Japan stays neutral in WWII

[Rich Rostrom]

Utterly outside the box for Petain, and sure to be opposed by the rest of the Vichy crowd. The U.S. is after all a de facto British ally. Even if they want to avert Axis occupation of Tunisia, they don't want to risk German occupation of all France, which is a likely result of handing over North Africa to an enemy of Germany.

That is going to happen anyway when the British execute their plan for Operation Gymnast, and pursue the Axis from Lybia into Tunisia.

The Germans did not occupy Vichy France when Britain took over Syria or Madagascar against French opposition. There's no reason for Germany to move against Vichy France because of another British forcible entry into French colonial territory - and in hot pursuit of Axis forces.

That's if the Axis does retreat under arms into Tunisia; it's as least as likely that PAA surrenders in Libya, or is interned by the French (or allowed to evacuate via Tunisia).

Highly unlikely. Portugal's neutrality is under no threat. The Allies would love to have bases in the Azores, but they won't invade a neutral country.

I've seen descriptions of the British/Portuguese discussion of letting the Brits occupy the Azores. Ultimately the Brits did establish two naval stations and two airfields on 1943. It is not beyond belief the Portuguese might accommodate the US in 1942.

But that the U.S. just moves in, in 1942, is beyond plausibility. Unless the Battle of the Atlantic is really desperate, or Spain has joined the Axis.

Iceland was not a neutral country, it was a possession of Denmark which was at war with Germany.

Actually the Danes signed a armistice with the German government & continued to administrate the nation into 1943. In 1941 the Danish ambassador to the US signed a treaty allowing the US to militarily occupy Greenland. IIRC it was quite awhile before the Germans learned about that one.

Had been at war with, was occupied by. Not a neutral nation at peace.

There could be a pro-Allied coup d'etat in response to the Axis incursion.

Which is very different from the US being invited in by the government in Vichy.

Malta does not interdict the sea routes to Bizerte & Tunis the same way it does Tripoli. The route from Naples along the north coast of Sicily is not prohibitively further to Bizerte than the route via the Strait of Messenia.

Malta is still quite close to Tunis and Bizerte, and will be reinforced.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Crusader


I am unconvinced that Crusader would do better. The British do not have massive reinforcement available, maybe one infantry division (18th). And for the Gazala battles maybe four ID (18th + 2 Australian 1 Indian) but I doubt that the logistics would allow them to be pushed that far forward even if they could be based in the Middle East that early.
A wild cards being without the formal Anglo American alliance does the Attache have secrets to give away and the one - very good ID available for Gazala may make a difference if it can be forward based.
The air forces are in a comparable situation. Far East Air force is obsolete and needs reequipping and even a neutral Japan – or a vichy Indochina requires watching.
What is more likely is that early 42 plays out per OTL but the British build up to Alamein happens faster and the pursuit is not rained on so that sequence goes ahead from say August 42
Without US involvement Torch/Gymnast is unlikely but PAA is defeated and either retreats into Tunisia with 8th army following up around November.
Its only late in 42 that’s it becomes obvious that Blue has failed and until then the British will have one eye watching the Caucasus. The endgame in Tunisia being played out around the time Uranus is launched makes an interesting decision.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

The Germans did not occupy Vichy France when Britain took over Syria or Madagascar against French opposition. There's no reason for Germany to move against Vichy France because of another British forcible entry into French colonial which is hot pursuit of Axis forces.

Yet the Axis did occupy Vichy France when the Allies invaded Algeria & Morocco. The orders to execute that occupation were issued 10 November while the French were still fighting the Allied invaders. To think the Axis leaders would not take a action they actually did take seems a bit illogical.

That's if the Axis does retreat under arms into Tunisia; it's as least as likely that PAA surrenders in Libya, or is interned by the French (or allowed to evacuate via Tunisia).

A evacuation scenario is possible. Conversely the British already had plans on the table for attacking Tunisia by late 1941, so it cannot be dismissed that they would intervene to prevent this evacuation and take control of this key portion of the African littoral. Perhaps they might convince themselves it is not worth the effort in the case of evacuation, perhaps the French might convince them so, perhaps not.

A Axis retreat with reinforcements, vs evacuation, is a different matter. That creates & threatens a new set of problems for the Britsh for which they have many incentives to deal with sooner rather than later.

Highly unlikely. Portugal's neutrality is under no threat. The Allies would love to have bases in the Azores, but they won't invade a neutral country.

