DBWI: Japan went South in WW2

Japan in 1970-80 was certainly stronger after all they those new missle-battlecruisers being commissioned, however the U.S wasn't to far behind and still had the monetary and industrial power to outspend Japan completely. Not to mention those ships apparently had major technical kinks that weren't totally worked out until the 90s! The U.S still has those modified/modernized Iowa and Montana class battleships plus by 1980 the U.S still had an Aircraft Carrier advantage, though by 1970 I'd say the Japanese had the CV advantage. The Japanese could attack by the 70s, but it wouldn't work any better than it would in 1940, for all the same reasons. Sure the "Co-Prosperity" sphere was far more entrenched by 1970 but Japan still didn't have the resources to actually defeat the U.S.

I'll disagree on that point. That era's Japan would have a shot at stalemating the US advance long enough for war weariness and isolationism to force the US to the bargaining table. They're still behind US industrial might and manpower reserves, but it's not the same gulf as in the '40s. Maybe. It's at least plausible to me if you assume that ICBMs and the like don't get involved.

As in actually beating the US and seriously attacking the mainland? Still completely of of the question.
 
Going south means Japan is also at war with Great Britain and the Netherlands. And would Japan still be at war with the USSR if they went south instead? Not that the Soviets could have done much against Japan if they had gone south.

If Japan had gone south, would the Dutch have been able to contribute anything to the Allied war effort? The East Indies would have been overrun, with the great majority of the remaining Dutch military destroyed. As it was, both the Allies and Japan benefited from that strange cold peace in Asia. I don't think we will ever have a definite answer to which side benefited more economically from trade in Asia.
 
I'll disagree on that point. That era's Japan would have a shot at stalemating the US advance long enough for war weariness and isolationism to force the US to the bargaining table. They're still behind US industrial might and manpower reserves, but it's not the same gulf as in the '40s. Maybe. It's at least plausible to me if you assume that ICBMs and the like don't get involved.

As in actually beating the US and seriously attacking the mainland? Still completely of of the question.
This myth that the US was too isolationist to function simply isn't true. When it came to their spheres of influence, the U.S was very aggressive and not isolationist at all- see how they treated the Fascists in South America, or more to the point what they did when Japan threatened the Philippines. Their Pacific Fleet alone very nearly had parity with the Japanese in the 70s, and would surpass them by the 90s easily.

Just because they weren't willing to shed blood or spend money for British colonial interests, does not mean they were deaf to the world. It certainly wasn't the British who kept the Germans and Japanese at bay, and the U.S had the economic and military power to defeat either opposing bloc on their own. This was true in world war two, and it was true in the 70s.
 
Going south means Japan is also at war with Great Britain and the Netherlands. And would Japan still be at war with the USSR if they went south instead? Not that the Soviets could have done much against Japan if they had gone south.

If Japan had gone south, would the Dutch have been able to contribute anything to the Allied war effort? The East Indies would have been overrun, with the great majority of the remaining Dutch military destroyed. As it was, both the Allies and Japan benefited from that strange cold peace in Asia. I don't think we will ever have a definite answer to which side benefited more economically from trade in Asia.
The DEI probably wouldn't have held, after all they just didn't have the manpower nor the naval power in the form of the 1071's that Germany never delivered to oppose the IJN. However, Australia and the RN are IMO enough to hold back the IJN, add in the USN and you've probably got enough. The Royal Navy post 1943 can easily put enough ships into the Pacific to defend th'Antipode dominions. Especially after the sinking of the Bismarck class battleships, when the Kreigsmarine had only U boats to oppose the RN in the Atlantic. I imagine if the USN got involved depending on their level of preparedness the Japanese might not be able to take all of the DEI.

Also, I read an interesting book on the Pacific "Cold theater". In it I remember that Singapore's defenses where strong enough that apparently Japan would have been unable to take the city without a prolonged siege and if IIRC according to that author's estimation Naval superiority in and around the DEI, and would likely incur tens of thousands of casualties. With Singapore holding on, holding the DEI against Japan shouldn't be too difficult.
 
Japan in 1970-80 was certainly stronger after all they those new missle-battlecruisers being commissioned, however the U.S wasn't to far behind and still had the monetary and industrial power to outspend Japan completely. Not to mention those ships apparently had major technical kinks that weren't totally worked out until the 90s! The U.S still has those modified/modernized Iowa and Montana class battleships plus by 1980 the U.S still had an Aircraft Carrier advantage, though by 1970 I'd say the Japanese had the CV advantage. The Japanese could attack by the 70s, but it wouldn't work any better than it would in 1940, for all the same reasons. Sure the "Co-Prosperity" sphere was far more entrenched by 1970 but Japan still didn't have the resources to actually defeat the U.S.

Japan during the 1970s-1980s had bigger problems, what with the warlords deciding to revolt and all.

Were talking about a 2 decade long 'police action' that drained resources, power and people.

Theirs no way they can keep china down and get into a conflict with a nuclear armed America at the same time, Or a nuclear armed commonwealth, I mean for craps sake they wern't able to make a working nuke until 2005, people harp on and on about japan's glorious warrior spirit but their educational system is crap, their logistics network needs work and their economy is basically controled by 10 companies which means their ability to inovate anything sucks.

Its still better then the absolute disaster that is the german educational system which still bans 'jewish' science.
 
Yes, but Russia in 1905 is not the U.S in 1940s. Not to mention the excellent U.S military and specifically Navy. How could they destroy the entire U.S fleet in one year? Without suffering losses that unlike the U.S could not eventually be replaced by a massive ship building industry. The best option for Japan would be too accept the U.S demands and try and keep under Washington's good graces.

The USN was a untested force in that era. & naval hstorians have identified some serious weakness in that era. There is also the question of will. The US leaders gutted the Two Ocean naval plan effectively ending usefull naval construction for three years, and did a about face with the War Powers Acts, after Britain survived the crisis of 1940. The embargos were considered as a alternative to war, the thinking was Japan could be brought to negotiation through economic sanctions. One of the rational for backing off the stillborn mobilization of 1940 was that embargos could be imposed faster & at any point.

Embargos imposed without backing from a mobilizing US military & supporting construction programs look like a risky course in retrospect.
 
Its still better then the absolute disaster that is the german educational system which still bans 'jewish' science
Considering that, it's probably no surprise that Italy is probably the wealthiest member of the New Order (not counting Finland) as Italy's fascist regime is fare saner than Nazi Germany.
 
Yeah. Italy is slowly becoming the hub for the Reichstags banking.

Im not surprised the german government has a nasty habit of seizing the wealth and resources of any one who falls out of political favor. Swiss bank accounts, Italian bank accounts, spanish bank accouts, even british ones are often used as hedges against the SS deciding to make an example out of you.
 
I occasionally wonder if the Commonwealth could have held them off indefinitely, though a war very well could have gone south it could also have gone pretty well for us. depends on the Leaders in all honesty for us.
far too stretched over the planet by this point, (something that only by the 60's was it sorted). consider that due to the many treaties beforehand our ships were seriously underpowered at that point. they may have been brushed aside by the Japanese. though I do wonder what an aerial battle between a SeaFire and a Zero would have looked like.

Though I don't think that the commonwealth and the Japs would have anywhere near as good a trade relationship as they would otherwise, especially with Hong Kong being The Major Port to get goods into the GEACPS.
 
Top