Does Japan Have Any Chance Of Winning In WW2?

Does Japan Have Any Chance Of Winning In WW2?

  • No, Allied victory is inevitable.

    Votes: 163 57.8%
  • Yes, but it is highly unlikely

    Votes: 112 39.7%
  • Yes, Japan has a good chance of winning.

    Votes: 2 0.7%
  • Japan should have won.

    Votes: 5 1.8%

  • Total voters
    282
  • Poll closed .
The only way I can imagine them wining is going to war individually with one nation at a time. Starting in the 1890's I would have gone Spain, then Holland, then Portugal, then Germany during world war one as well as Austria-Hungary. Then Russia during its revolution phase. Then after it has won or lose there its then up to how much the Japanese want to fight Britain and France. What I am saying is that the only way they can win is to keep the US out of its sphere of the Asia-Pacific for as long as possible and do not give the US an excuse to fight them.
 
In 1939 the Japanese were still flying the Ki-27 and A5M, neither of which belonged in the same dogfight with a Hurricane, Spitfire or P-36. Japanese carrier used the D1A1/2 as dive bombers (1x250 kg bomb, top speed 191mph combat radius ~210 miles) . The same pretty much goes across the board.
It is noteworthy just how behind the IJN was in 1939. I'd put Ark Royal with an airgroup of 60+ Skuas and Swordfish up against any IJN carrier of 1939 and give the Brit a fighting chance of victory - not so three years later.
 
The only way I can imagine them wining is going to war individually with one nation at a time. Starting in the 1890's I would have gone Spain, then Holland, then Portugal, then Germany during world war one as well as Austria-Hungary. Then Russia during its revolution phase. Then after it has won or lose there its then up to how much the Japanese want to fight Britain and France. What I am saying is that the only way they can win is to keep the US out of its sphere of the Asia-Pacific for as long as possible and do not give the US an excuse to fight them.

Starting wars to go after european colonies would be seen as very expansionist and threatening to other europeans and the US, and the US considered the pacific to be of great strategic importance. Fairly soon japan will face either the US or an alliance of europeans.

If we can spirit away the Japanese leadership the best strategy would have been to support independence movements in these colonies and then get them as allies and trading partners. Preferably keeping each new country as small as possible (try to split up at least DEI/Indonesia). The only truly dangerous enemy to japan would then be a functioning china, and the best way to deal with that would be to support the warlords against the central government at every turn, while not taking any more land than they did OTL.

If they follow that strategy really well they have a chance to get some sort of nationalism in smaller pieces of china. Today japan + south-korea + taiwan has 40% of the GDP of USA and 62% of the population. Add a more prosperous North Korea and Manchuria together with the extra economic growth from an east-asia customs union dominated by Japan and they won't be an easy match for the US starting in the 50s-60s (assuming both or none have nukes).

But this requires a very different leadership of Japan.
 
Starting wars to go after european colonies would be seen as very expansionist and threatening to other europeans and the US, and the US considered the pacific to be of great strategic importance. Fairly soon japan will face either the US or an alliance of europeans.

If we can spirit away the Japanese leadership the best strategy would have been to support independence movements in these colonies and then get them as allies and trading partners. Preferably keeping each new country as small as possible (try to split up at least DEI/Indonesia). The only truly dangerous enemy to japan would then be a functioning china, and the best way to deal with that would be to support the warlords against the central government at every turn, while not taking any more land than they did OTL.

If they follow that strategy really well they have a chance to get some sort of nationalism in smaller pieces of china. Today japan + south-korea + taiwan has 40% of the GDP of USA and 62% of the population. Add a more prosperous North Korea and Manchuria together with the extra economic growth from an east-asia customs union dominated by Japan and they won't be an easy match for the US starting in the 50s-60s (assuming both or none have nukes).

But this requires a very different leadership of Japan.
You see the thing is Japan was trying to follow the European example, it really would not have done any of that. More likely this is how it would go:

1896-Go to war with Spain, at that time the modern world hated Spain, they were the last slave holding empire, no one would have cared. It also keeps the American presence in the Pacific low. Then fight a five to ten year insurgency.
1906-1907 Fight Russia over Korea
1914-1918 Fight Germany and Austria-Hungary gain as much as it can in from them in the Pacific and Asia
1917-? Fight Russia until it gives up on certain Pacific territories and earn major props for being anti-Communist war fighters and inflicting a blow on the Reds
1930's go into China
1936 join the axis
1939 Go to war with Holland, France and the UK. Buy East Timor from Portagual. Negotiate with Holland, France and the UK to pay for the territory and bring peace, and switch sides and join the allies.
1945 become the major power in East Asia and the Pacific
 

hipper

Banned
It is noteworthy just how behind the IJN was in 1939. I'd put Ark Royal with an airgroup of 60+ Skuas and Swordfish up against any IJN carrier of 1939 and give the Brit a fighting chance of victory - not so three years later.

Carrier on Carrier it's still a wrap, the japapanese advantages are in Pilot Quality, aircraft numbers, The RN has the advantage of Radar directed fighter controll, Radar equipped aircraf and superior AA .

Wargaming it the victor goes to who spots who first.
 
