America not in European War, how long before Japan is defeated?

Suppose that American, as implausible as it may seem, (for whatever reason) doesn't get involved in Europe in WW2. Pearl Harbor happens as per OTL and America is pissed at Japan. How long before Japan is defeated? Will nukes be used or will Japan fall before that?
 
Suppose that American, as implausible as it may seem, (for whatever reason) doesn't get involved in Europe in WW2. Pearl Harbor happens as per OTL and America is pissed at Japan. How long before Japan is defeated? Will nukes be used or will Japan fall before that?

Actually, I dont know if it would make much difference to the Pacific campaign.
I think the limiting factor was probably how fast the US shipyards could make the amphibious force needed to take the islands. The US navy in the atlantic in 42 wouldnt have made a huge difference - more destroyers, but not a huge difference. Most of the US buildup for Europe was army and air force, there just arent that many places to deploy them in the Pacific theatre.

The operations in 44 could be faster, as they may well have enough forces to overlap landings, maybe seeing Japan fall in late 44. But its only a maybe.

the interesting point might be, if the US has a fair number or army divisions idle, would they use them in SE asia or not?
 
Guadalcanal would be won quicker. Then with the sealift and amphib resources of the Italian campaign, US could probably take Guam and The Philippines by the end of 1943. Oil and rubber imports would be cut off and B-17s and B-24s would be dropping bombs on Japan that year. American troops could then land in China after taking Formosa. Japan would then lose its rice production from the occupied territories.

By 1944 Japan would be in the same situation as it did in 1945. The A-bomb wont be ready, but Japan would be facing mass starvation in the winter of 44/45.
 
Yes

And the starvation by blockade will be much more costly in Japanese lives than two nukes were. At least an order of magnitude.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Guadalcanal would be won quicker. Then with the sealift and amphib resources of the Italian campaign, US could probably take Guam and The Philippines by the end of 1943. Oil and rubber imports would be cut off and B-17s and B-24s would be dropping bombs on Japan that year. American troops could then land in China after taking Formosa. Japan would then lose its rice production from the occupied territories.

By 1944 Japan would be in the same situation as it did in 1945. The A-bomb wont be ready, but Japan would be facing mass starvation in the winter of 44/45.

Not at all. The key to the Pacific War was, as has been pointed out, the speed that the USN could be built up. Until that force was ready, the war would be stuck in neutral. It is true that the Solomons would have been better with more aircraft, but even there, the limitation was mainly in production and shipping capacity.

No massive fleet = no major invasions.
 

Hyperion

Banned
Without commitments in Europe, the US Navy could deploy the carriers Wasp, Hornet, and Ranger to the Pacific. They could also deploy a number of battleships, including the fast battleships, such as the North Carolina, Washington, and South Dakota.

I don't know how many cruisers and destroyers would be available, but it would probably be significant.
 
The 1942 "Torch" troops go into Indonesia.
The 1943 Italian troops go into IndoChina.
The 1944 D-Day troops go into the Philippines and Formosa.
Spring 1945 Whe invade the Home Islands.
 
Not at all. The key to the Pacific War was, as has been pointed out, the speed that the USN could be built up. Until that force was ready, the war would be stuck in neutral. It is true that the Solomons would have been better with more aircraft, but even there, the limitation was mainly in production and shipping capacity.

No massive fleet = no major invasions.

What about early American deployments to the CBI theater?

Without commitments in Europe, the US Navy could deploy the carriers Wasp, Hornet, and Ranger to the Pacific. They could also deploy a number of battleships, including the fast battleships, such as the North Carolina, Washington, and South Dakota.

I don't know how many cruisers and destroyers would be available, but it would probably be significant.

Don't know about the destroyers. Is L-L going on in this scenario? Wouldn't the destroyers remain tied up, even if the heavies are going to the pacific?
 
I wonder what would Britain do with the increaseds US presence in Asia? Would they advance and retake Singapore and Hong Kong or would they make more troops available for North Africa campaign against Italy since the US has Asia.

I think Churchhill would send the troops to Africa. If they did move more forces from Asia to Africa, when would these forces be available, 1943 or 1944?

Would the Brits be able to conquer North Africa?
1
Would they be able to land in Italy, Greece, or Yugoslavia after North Africa is secure in 1944 to 1945? Would Winston go ahead with the Norway landing instead of southern Europe?

Post WWII world would look nice too. I take it that China would be Nationalist, but more of Europe would be Communist. Or would the Nazis be able to defeat the Russians and Brits or reach a stalemate? Would Indonesia and Indochina nations become independent, or would the US turn them back to their colonial status, or possibly take over as rulers?
 
Top