Does Japan still attack Pearl Harbor without the Fall of France?

CaliGuy

Banned
If France doesn't fall in 1940 (or later), does Japan still attack Pearl Harbor? Also, if not, where exactly--if anywhere--does Japan attack in this TL?

Also, what would the fate of East Asia and Southeast Asia over the last several decades (as in, since 1940) have been in this TL?

Any thoughts on all of this?
 

FBKampfer

Banned
Probably. Japanese motivation for war was almost entirely separate from European affairs.

Perhaps Japan enjoys minor benefit from increased trade to the French, but it's not sufficient to meet needs, thus still pushing Japan to war to get the resources she needs, and inevitably on collision course with the United States.

Perhaps PH is butterflied away, or perhaps it's even more successful. Potentially the carrier fleet could be at least partially crippled as well. Specifics of patrols and deployments are far too nuanced and interrelated to determine specifics from such a broad POD.
 

Redbeard

Banned
With no fall of France it is unlikely that they peacefully get access to French Indochina (FIC). Without bases in FIC it will be very hazardous to operate in the South China Sea and against Singapore and most of Dutch East India, which was what they started the war over.

They could of course try to take FIC anyway, but that would lead to full scale war with both France and the British Empire - who will have a much larger potential for warfare in SEA compared to OTL (with France not fallen the U-boat threat will be much smaller). Next I guess USA will declare war on Japan, that at least was what FDR had promised. We might not see a full scale US offensive in any near future, but the prospect of heavy materiel support will be important.

And if Japan for that reason stay put until she can attack PH and even if achieving results like in OTL (or better), they are still without a realistic chance of reaching their strategic goal - getting access to oil and minerals in SEA.

Japan had a very narrow path of opportunities, and even if the fall of France and PH appeared to open a road it didn't, the narrow path ended just around the next corner and below was only free fall.
 
Maybe maybe not.

A France and Britain that are doing better in Germany and not receiving lend lease may decide not to follow American blockades on Japan.

After all cash and carry doesn't put the same obligation on the buyer to follow the wills of the sellers.

This might delay Japan enough that they realise the American fleet will be too big to fight.
 
If France doesn't fall in 1940 (or later), does Japan still attack Pearl Harbor? Also, if not, where exactly--if anywhere--does Japan attack in this TL?

...

Costellos 'The Pacific War' has a chapter outlining the essentials of how Japan came to the decision to attack the US, and European colonies. Theres several other good sources on this.

Without a Japanese occupation of French Indo China there is no US/British embargo against Japan. The occupation, like the collapse of France, disturbed many US voters and leaders, panicking some. The Embargo Acts passed in mid 1941 threatened Japan with economic destruction. ie: critical imports reduced by up to 90%, accounts and assets in US and British banks frozen, sale of Japanese exports prohibited in the US and British empire, and Dutch East Indies.

Until the occupation of FIC tensions between Britain or US and Japan had not come close to war. Three years of Sino/Japanese war had failed to drag the US in. US economic sanctions in response to Japan invading China had been very mild and few. The attacks on a US warship and diplomat had been swift smoothed over. Lacking a singularly aggresive move like the FIC occupation Roosevelts government would have remained focused on Europe and the German threat.

... Also, if not, where exactly--if anywhere--does Japan attack in this TL? ...

Japans military planners had already dismissed attacking the USSR. Repeated defeats along the Manchurian/Soviet borders led them to realize the Red Army was too strong. They may have reversed this after the German attack & sucess in the summer of 1941, but too much of the Japanese Army was stuck in China. Absent the Anglo/US embargos Japan has no short term incentive to attack south. It was still able to trade freely and still had a viable economy for the near term.
 
Costellos 'The Pacific War' has a chapter outlining the essentials of how Japan came to the decision to attack the US, and European colonies. Theres several other good sources on this.

Without a Japanese occupation of French Indo China there is no US/British embargo against Japan. The occupation, like the collapse of France, disturbed many US voters and leaders, panicking some. The Embargo Acts passed in mid 1941 threatened Japan with economic destruction. ie: critical imports reduced by up to 90%, accounts and assets in US and British banks frozen, sale of Japanese exports prohibited in the US and British empire, and Dutch East Indies.

Until the occupation of FIC tensions between Britain or US and Japan had not come close to war. Three years of Sino/Japanese war had failed to drag the US in. US economic sanctions in response to Japan invading China had been very mild and few. The attacks on a US warship and diplomat had been swift smoothed over. Lacking a singularly aggresive move like the FIC occupation Roosevelts government would have remained focused on Europe and the German threat.

