After the Pacific War cease-fire...

After the Cease-Fire...

  • Exchange of Populations

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Job restrictions

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • Delayed Civil Rights

    Votes: 6 46.2%
  • Earlier Civil Rights

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • (something not listed, so I'll put it in my reply)

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • Total voters
    13

Keenir

Banned
In Europe, the Allies defeat the Nazis , partition Germany, liberate France, etc.

But in the Pacific, neither the United States nor the Empire of Japan can inflict such a devastating blow that it sends the other side to the negotiating tables to ask for terms.

(let's assume that the nuclear programs of both sides end up going down blind alleys - paths that, only when its too late, do we realize that there's no useful end product from that line of inquiry)

So what do you think will happen after the cease-fire?:


  • Exchange of populations. Japanese-Americans are sent to from the internment camps to the Japanese Empire, American fighters and American-supporting tribes* are sent to the United States.
  • Job limitation. While not shipped to their ancestral home, Japanese-Americans (and possibly other Asian-Americans) would be forbidden from getting certain jobs -- such as law enforcement, military service, possibly even telecommunications.
  • Civil Rights Movement delayed. African-Americans and Asian-Americans alike take longer to get equal rights.
  • Civil Rights Movement advanced. African-Americans manage to get their equal rights earlier than in OTL.
  • No Cold War. With the US and USSR and Empire of Japan, things don't become as polarized as they did in OTL.
  • Cold War. The difference from OTL is only that there's one more player, one who dominates the north Pacific and zealously guards it.
Would the Empire of Japan get a seat on the United Nations' Security Council?

Who would the Empire court as prospective allies?

Will the US stay out of a Korean War that's fought between Japan and Russia?


* = an example from the Vietnam War in OTL would be the Hmong, who provided vital support.
 
Erm, need a LOT more information of how this got that far. Like some kind of Map.

Is the United States just stuck trying to invade Japan and taking hundreds of thousands of casualties? Is Japan sitting at Christchurch and Karachi? What role would the Soviet Union, Nationalist China, The UK, ANZAC, and the myriad of EACoPS puppets say?

This is essentially what Japan wanted to do--to force the alliances to sue for terms. But Japan can't accept a peace deal that doesn't allow it the DEI, Indochina and China--and unless Japan can do something like pull out of Australia, India and New Zealand, I don't think a peace deal is workable.
 

Keenir

Banned
Erm, need a LOT more information of how this got that far. Like some kind of Map.

Is the United States just stuck trying to invade Japan and taking hundreds of thousands of casualties? Is Japan sitting at Christchurch and Karachi? What role would the Soviet Union, Nationalist China, The UK, ANZAC, and the myriad of EACoPS puppets say?

This is essentially what Japan wanted to do--to force the alliances to sue for terms. But Japan can't accept a peace deal that doesn't allow it the DEI, Indochina and China--and unless Japan can do something like pull out of Australia, India and New Zealand, I don't think a peace deal is workable.

much appreciated. your reply (and that of others) is making this ATL more plausible and less nebulous. thank you.


This was inspired by a recent marathon of the History Channel's Commanders at War with several of them about Japanese fortunes - in Singapore (victory) and Midway (loss)....so I got the idea here.

part of the change, though, is that in the Pearl Harbor attack, the US lost both the planes, carriers, and the other military ships.

I imagine that, post-War, while China is an open wound for Japan...Japan might do the following:

  • agree to pull out of Singapore and British territories not vital to Japanese prosperity (Dutch, Spanish, and Portugese territories, on the other hand, are S.o_O.L.)...and will vacate New Guinea and other areas of British Oceania.*
  • respects the integrity of Hawaii so long as the US agrees not to use Hawaii as a staging area to launch attacks. (maybe Midway becomes the equivilent of that building that's on the line between North and South Korea in OTL)
  • Stalin's probably watching to see what the other Allies do -- he's still of the opinion that the USSR did the heavy lifting against the Nazis, and he's not about to repeat the experience against Japan**)

* = leaving aside American opinion at the time, would the UK have been willing to make such a deal with the Japanese Empire? if not, what would the UK have put forth as their demands?

** = he defeated Germany, and the famed Russian Steamroller took Eastern Europe. even if he defeats Japan, the Japanese Empire will be sucked up by all the non-Russian nations.
 
Of the first four buttons, I see this as the most likely - at least I hope so. Roosevelt or his successor is going to have a population of American citizens of Japanese descent who have contributed to defeating Germany as in OTL - I cannot imagine shipping them off to "the home country" and I certainly cannot see Japan accepting them. Neither do I see trying to suppress that population when there is a three-way Cold War brewing (which I guess addresses my take on the last two buttons).

