Bettys. Either Butterfly/POD works. Notice I have just a minor POD where ferrying the planes to smaller Island is delayed a week and a submarine location is moved a few thousand yards. Assume the USA does not transfer ships as fast to the Pacific, which likely Japan assume. We now have no Dolittle raid, no Coral Sea, No Midway. The USA takes the field in force in 1943. Japan gains a full year mastery of the sea.


Combine this with the USSR doing much worse, which was generally assumed, and the USA might take a peace offer. Or at least, Japan would think so.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
So, how does Japan have less of a chance than Germany did?

Japan fought longer and harder against the Americans (the fighting beginning before D-Day, and ending after the war ended in Europe), the war with them was more costly for America (financially and in manpower) than the war in Europe was.

I know this sounds very Americo-centric, but if America was such a big factor to take into account in Europe, and the Japanese were doing better fighting the Americans than the Germans were, why do they have less of a chance?

The ratio of USA to Japan economy was about 15 to 1. From memory, German + Italy + conquered lands was less than 2:1.
 
I say again, just like Viet Nam was a US rollover. NVN had no chance of winning in Viet Nam. :p

If it was North Vietnam/Viet Cong vs. The US in a vacuum, then the Communists would have been smashed with overwhelming firepower. There won't be a bleeding insurgency with sanctuaries that are off-limits for 10 years.
 
So, how does Japan have less of a chance than Germany did?

Far smaller industrial base, slightly more absurd aims.

Japan fought longer and harder against the Americans (the fighting beginning before D-Day, and ending after the war ended in Europe), the war with them was more costly for America (financially and in manpower) than the war in Europe was.

The Japanese fought for slightly longer against the Americans, 'harder' is false. 'Europe First', focusing the preponderance of resources on Germany was US grand strategy for most of the war. Despite public opinion viewing Japan as the main threat, only around a third of US resources were focused on the Pacific. Also, Operation Torch was the first main US operation in the European theater, not Overlord.

I know this sounds very Americo-centric, but if America was such a big factor to take into account in Europe, and the Japanese were doing better fighting the Americans than the Germans were, why do they have less of a chance?

It's too Americo-centric to be valid, as it ignores one massive factor, the Soviet Union. From June 1941 to May 1945 the Germans fought on against arguably the millions strong Red Army, and from the beginning had to focus the vast amount of their resources on that front. Any comparison of the European and Pacific theatres of World War 2 has to factor in the most important front in the former.

The Japanese never fought the Soviets during this period, when the Soviets did delcare war in August 1945 the Japanese were decisively defeated on the Asian within a matter of days. It's been a growing argument that the Soviet delcaration of war on the Japanese may have had to do more with their surrender than the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 
Top