Help With a Plausible Japanese WWII Victory

[LeX]

That map is too implausible. Japan had no hope of actually conquering all that territory or being able to fully subdue China.

For Japan to to not end up "losing" by 1945 you have to solve the root of their problem: China. By 1932, a total war between the two nations was inevitable, because Japan had conquered Manchuria and thus got a confidence boost to its already-powerful pro-war factions. So getting the Japanese to change what they do is out of the question if we take 1932 as the earliest PoD. So we have to look to the Chinese to change something.

In 1936, the CCP and GMD were in a civil war that was only cancelled when Zhang Xueliang, a subordinate of Chiang Kai-shek, had him arrested and forced him to agree to a cease-fire (the Xi'an incident). This showed that the GMD was unstable in leadership and for the Japanese, it also presented the image of a united China arraying against their expansion, so they attacked in 1937.
We need to change the outcome of the CCP/GMD conflict.

So what we can do is have the CCP be crippled, instead of running away to Shaanxi. Mao can be killed by either the GMD or as a result of internal struggle, which will result in a sharp decrease in the unity of the CCP later on. At the same time, we need Zhang Xueliang and others to decide that the CCP is either too weak to be a major threat or to think that they have defeated them, which will prevent the Xi'an incident from happening.

The lack of such a shock could very well delay the Japanese invasion by a year or more, and the GMD could use this time to truly defeat the Communists, or in lieu of Mao's diehard mindset, co-opt their remaining elements. When the Japanese do finally attack, Chiang Kai-shek will be in better shape to engage them, and if he is able to use his extra German-style divisions to dish out some pain in North China, it may be what the Japanese need to eventually realize "hey this isn't working, we should stop". But this won't happen at the very beginning.

The war can drag on for some time, with the Japanese unable to get much headway into China, but simultaneously with the Chinese unable to get anything back that the Japanese have taken. The USA, taking an isolationist stance, does not embargo Japan (allowing it to purchase oil) until late in the war, by which time the front lines have stabilized.

By 1943-45 the Japanese have finally been embargoed from US exports, and are debating what to do next. Some want to carry out a Pearl-Harbor style assault, but rational voices dissent, pointing out that the USN has grown massively in power since the 1930s and that Japan is already war-weary. At the same time, a massive, Verdun-style battle erupts in China, with casualties in the six digits. This kills the hopes of the pro-war faction, and peace talks are entered with the similarly-exhausted GMD.

After negotiations, the Japanese finally agree to leave China proper, but they stay in Manchuria (which the GMD figures it can get back at a later date), Taiwan, and Hainan. By this point, the war in Europe is over, with the Soviet and Americans beginning the Cold War. Japan is bankrupt, and after some political strife the nation aligns with the USA, which makes the same judgement as OTL Germany that Japan is a more valuable ally than China (at least as long as it is supplied with oil). China eventually falls into the leftist camp, having been supplied by the USSR during the war. Japan remains its no. 1 enemy for the foreseeable future.

 

[Tonymecury]

Here, Here.

Robert Cintino pointed out that the Germans didn't have the manpower to hold its conquest and also attack and hold the western Soviet Union. He pointed out that if you look at what was achieved in the SU you discover that major nodes and the LOC were all that was held.

The Japanese would be trying something far more difficult. Look at how much effort was expended in China and what was actually achieved. Add in India, SE Asia, DEI, Pacific Islands, Melanesia - where they didn't get past Guadalcanal - Fiji was apparently the final objective, and Australia and you just can't make the fit.

I'd like to do a TL about an occupied Australia but have never been able to find a plausible POD.

 

[LeX]

The amazing thing is that Japan actually did occupy SE Asia and a good chunk of China.

 

[Garrison]

The amazing thing is that Japan actually did occupy SE Asia and a good chunk of China.

But they had considerable assistance in that from the likes of Percival and MacArthur, as well as the British being focused on home defence and the Med and unable to provide the resources needed to upgrade defences in SEA.