I think the US and the remaining Allies shut the Empire out of the UN - which probably does not help the UN develop as a world organization. Although that attitude could change if the USSR decides to "liberate" Korea.
 
Well, it is kind of an addendum to the PoD that Stalin doesn't decide to move into Manchuria. IDK if having a nastier war against Germany could pull that off, but Stalin would have to have a very low opinion of Japan sitting on his border.

In this scenario, Stalin might well get China, Korea, and Indochina--the benefits here could be considerable--since I presume the Japanese have a strong naval perimeter (but alas, their armies are dead against the Soviets). He has inducements to attack, and would probably do so if he isn't somehow butterflied out of it (nastier war in Europe?)

I still need to see a map to understand what, exactly, Japan is demanding for peace and what it is willing to offer for peace. Without the situation on the ground, I have no way to know whether this is a very generous concession of Australia and India or a insane demand for Indonesia.

First of all, unless Australia and New Zealand are physically occupied by Japan, they are going to have to agree to terms. And that's going to be a stumbling block--what is worth Port Morseby in Japanese hands? Japan would have been launching bombing raids against Australia from such a position.

This is probably the weak link of the ceasefire. Australia faces (and may be in the process of dealing with) an invasion.

China is a problem as well--and historically, the Japanese gave up on negotiations with Chiang entirely. The Allies want Chiang to win, so does Stalin. Indeed, if Stalin continues to back Chiang (as he has no reason not to do), the Japanese are going to find themselves burnt out after decades of vietnam-like fighting.

So, I have to repeat my calls for a map, and for whether China, Australia, New Zealand, and others are getting called for these talks. Frankly, unless the Japanese offer is very tempting, I think the Allies will crush Japan with a large cut for Stalin.
 
Germany was the primary theater of US military operations and the Pacific secondary, but the US reamed the Japanese in WWII, as Calbear can attest.

Thus, you'd need to explain just *how* the Japanese managed to stalemate the US in order for this scenario to work.

Some suggestions:

1. The Japanese never get "victory disease" and thus don't get overextended.

2. The Japanese adopt the convoy system and get their heads out of their colons re: using submarines against supply convoys and not just other warships.

3. Instead of Pearl Harbor, a straight invasion of the Phillippines. The Pacific Fleet steams across the Pacific for a glorious line battle and gets obliterated in deep water (preventing salvage) by Japanese carriers and submarines.
 

Keenir

Banned
Some suggestions:

1. The Japanese never get "victory disease" and thus don't get overextended.

3. Instead of Pearl Harbor, a straight invasion of the Phillippines. The Pacific Fleet steams across the Pacific for a glorious line battle and gets obliterated in deep water (preventing salvage) by Japanese carriers and submarines.

hm. I might go for Option 1 there. (I'd originally planned for #3, but that was purely to remove what good cards the US still had post-Pearl Harbor)

though without victory disease, many of the parts that (in the picture) are being returned to the UK, simply are never out of the UK's possession. sounds good.

NewJapan.JPG
 
Option #3 prevents the homicidal hate of the Japanese Pearl Harbor spawned and makes an antiwar movement much more viable, though.

Post Pearl Harbor, destroying Japan was a secular holy war. If the war is some kind of Pacific Vietnam with carriers, that makes it more doable.
 
Even in a Pacific Vietnam with carriers, you are going to be hard pressed to get the Americans to agree to a peace where the Americans lose territory. That means no chance in hell of a Japanese annexed Philippines, Guam, Wake, etc. Maybe the U.S. would accept a peace where the various islands are returned and the Philippines go independent as a neutral.
 

Keenir

Banned
Even in a Pacific Vietnam with carriers, you are going to be hard pressed to get the Americans to agree to a peace where the Americans lose territory. That means no chance in hell of a Japanese annexed Philippines, Guam, Wake, etc. Maybe the U.S. would accept a peace where the various islands are returned and the Philippines go independent as a neutral.

Except then where would Japan get the rubber and other things that they went to war for?

Indonesia? you just made travel to and from Japan <->Indonesia very dangerous & easily severed.


it's an interesting idea you propose, mind you, so I'd like to see how the problem might be resolved.
 
That's the fundamental problem, K.

Japan may well find that the allies are simply not willing to make the concessions they demand with that position on the ground. It is a problem I recognized from the very start of the scenario.

I mean, there is no fundamental reason why the allies can not continue this war against Japan. They are tired of it, sure, but in the long haul, they know they can beat Japan without Germany in the game. In addition, Pearl Harbor makes the United States see red.