Japans military planners had already dismissed attacking the USSR. Repeated defeats along the Manchurian/Soviet borders led them to realize the Red Army was too strong. They may have reversed this after the German attack & sucess in the summer of 1941, but too much of the Japanese Army was stuck in China. Absent the Anglo/US embargos Japan has no short term incentive to attack south. It was still able to trade freely and still had a viable economy for the near term.

Good insight. Without a French collapse, the whole balance of power in Europe looks different and the Japanese don't see the allied problems there as an ideal opportunity to attack weakened, distracted enemies.

But does Japan just stay focused on China without an embargo? I would think they'd look somewhere else for 'easy pickings'
 
"Without a French collapse, the whole balance of power in Europe looks different and the Japanese don't see the allied problems there as an ideal opportunity to attack weakened, distracted enemies."

This was going to be my point.

I'll also add, and I realize there was recently a very lengthy and involved timeline on this which did not change my opinion, that if Germany does not have the OTL success against in France in 1940, the Nazi regime falls and they lose the war. Right then and there (this is actually a problem with war-games produced on World War 2, you have to guarantee that France falls, an iffy proposition in reality, to even have a game). The war in Europe is anyway over by December 1941, so there is no chance of attacking the western powers when they are distracted!
 
No fall of France could be some sort of WWI replay, at least early on, with a stalemate inside France, Holland still occupied as is Belgium. The embargo after the occupation of FIC was a final move, there already numerous limitations of Japanese access to international credit, scrap steel, petroleum products though not complete. Absent rolling everything back to "normal" access to international credit/banking and being able to purchase (possibly with credit) petroleum and other raw materials Japan needed, they were going to be facing a crisis in the near future, just later than the 12-18 months that occurred after the full embargo (8/41). If the Japanese believe they can "win" the war in China before the day they run out of everything, then they might consider leaving the US and Europeans alone. Absent that they still need to get rice, oil, tin, rubber, etc for the war and their economy so the same dynamic that led to PH still exists.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
See also
Japan's actions in a "Blunted Sickle" type ATL

referencing
A Blunted Sickle
A Blunted Sickle - Thread II


That TL still hasn't had Japan make up its mind as to what to do yet, and readers are guessing both ways.

Yeah, I saw that TL and I am eagerly awaiting its next update. :)

The thing is, that an attack would be visibly far more suicidal than OTL's situation. Just how stupid IS the Japanese government? You can play it both ways.

So, what is a better course of action for Japan? Only attack the Dutch East Indies?

What you can't get is a war that lasts until 1945.

Completely agreed.

No fall of France could be some sort of WWI replay, at least early on, with a stalemate inside France, Holland still occupied as is Belgium. The embargo after the occupation of FIC was a final move, there already numerous limitations of Japanese access to international credit, scrap steel, petroleum products though not complete. Absent rolling everything back to "normal" access to international credit/banking and being able to purchase (possibly with credit) petroleum and other raw materials Japan needed, they were going to be facing a crisis in the near future, just later than the 12-18 months that occurred after the full embargo (8/41). If the Japanese believe they can "win" the war in China before the day they run out of everything,

China wasn't going to agree to peace with Japan unless Japan returned to the pre-1937 borders, correct?

then they might consider leaving the US and Europeans alone. Absent that they still need to get rice, oil, tin, rubber, etc for the war and their economy so the same dynamic that led to PH still exists.

What about withdrawing from China (minus Manchuria) instead, though?

"Without a French collapse, the whole balance of power in Europe looks different and the Japanese don't see the allied problems there as an ideal opportunity to attack weakened, distracted enemies."

This was going to be my point.

I'll also add, and I realize there was recently a very lengthy and involved timeline on this which did not change my opinion, that if Germany does not have the OTL success against in France in 1940, the Nazi regime falls and they lose the war. Right then and there (this is actually a problem with war-games produced on World War 2, you have to guarantee that France falls, an iffy proposition in reality, to even have a game). The war in Europe is anyway over by December 1941, so there is no chance of attacking the western powers when they are distracted!

True, in such a scenario, the European war might be over by December 1941. However, Japan would still have a year's window of opportunity to make a move somewhere; now, do you think that Japan would have exploited this window of opportunity in this TL?

Good insight. Without a French collapse, the whole balance of power in Europe looks different and the Japanese don't see the allied problems there as an ideal opportunity to attack weakened, distracted enemies.

But does Japan just stay focused on China without an embargo? I would think they'd look somewhere else for 'easy pickings'

What about going for the Dutch East Indies as an easy picking?
 
I thought that the sanctions the US applied were linked to the occupation of French Indo China, much less likely if France is not occupied. Were those sanctions not the key factor in Japan's attack?
 
I thought that the sanctions the US applied were linked to the occupation of French Indo China, much less likely if France is not occupied. Were those sanctions not the key factor in Japan's attack?