First off the Portuguese government was aware of Spanish plans to invade Portugal, and preparations along the border from 1940 (Neil Lochery 'Lisbon'). They were also aware of German negotiations with Spain for its entry into the war. While Francos refusal left things status quo for the short term Salazars government had no guarantee it would not change. That was their basis for the discussions from 1941 of the possible British occupation of the Azores and other Portuguese territories.

Second, the Allies did plan, prepare, and order the invasion of nuetral Norway in 1940. That the Norwegian government might not have resisted is secondary as the Brits & French intended to occupy Norway regardless of the Norwegian policy. On 7 November 1942 US policy and law placed France as a nuetral. There were full diplomatic relations, trade was conducted as far as the British blockade allowed, but on 8th November US military forces attacked the French in Morroco & Algeria.

I've seen descriptions of the British/Portuguese discussion of letting the Brits occupy the Azores. Ultimately the Brits did establish two naval stations and two airfields on 1943. It is not beyond belief the Portuguese might accommodate the US in 1942.

But that the U.S. just moves in, in 1942, is beyond plausibility. Unless the Battle of the Atlantic is really desperate, or Spain has joined the Axis.

Or if the Axis send military forces into French NW Africa as has been proposed above, or if the US puts enough pressure on the Portuguese government, or absent the Operation Drumbeat of OTL German submarine operations do cause the battle in the mid Atlantic to go badly.

'Denmark'

Had been at war, was conquered by.

..and had a cease fire and armistice agreement in place, and still had diplomatic relations with the US, and had no government in exile in London or anywhere else. The government gave up the permission to actions the Brits and US were going to take regardless. Roosevelt & Co. were fair skilled at smooth diplomacy, which can mask how ruthless they could be when necessary.

Malta is still quite close to Tunis and Bizerte, and will be reinforced.

Over 200 kilometers to those two ports. It is also quite close to the Axis airfields on Sicily, from which the Axis were sucessfully suppressing bomber operations out of Malta for most of 1941 & 1942. Less than 100 kilometers in some cases. In mid 1943 Malta had over a half dozen RAF squadrons permanently stationed there and temporarily supported roughly fifteen more RAF & USAAF squadrons for Operation Husky. Which amounted to some 300 aircraft. That was possible because Allied control of the Tunisian and Algerian airfields allowed them to bring their 4000+ aircraft to bear on the badly outnumbered Axis air forces, a condition that would not exist if the Axis are occupying Tunisia, and the USAAF is absent from the region. Even if the Brits can cram 300, or 500 aircraft onto Malta that is still a inferior force to the air power the Axis could and did concentrate in Sicily in 1941-42. Neither was a relatively small force of 100, or even 200 bombers sufficient to keep two or more ports closed for more than a few days, if that long. Some dock side warehouses set afire and a couple ships sunk in the harbor is about what could be expected before a Malta based bomber force is attritioned away by Axis air and FLAK action. It would require a larger bomber force more than a few days or weeks to reduce Tunisian port intake to where it would hurt the Axis. That requires the Commonwealth bringing enough aircraft to Libya (or Algeria) and establishing the base for them. If Algeria is not available the material for that base will have to be brought to Libya from somewhere east or south of Suez, requiring time as long or longer than it took in early 1943 when there were more resources at hand for the Commonwealth forces operating in Egypt & Libya.

 

[Hawkeye]

What happens to the Second East Turkestan Republic if China remain Nationalist?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

What happens to the Second East Turkestan Republic if China remain Nationalist?

I'd been holding my breath waiting for that one to be posted. Its centrality to Axis operations in the region are only after those in Afganistan that year.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

I am unconvinced that Crusader would do better. The British do not have massive reinforcement available, maybe one infantry division (18th).

They won OTL. That's good enough. More troops and planes, they just win bigger. Why not? The main difference is the follow-on, which was unquestionably affected by diversions to the Far East.

And for the Gazala battles maybe four ID (18th + 2 Australian 1 Indian)

Why would there even be "Gazala battles"? The outcome of the earlier fighting will be different, and more favorable to the Allies. it's not likely Rommel even manages a significant push-back from El Agheila.

A wild cards being without the formal Anglo American alliance does the Attache have secrets to give away...

Bonner Fellers was briefed by 8th Army from his arrival in late 1940. However the Axis didn't get his codes till September 1941.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

Yet the Axis did occupy Vichy France when the Allies invaded Algeria & Morocco. The orders to execute that occupation were issued 10 November while the French were still fighting the Allied invaders. To think the Axis leaders would not take a action they actually did take seems a bit illogical.

The order to execute CASE ANTON was issued after Darlan made his deal with the Allies and ordered French troops to cease resistance; that is, after Vichy authority had declared for the Allies. If that doesn't happen, it's unlikely that Hitler acts against the Vichy government.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

British Reinforcements.