I think any peace deal with Japan in this circumstance is essentially going to involve minor concessions only. The USA was going to let the Philippines go in 1947--doing it in 1945 isn't a huge issue. French Indochina is legally Japans, and the swap of Hong Kong Island for Canton and Hainan is pretty sweet.

But why would the allies allow Japan any more? They aren't beaten, the war isn't unpopular, and the ace in the deck--Soviet Entry--would settle this.

In short, I think the answer is "No Deal". And I'm going to say that Japan surviving the Potsdam declaration is ASB. The UK and USA's full resources against Japan, and Japan has no chance at all...
 

Keenir

Banned
In addition, Pearl Harbor makes the United States see red.

so, if there was no Pearl Harbor attack, as Merry suggests above, they'd be more amenable?

French Indochina is legally Japans, and the swap of Hong Kong Island for Canton and Hainan is pretty sweet.

But why would the allies allow Japan any more?

I did what I did to the map, because I wasn't sure where negotiations would lead - its easily edited. if I may ask, could you post a map of what you think Japan would end with?
 
so, if there was no Pearl Harbor attack, as Merry suggests above, they'd be more amenable?



I did what I did to the map, because I wasn't sure where negotiations would lead - its easily edited. if I may ask, could you post a map of what you think Japan would end with?

I agree that Pearl Harbor is a mistake.
Soviet War Entry needs to be conclusively ruled out.

Finally, what I need is not a settlement map, but a military control one--and the Japanese had better be in Darwin and Calcutta, because these concessions look very weak...
 
so, if there was no Pearl Harbor attack, as Merry suggests above, they'd be more amenable?

It's more that with Pearl Harbor, the U.S. would give no concessions at all. Ever. The most they could get is coming out of the war with the home islands and Korea/Taiwan. No way they are keeping Indonesia et al. No way they are staying in China either.

Without Pearl Harbor, the Americans/Allies might be amenable to making minor concessions. Giving up U.S. territory would not be a minor concession. There is simply no other way to go given the gigantic advantage possessed by the allies and the fact that it is impossible for Japan to achieve a decisive victory.
 

Keenir

Banned
Soviet War Entry needs to be conclusively ruled out.

bribe Stalin with northern Manchuria, and vow to non-interference with Soviet activity in all of Mongolia and western&central China?

Finally, what I need is not a settlement map, but a military control one--and the Japanese had better be in Darwin and Calcutta, because these concessions look very weak...

maybe its just me...but wouldn't the Japanese in Darwin and Calcutta be just as inciting (to the Brits and Aussies) as a Pearl Harbor attack would be to the Americans?

Without Pearl Harbor, the Americans/Allies might be amenable to making minor concessions. Giving up U.S. territory would not be a minor concession.

but none of the Pacific islands (except for Hawaii) are US Territories (in the sense that Alaska and Utah were Territories before they became States)....it would be more like the UK signing away their rights over northern France. (don't they still have claim over that area?)
 
That's just it, though. Stalin's going to get much more than Northern Manchuria for storming south. IDK how Japan could pay Stalin off, when Stalin stands to gain China and Korea for attacking Japan.

The War needs to turn very badly against the Allies or there is no way that Japan's acquisition of the DEI looks at all reasonable. I'd see a likely peace deal with Japan at its historical 1942 height as likely to end with:

-Phillipine Neutral; Siam Puppeted, Indochina gained and a free hand in China. That's it.

The Japanese in Calcutta and Darwin means that the Japanese can offer a pullout from Australia and India as a concession for keeping the DEI; but you are going to have to wank the Japanese even harder to get the allies down to the point where they'd agree to make this concession...
 

Keenir

Banned
The War needs to turn very badly against the Allies or there is no way that Japan's acquisition of the DEI looks at all reasonable.

I have only one absolute requirement for this timeline: that the Nazis have been crushed utterly - as much as in OTL or even more severely.
(perhaps the Allies suffered heavy losses in the process of curbstomping the Nazis and Italians, that it qualifies as the War turning very badly against the Allies? severe manpower shortages in the Allies' camps, being a good thing for the Japanese forces, yes?)

The Japanese in Calcutta and Darwin means that the Japanese can offer a pullout from Australia and India as a concession for keeping the DEI;

ah. okay; thank you for explaining.
 

Keenir

Banned
a better explanation:

I mentioned in the OP that this was built upon a series of History Channel programs. in truth, those were just a vehicle I was using to realize a thought experiment:

I had thought to myself "The US took until very recently to apologize for the Japanese-American internments ...and that's after we won the War!......so what if the Pacific War hadn't been won by either side?"
 
Top