Britain vs Japan 1941 one on one (No interference)

Malaya is hugely vulnerable if Thailand and Indochina are held by Japan, in the absence of that Malaya is actually quite hard to attack. Indeed if there is a significant build up towards hostilities Japan faces the danger that it is using its elite carrier based planes and pilots against rather more replaceable yet high quality land based aircraft.

I think much depends on the build up, a sudden offensive favours Japan (but carries the risk of the pulling in other nations), a long term build up may leave Japan in a war of attrition that does not suit it.
I was assuming no Japanese presence in FIC since there must be no European war it to be UK VS JPN one on one. This would mean Japan running convoys from China and a British battlefleet in operating from Singapore.

Japanese carrier superiority would be cancelled by the nearest Japanese bases being in China while Britain would have the opportunity to act behind land based air.

Under conditions where Indochina is still neutral and Britain has time to prepare, their positions in Malaya will be infinitely stronger as opposed to the above. There is still the danger that the Japanese could attempt a landing on the Isthmus of Kra to separate the colony from continental Asia and then muscle their way in with surface assets to move against the sea lanes, but land based air would dissuade the IJN from approaching too close until it was sufficiently whittled down. Under the original defensive scheme of 1940 it was estimated that Britain would need some 600 aircraft covering both Singapore and Burma. Given the circumstances of what they face in this scenario this is seriously inadequate, and indeed if the Japanese achieve surprise it is possible that they could be crippled or wiped out in one stroke. In order to maintain a long-term air deterrent in SEA Britain would need more aircraft, more airbases, and a robust radar detection network spread out over a considerable geographic area with which they can parry Japanese thrusts like they did against the Luftwaffe in Europe.
 
Hello,

Who would win out of Britain and Japan if they went to war in 1941 without any interference, no Soviets, Germans, Americans.

So Japan declares war in 1941 by invading British colonies such as Singapore.

How do Britain/Japan prepare for this conflict?

What advantages and disadvantages will both sides face.
Do you mean that the European War does not happen at all?

Edit

Plus what are Japan's war aims? My guess is to capture Hong Kong and the East Indies (including the Dutch East Indies) in the first phase so its not going to be just the British Empire v Japanese Empire for a start. Are they still going to go for Burma to isolate China and de-stabilise the British position in India?

They are probably still going to go for Papua New Guinea. Australia and Ceylon might be logistically feasible objectives ITTL.

My guess is that the British war aims are to defend the territory they already have, except for Hong Kong and to recover any territory that they loose apart from Hong Kong.
 
Last edited:
What about a Japan Thailand alliance. That gets the IJN a lot closer to Singapore and Midway. Without the war in China there would not have been American sanctions; indeed Roosevelt's anti colonialism policy would have favored Japan.
 
Hello,

Who would win out of Britain and Japan if they went to war in 1941 without any interference, no Soviets, Germans, Americans.

So Japan declares war in 1941 by invading British colonies such as Singapore.

With this I think this would be close to impossible without some influence for other major players in the area (Netherlands with Indonesia and France with Thailand). With that being said, if there was no influence from the other major players it will be tough for the Japanese to have enough fuel to supply their vehicles and ships to keep on invading South East Asia. This as they would have to have attack Malaya directly without setting off alarm bells in the colonies that are neighbours. Like some of the people have already said, I can't see any side really winning this war and the best plan would be a peace treaty.
 
On the same note,a Japan without a war with China would also have a far weaker military given they would not have the superiority in military experience compared to the British,nor would they have drastically increased the size of their army.

While I agree in part, I might offer that Japan may have been learning bad lessons in China too. Japan had little incentive to develop its armor or aircraft, or even its transport, basically China was an infantry show, some light artillery, close support aircraft, rail transport, nothing much improved over the previous generation. The German trained Chinese Divisions likely taught the Japanese their best lessons.

But without war in China we undermine further how Japan and the British Empire come to war, no? Are we undoing Manchuria too? I am interested in what else would push Japan into war with the British or anyone if these givens evaporate.
 
I assume by adding Germany to the list and saying this is one on one, then Britain is not at war in Europe and since America is not involved their isn't the December attacks on Hawaii, Philippines, etc. Basically all Japan can do is attack Hong Kong, Wehei, and British interests in China. After that Japan lacks the ability of seriously threatening British territory without first bringing in other nations violating the OP. Given the anti-Japanese sentiment in Canada's history, and the fact that Australia similarly isn't exactly non-racist towards Japanese, and the we all know how South Africa felt, those Commonwealth nations will be free to back up Britain and Japan gets crushed. Badly. Any Japanese incited revolt in India will be put down, possibly brutally if needed.
I am British Columbian and I have no knowledge of Canada being especially racist towards the Japanese prior to ww2

As far as I know it was the war itself that created strong anti Japanese sentiment before it was just the standard Anglo supremacy attitude that was common throughout the anglo parts of the empire.
 
Hello,

Who would win out of Britain and Japan if they went to war in 1941 without any interference, no Soviets, Germans, Americans.

So Japan declares war in 1941 by invading British colonies such as Singapore.

How do Britain/Japan prepare for this conflict?

What advantages and disadvantages will both sides face.
If I am interpreting this properly two things happen between September 1939 and December 1941. They are:
  1. Germany does not invade Poland or Britain and France do not go to war with Germany when the Germans invade. And;
  2. The USA is overwhelmingly isolationist and doesn't care about what the Japanese do in China (or French Indochina if the European War still happens). Roosevelt is defeated in the 1940 Presidential Election by a candidate with strongly isolationist opinions or he doesn't stand for a third term in the first place. However, if isolationism was that strong in the USA the Neutrality Acts might have been stronger and there would have been no Lend Lease Act even if the European War did still happen.
Is the above correct? If it is only No. 2 then the outcome of the war is considerably different.

IIRC the Philippines were due to become independent from the USA in 1944 according to the Tydings–McDuffie Act passed in 1934. AFAIK the Act was sponsored by isolationists within Congress because they didn't want the USA to be responsible for the defence of the Philippines. A stronger isolationist sentiment in the USA might mean that the Act allowed a shorter time for the Philippines to become independent and that the Americans withdrew their armed forces.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
If I am interpreting this properly two things happen between September 1939 and December 1941. They are:
  1. Germany does not invade Poland or Britain and France do not go to war with Germany when the Germans invade. And;
  2. The USA is overwhelmingly isolationist and doesn't care about what the Japanese do in China (or French Indochina if the European War still happens). Roosevelt is defeated in the 1940 Presidential Election by a candidate with strongly isolationist opinions or he doesn't stand for a third term in the first place. However, if isolationism was that strong in the USA the Neutrality Acts might have been stronger and there would have been no Lend Lease Act even if the European War did still happen.
Is the above correct? If it is only No. 2 then the outcome of the war is considerably different.

IIRC the Philippines were due to become independent from the USA in 1944 according to the Tydings–McDuffie Act passed in 1934. AFAIK the Act was sponsored by isolationists within Congress because they didn't want the USA to be responsible for the defence of the Philippines. A stronger isolationist sentiment in the USA might mean that the Act allowed a shorter time for the Philippines to become independent and that the Americans withdrew their armed forces.
Plus Fal Grun
 
Who would win out of Britain and Japan if they went to war in 1941 without any interference, no Soviets, Germans, Americans.
Do we include anybody but Britain? I presume Australia etc and the empire but what about the Dutch or even French?
 
Top