31 December the lines reach El Agheila. 21 January Rommel starts the counteroffensive which peters out on 4 Feb at Gazala.


Of the forces sent to the far east. 7th armoured has 4 tanks left after Sidi Rezegh. 6th Australian is short at least one infantry BDE (prisoner in Crete) and needing a total reequipment of their artillery and in December is in Syria.

8 Australian has no artillery. 9 Indian is only partially formed. 11 Indian is reasonable but its the only garrison and even without the Japanese there is a need for a garrison.

18th ID was in Rochdale in June 41 and Singapore Jan 42. If redirected to the Middle East it would need training. The Indian Infantry Bdes arriving at Singapore are not trained and seriously under officered (3 KCO per bn)

17 Indian arrives in Burma in mid January it was raised in spring 41 and has no desert training - or transport or artillery until March 42

Far East air command had Buffalos Blenheims and Vildebeeste as its front line aircraft ( together with a selection of Maritime Recon). 222 Group (India) about 60 Hurricanes.

Now if there is a POD pre war that obviously changes Japanese intentions al that could change but based on the situation at the end of 41 there are no spare troops just to shove up the line ( that would be a single road through the desert as the main LOC).

Of course by late 43 there are another Million or so Commonwealth troops available.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

The order to execute CASE ANTON was issued after Darlan made his deal with the Allies and ordered French troops to cease resistance; that is, after Vichy authority had declared for the Allies.

Mmmmpf grumble; you are right about that point. Tho the warning orders for operation Anton had been issued, and Hitler had been discussing executing it on the basis of the French not being trustworthy anyway. He had information that French commanders in Metropolitan France were taking actions while not informing or cooperating with the Armistice commission liasion. One French general had issued orders to his battalions to march on Bourdeux, which was outside Vichy military territory.

If that doesn't happen, it's unlikely that Hitler acts against the Vichy government.

I dont think he is going to stand by while his enemies pick off French territory and other French generals violate the spirit & letter of the armistice.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

One French general had issued orders to his battalions to march on Bourdeux, which was outside Vichy military territory.

Wow. That would be very... sanguine. And surprising, since some of the French in Africa were still fighting the Allies.

If I have the chronology right:

Darlan made his deal and issued his order on 10 November.

The remaining French in Africa ceased fire over the next several hours (6? 12? 24?)

Hitler ordered ANTON, which began on the night of 10-11 November.

So this general's attempt to march against the Germans either came before Darlan's order (while the fighting in Africa was still hot), or just after, when at least some was still on.

I don't think he is going to stand by while his enemies pick off French territory and other French generals violate the spirit & letter of the armistice.

Not to the very end, but he's already sat through Syria and Madagascar, and the Tunis incursion is an Axis creation, so Vichy's in no way to blame. He wants continued cooperation from Vichy in Africa, too.

Supposing PAA retreats into Tunisia in arms, and the Axis even takes over Tunis. 8th Army follows north, and finishes the job there. Some Axis troops escape to Algeria and are repatriated via Spain. Meanwhile the "Giraudist" faction in Algeria and Morocco organizes for a pro-Allied coup, which comes off six weeks later. Then Hitler orders ANTON, when he's got nothing more to lose by it.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Wow. That would be very... sanguine. And surprising, since some of the French in Africa were still fighting the Allies.

...

So this general's attempt to march against the Germans either came before Darlan's order (while the fighting in Africa was still hot), or just after, when at least some was still on.

Cant rember if I stumbled across that in Robert Paxtons 'Vichy France' or Julian Jacksons 'The Dark Years' . Checked it with a French WWII fan who had seen the same story in French language sources. As I remember the French commander started organizing the move on Bourdeux as soon as the news of the landings in Africa arrived. I supose he thought Allied fleets were just over his horizon as well. He was dismissed from command within 72 hours and the battalions marched back to the barracks.

Read the literature enough and you will find the residual French army was not exactly passive in the Vichy years. They kept up a secret monitoring of German communications, including attacks on the Enigma encryption system. They had taken a leaf from the Reichwehr and formed shadow regiments from 'Police Auxillarys' and sandbagged arms for them. Efforts to form a armored car unit had been made by fabricating armor plate kits to instal on a small fleet of 'civilian' trucks. Vichy commitment to the Axis was summed up in Darlans response to the US ambassadors question about invading France. It can be summed up as: 'If you come with three divisions we will fight you, if you come with twenty we will join you.'

Perhaps if operation Torch had been executed with twenty divisions instead of seven or eight the French would not have been so confused & ditherish?