You see the thing is Japan was trying to follow the European example, it really would not have done any of that. More likely this is how it would go:

1896-Go to war with Spain, at that time the modern world hated Spain, they were the last slave holding empire, no one would have cared. It also keeps the American presence in the Pacific low. Then fight a five to ten year insurgency.
1906-1907 Fight Russia over Korea
1914-1918 Fight Germany and Austria-Hungary gain as much as it can in from them in the Pacific and Asia
1917-? Fight Russia until it gives up on certain Pacific territories and earn major props for being anti-Communist war fighters and inflicting a blow on the Reds
1930's go into China
1936 join the axis
1939 Go to war with Holland, France and the UK. Buy East Timor from Portagual. Negotiate with Holland, France and the UK to pay for the territory and bring peace, and switch sides and join the allies.
1945 become the major power in East Asia and the Pacific

I assume you mean that's the Japanese plan, not what you think would work? The yes, that's the sort of plan Japan at that time would come up with.

If you actually think it would work, I disagree.

1896 / philippines: no-one will help Spain, but everyone will be more wary of japan as they have now taken a colony from a european nation.
1906-1907 / Fight Russia over Korea: Russia will be more way of Japan than OTL, perhaps enough, perhaps not enough.
1914-1918: Same as OTL if WW1 is not changed by a different outcome of R-J war.
1917-? Fight Russia: will be seen as very threatening by all western nations if Japan grabs large pieces of Russia. And the Soviet union will … want it back.
1930's go into China: Anything more than OTL and they are doomed. They have been more expansionist than OTL. China will get more help and for sure stay unified. Japan will at best have to send the majority of its able men to garrison china instead of working in factories.
1936 join the axis
1939: US likely enters the war and even if not, UK + allies will beat japan with US funding (after the war in Europe is settled). And after Stalin conquers Europe (if US is not fighting, but providing LL etc.), he'll for sure come after anything japan has on the mainland.
 
Carrier on Carrier it's still a wrap, the japapanese advantages are in Pilot Quality, aircraft numbers, The RN has the advantage of Radar directed fighter controll, Radar equipped aircraf and superior AA .
Ark Royal can field up to 72 aircraft, equal to the number carried by the Japanese carrier Kaga, excluding knocked down aircraft in storage. I can't speak for pilot quality, but the IJN does have the fighter advantage, in that the A5M is significantly faster than the Skua, though the latter has the advantage in firepower with twice the forward armament and of course a rear gunner.

I've always liked the look of the Skua for some reason. It was the first naval monoplane divebomber, with everyone else flying biplanes for some time on.

Blackburn_skua.jpg
 
I assume you mean that's the Japanese plan, not what you think would work? The yes, that's the sort of plan Japan at that time would come up with.

If you actually think it would work, I disagree.

1896 / philippines: no-one will help Spain, but everyone will be more wary of japan as they have now taken a colony from a european nation.
1906-1907 / Fight Russia over Korea: Russia will be more way of Japan than OTL, perhaps enough, perhaps not enough.
1914-1918: Same as OTL if WW1 is not changed by a different outcome of R-J war.
1917-? Fight Russia: will be seen as very threatening by all western nations if Japan grabs large pieces of Russia. And the Soviet union will … want it back.
1930's go into China: Anything more than OTL and they are doomed. They have been more expansionist than OTL. China will get more help and for sure stay unified. Japan will at best have to send the majority of its able men to garrison china instead of working in factories.
1936 join the axis
1939: US likely enters the war and even if not, UK + allies will beat japan with US funding (after the war in Europe is settled). And after Stalin conquers Europe (if US is not fighting, but providing LL etc.), he'll for sure come after anything japan has on the mainland.
I don't disagree with you but I see this as being more realistic than supporting freedom movements, and also Japan does not have to do all of this. However, if it wants a chance it needs to keep the US out as much as possible
 
I don't disagree with you but I see this as being more realistic than supporting freedom movements, and also Japan does not have to do all of this. However, if it wants a chance it needs to keep the US out as much as possible

Clearly it's far more realistic for the Japanese leadership to choose this path, that's why I started by "spiriting them away".

——

Edited away confusion
 
Clearly it's far more realistic for the Japanese leadership to choose this path, that's why I started by "spiriting them away".

——

Edited away confusion
True, look I will be honest with you I am of the belief the allies would win no matter what. Japan rolling sixes all the time will not prevent it from being crushed. If not by the Western allies the USSR more than certainly will. Japan like Germany and Italy were major regional powers that tried to punch above their weight belts and lost. You almost need Japan to not be the Japan we knew it to be for at least 100 years. Its not just leadership, its culture that needs to change, and the fear of becoming like China or India
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
So I'll pose the question: was there really any point after 1898 when Japan could have taken Pearl Harbor?
Take the harbor or take and HOLD the Island? Smash and grab is a very different matter than military occupation and long term control. There were periods early in the U.S. occupation of the Islands that American military presence was minimal, taking the area would be doable in that early period. Keeping it in the face of a strong U.S. reaction is somewhat a different question. Logistically I am not sure they could have maintained control in the face of a serious effort to take it by any of the major powers.

The Japanese had to deal with the logistics of the the effort. That was always their failure point. The Japanese economy was not large enough to support both a serious military and a substantial domestic civilian merchant marine while providing for internal consumption and exports to generated needed hard currency. Japan was never, in the modern era, able to even ship enough food into the country to feed itself while supporting industry using only Japanese operated/owned tonnage.
 

missouribob

Banned
From what I have read the only way Japan wins is by not playing. A Japan that "wins" does so by reforming it's government so that control lies with the civilians instead of the military, avoiding the Second-Sino Japanese War, carrying out economic reforms and siding with the Allies. That way once ATL WW2 ends they are the favored child in East Asia with the British and Americans and they stand to gain the most economically and technologically. This way millions upon millions of their citizens and soldiers don't die and their cities don't burn. And if in the 50's they want to become more independent well then that's what nuclear weapons are for. Ultimately Japan wins by not playing the game at all.
 
Top