The complete embargo came after the Japanese occupying FIC. various types of economic sanctions had been in place and increasing for some time as a means of trying to influence Japan to end the war in China. Even before the complete embargo these sanctions had made life difficult for Japan - you have to remember in the 1930s/40s Japan was not an economic powerhouse and was highly dependent on a wide range of foreign products, not just raw materials, as well as access to the international (dollar and sterling) banking systems.
 
Weren't they about to run out of hard currency reserves a year or so later anyway, even absent the embargo?

Possibly. That's why I did not consider longer term.

Depends on what the US & London banks were willing to do. Japan had been resorting to additional borrowing as the 'China Incident had led to some unfortunate situations in it currency flow'.
 
I thought that the sanctions the US applied were linked to the occupation of French Indo China, much less likely if France is not occupied. Were those sanctions not the key factor in Japan's attack?

Yes. Economically the 1941 embargos were the equivalent of fire bombing Japan. Just freezing all Japanese accounts in the US banks was catastrophic. Japan could no longer utilize the international banking system to pay with any reserves it still has, collect any debts easily, or borrow anything in New York or London.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
With no fall of France it is unlikely that they peacefully get access to French Indochina (FIC). Without bases in FIC it will be very hazardous to operate in the South China Sea and against Singapore and most of Dutch East India, which was what they started the war over.

I agree that no fall of France probably means the Japanese need to make a move against all the westerners at once, or not at all.

However, lack of bases in Indochina is *not* a geographic barrier to Japanese ops in the DEI. The Japanese hopped from one conquest to the other in OTL along multiple axes of advance. The axes of Japanese advance into eastern DEI, and even for one of the landings in Kalimantan/Borneo, were from the northeast, the Japanese mandated islands, not via the South China Sea. The Japanese of course held the mandated islands like Truk and Palau for over 20 years before the war.

In any case, if the Japanese went for an "all at once" offensive in Southeast Asia, not starting from Indochina is a disadvantage for the mainland campaign. The Japanese can probably never get to Burma. French forces can possibly hold out in collaboration with the Chinese in the rough country of Laos, southern China and upper Burma.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
In any case, if the Japanese went for an "all at once" offensive in Southeast Asia, not starting from Indochina is a disadvantage for the mainland campaign. The Japanese can probably never get to Burma. French forces can possibly hold out in collaboration with the Chinese in the rough country of Laos, southern China and upper Burma.
What about the Philippines, Indonesia, and the Pacific? How far does Japan get there in this TL?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What about the Philippines, Indonesia, and the Pacific? How far does Japan get there in this TL?


I think those territories they grabbed in the PI, DEI and Pacific in OTL, with the possible exception of Sumatra, would all be accessible over the course of a 6 month or so campaign staging from the Japanese Mandates, Hainan Island and the Spratlys.

If the Japanese do not have the French Indochina starting point, it may increase the appeal to them of a "clockwise" offensive in the Pacific, PI and Indies, which was the Navy's preferred initial doctrinal plan.

However, a solely clockwise approach, as opposed to the "left and right wings advancing to the south in parallel" approach of OTL, would be risky in terms of letting the French organize a better resistance in Vietnam, or the British a better defense in Malaya Singapore. However, given the OP, without the initial prewar bases in FIC, the Japanese right wing will face more friction and having a greater distance to go, thus possibly not being able to "spread" as far as Sumatra or Burma before the Japanese run out of momentum. So, the risk inherent in a two-winged approach is the thinner spreading of forces.
 
Japan won't attack anywhere, in this scenario Pearl Harbor. The Japanese attack on Indochina in the first place was more to cut off supplies to the Nationalists, then as a base for future conquests south. The goal for the Japanese is to win in China whatever it looks like, which resulted occupying Indochina for the above reasons and the resulting attack on the allies after the U.S embargo came in retaliation. Here Japan is forced to accept that the Nationalists are going to get supplies from Indochina and the Burma Road. However Japan is a better position in a way because it's resources are not cut, even if it is stuck in a quagmire, but an invasion anywhere else would be out the question.

We're not going to see a Pacific War in anyway shape or form, just the Second Sino-Japanese as a longer and more protracted war, the U.S won't have a reason to cut Japanese oil and assets as Japan wouldn't have escalated. That won't lead to the possibility of failed negotiations and a timetable to either attack or the U.S and the Allies for resources, or a U.S negotiated peace settlement. Before anyone mentions it, an attack on the Soviets is not happening either the Japanese knew they lost at Khalkin Gol. What a longer Second Sino-Japanese War would look like without the Japanese in a resource bind, but with no Japanese attention elsewhere, I don't know.
 
Top