But wait! Is this not about the Japanese? Are we headed towards topic drift

 

[mcdo]

But wait! Is this not about the Japanese? Are we headed towards topic drift

Are you joking? People are talking about what would happen in Europe with no Pacific War. That's pretty close to topic, and amazing for us. Normally we would be arguing over 16th century Polynesian immigration to Peru by now...

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Polynesian migrants. I'd hoped we'd not go there

 

[mcdo]

Polynesian migrants. I'd hoped we'd not go there

Your obvious discomfort with Polynesian migrants can only be RACISM. Reported.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

No no, it that the Polynisian question always complicates the 2d Turkistan Republic variant beyond belief

Getting back to the Japanese. Assuming a best case nuetrality between them & Britain, has anyone added up exactly what that makes available to the Commonwealth in 1941-42? Some of the earlier posts approached this in terms of the African campaign/s. Anything to add?

 

[Rich Rostrom]

Read the literature enough and you will find the residual French army was not exactly passive in the Vichy years. They kept up a secret monitoring of German communications, including attacks on the Enigma encryption system.

I knew about that: the reconstituted Polish cryptanalysis center at Uzés. One thing I've wondered ever since: who in the Vichy regime actually knew about it. Some of the spooks, obviously; but the head of intelligence? Or any of the political higher-ups? I don't think Petain could even understand it; Laval surely never knew. Darlan?

It's important because the WI seeds are obvious. If someone got in on the secret who was genuinely pro-Axis (perhaps someone whose only son was killed at Mers-el-Kebir), and he revealed it to the Germans...

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Potential British reinforcement.

7th Amd Bde, 6 & 8 Australian ID. Say 11 and 17 Indian ID all when reformed. 18 Br ID ,previously mentioned. Plus later in the year 14, 19,20,34 Indian, 32 Amd (Indian) divs, 5th Tank Bde Indian possibly, all originally configured as motorised.
Late 42 early 43 possibly 23, 25, 28 and 36 ID Indian ( sorta 36 is all brit but on the Indian establishment.) Maybe 43 Amd Div (Indian).
2 Groups RAF (from India). 7 Fighter Sq RAAF (P40, Wirraway), 6 Sq Maritime recon ( Hudsons and Ansons mainly), 1xB25, 1x Boston, 2x Beaufighter Sq in Mid 42.
Nov 43 the RAAF is 15 fighter Sq (P40, spit, Boomerang). 7 sq Beaufort, 2sq Beaufighter, 1x A31 or 35, 4 sq Vengeance, 3 sq Catalina, 6sq Anson/Hudson, 3 sq C47 and a misc transport squadron but that includes training formations so say 10 FS, 7 attack, TBD, 2 Maritime recon and1-2 transport.
Up to late 42 Blue is ongoing so a lot of potential reinforcements would be tied up in Iraq/Iran.

Part of the issue is going to be different force structures in different theatres. A lot of the Indian ID were demotorised for Burma so there would be a trade off.
But as a rough comparison that would put 50% more troops available to 8th army at Alamein provided they could be properly equipped, shipped and supplied.
For me the likely outcome is the build up to Alamein happens faster.

Definitely 2BB and one CV 2 cru div and 2 desron, probably another crudiv and desron from the RAN with more later. Maybe another crudiv and desron from the DEI and some air force, say a composite group of 3 fighter, 2 light bomber if reequipped. Personally I would be dubious about ground forces but a BDE could be possible.

 

[Historyman 14]

If Japan was neutral, they would have to leave China in the end.

 

[Simreeve]

Here is a question that occurs to me: If Japan clearly wants to remain neutral and isn't open to joining the Anti-Comintern Pact, does Germany look elsewhere for more allies?[//QUOTE]
China, even?

Are you joking? People are talking about what would happen in Europe with no Pacific War. That's pretty close to topic, and amazing for us. Normally we would be arguing over 16th century Polynesian immigration to Peru by now...

...and bison-burgers.



ITTL, presumably Japan keeps South Sakhalin and the Kuriles?

 

[Librarian]

to say they were about to forget Korean frankly seems retarded, like saying that Swedish is bound to become a dead language because a bunch of people there speak fantastic English.

It's true that the Swedes speak fantastic English, but they're not owned by an England that genuinely wants to turn Sweden into an integral part of England.

Japan was making significant progress towards destroying Han Chinese language in Taiwan by the time the war ended. The Japanese were brutal in their methods, and their methods were effective. Korean would probably have survived, but it would be much, much less prevalent, like Irish Gaelic, Scots Gaelic or Nynorsk Norwegian.