 

[Shtudmuffin]

You know, now that I think about it, even if Japan did somehow avoid war with the US, they'd still lose WWII. Once the Western Allies and the Soviets finished off Germany, Britain's naval strength could be brought to bear in the Pacific, while the USSR's massive land army could crush the Japanese positions in their holdings in China and mainland Asia. Japan couldn't hold off for long.

 

[AdA]

Have them on the allied side

WW2 was not a democracy vs dictatorship contest. If events could put Churchill and Stalin on the same team, they could certainly be twisted to put Tojo and Rosevelt on the same side. Let's say that the Chinese communists and nationalist merge into a Soviet friendly government. With a Sino-soviet block in Asia, and Stalin building a battle fleet for the Pacific the US and Japan might have a shared interest in containg a Red threath. The US would actually help the Japanese hold on to Manchuria and Korea in the face Sino-Soviet pressure and might both promote an end to European colonialism in Asia and the Pacific.
The US would see Japan as an ideal junior partner for controlling the Pacific, keeping the commies down and the Europeans out.
The Japanese would find the junior side of the partnership hard to swallow, but they'd have soo much to gain from it, they would play along.

 

[LeX]

You know, now that I think about it, even if Japan did somehow avoid war with the US, they'd still lose WWII. Once the Western Allies and the Soviets finished off Germany, Britain's naval strength could be brought to bear in the Pacific, while the USSR's massive land army could crush the Japanese positions in their holdings in China and mainland Asia. Japan couldn't hold off for long.

The thing is that the Russians didn't know that they could defeat Japan so easily. In hindsight August Storm looks inevitable, but in fact from 1939 to 1945 the Russians were quite concerned about the million-man Kanto army. If Japan plays its cards right it might never get attacked.

 

[MattII]

In hindsight August Storm looks inevitable, but in fact from 1939 to 1945 the Russians were quite concerned about the million-man Kanto army.

Germany put about 3/4 that into Kursk, with loads of armour and air support. Japan conversely, has few tanks and aircraft, and the ones they do have are pretty poor by 1943. By the start of 1944 August Storm is a matter of when, not if.

WW2 was not a democracy vs dictatorship contest. If events could put Churchill and Stalin on the same team, they could certainly be twisted to put Tojo and Rosevelt on the same side. Let's say that the Chinese communists and nationalist merge into a Soviet friendly government. With a Sino-soviet block in Asia, and Stalin building a battle fleet for the Pacific the US and Japan might have a shared interest in containg a Red threath. The US would actually help the Japanese hold on to Manchuria and Korea in the face Sino-Soviet pressure and might both promote an end to European colonialism in Asia and the Pacific.

The thing is, Manchuria is technically Chinese territory, if this gets seen as anything it gets seen as aggressive defence, not outright invasion, at least, until they step over the border into Korea. Likewise, with Japan in the axis pact the USSR has a reasonable casus belli, especially if they can invent a fictional Japanese incursion. Not that the soviets would take an active part, not with Hitler on their western flank. Getting Japan on-side is going to take some handwaving back in the early 30s

 

[Pangur]

Port Morsby is a far differnt issue that invading and holding Australia.

Planse flying from Guadalcanal can not cut off the U.S. supply lines to Australia. They can cut off the line to Darwin. It is 1,250 miles, one way, from Guadalcanal to Brisbane, 500 further to Sydney, and another 1,000 on top of that to Melbourne. A JAPANESE base at DARWIN wouldn't cut the Supply lines to the rest of Australia. Australia is a Continental land mass.

So the IJN starts ranging across the IO. Beyond the fact that they lack the range and unrep capacity to make that a reality, what does it achieve? NOTHING. The British change the routing of their convoys from the Raj so the hug the coast. Let the IJN constantly come into range of land based air (6,000 miles from the home islands and 3,000 from the closest drydock)and get attrited. What are they going to do, attack a U.S. convoy?

The Japanese ran wild for exactly as long as they could logistically. Pushing out an extra 3,000-5,000 miles isn't going to improve their lines of communications.

To follow on from the above, at a pinch an invasion of the NT is just and only just plausible. However that would be a very good way to write of an army. Have a look at a map. To the south of the NT is desert, lots of sand. To have any hope of invading Aussie you would have to attack somewhere near Brisbane. The RN submarines would have a field day sinking the transports be that of the invasion fleet or resupply later. If the US are in the mix then this would be even more so the case. The troops stuck in the NT would have not only to deal with armed resistance they would also have to deal with hunger,very venomous snakes and spiders and the good old Aussie croc! Even today such an invasion is far from feasible

 

[hairysamarian]

The amazing thing is that Japan actually did occupy SE Asia and a good chunk of China.

And were bled badly in doing so. Japan lost about 25% of her roughly 2 million wartime casualties just fighting China. Had China been better led and not in the middle of a civil war, they could have swallowed Japan whole. <burp>

 

[M79]

BEst chance for Japan is to stay out of war with the US, period. Keep the USSR neutral and focus on objectives. Stay out of India and focus on the islands they own plus DEI/Malaysia. Philippines can be bypassed and agitation for independence can be encouraged via on-the-ground "tourists". Have the Japanese authorities play the locals off of each other and feel like they are working for themselves until the war is over. Make them believe in the GEACPS *then* screw them over after the war is over. China must be top priority and synthetic technology should not be far behind. If Japan can copy a semi-automatic rifle from the Americans early on or invent better small arms than some of their own equipment that is a serious plus. By 1945 China is a hotbed of activity and the Philippines wants to leave while the smaller islands are a problem but the US is no down their throat, and any actions they make can be spun to make them appear to be the aggressor.

 

[MattII]

Roosevelt isn't stupid, if he wants a war he can agitate a lot, for example, send part of the navy on a 'show-of-force-tour' down to the DEI or the Philippines. Hells, the reason the Japanese went after Pearl Harbour was because they knew they'd have to go to war with the US eventually, so they decided to try to take them out early.

 

[Tannhäuser]

The term for the Japanese successfully invading and occupying Australia AND India is PREPOSTEROUS.

The IJA/IJN simply could not supply that sort of troop concentration at that distance.

I don't think they would really need to occupy India, just invade it. Australia had a population of 7m, mostly in cities. The part not in cities could be nearly ignored. Considering how much manpower Germany needed to devote to occupying France, I think Japan could have invaded Australia and occupied the important parts of it. But I think it would have been extremely difficult and costly. Is there any other way Japan could have dealt with Australia? Would a blockade have even worked?

And were bled badly in doing so. Japan lost about 25% of her roughly 2 million wartime casualties just fighting China. Had China been better led and not in the middle of a civil war, they could have swallowed Japan whole. <burp>

Note the 2m casualties statistic. Compare it to their population of c. 73m. By the end of OTL war, the Japanese had run out of everything but people.

Germany put about 3/4 that into Kursk, with loads of armour and air support. Japan conversely, has few tanks and aircraft, and the ones they do have are pretty poor by 1943. By the start of 1944 August Storm is a matter of when, not if.

The thing is, Manchuria is technically Chinese territory, if this gets seen as anything it gets seen as aggressive defence, not outright invasion, at least, until they step over the border into Korea. Likewise, with Japan in the axis pact the USSR has a reasonable casus belli, especially if they can invent a fictional Japanese incursion. Not that the soviets would take an active part, not with Hitler on their western flank. Getting Japan on-side is going to take some handwaving back in the early 30s

In this TL, the Soviets would be so weakened and preoccupied with their extremely tense cold war with Britain that I doubt they would want to invade Japan. That said, Japan would obviously be aware of its exposed position following the war - how long would it take them to develop a bomb?

The Japanese could NOT bypass the Philippines.

Unlike those of us dealing with the scenario the Japanese had to deal with reality.

The reality of the era was that the United States had the ability to cut off the Japanese supply lines between the entire Southern Resource Area and the Home Islands from Manila Bay and Clark Field. The U.S. HAD Guam a potential major island base that could easily be brought up to speed (and was, in fact, supposed to be so upgraded) that posed a vital threat to the Japanese League mandate island of Saipan. The United States was, in December of 1941, within weeks of completing a B-17 base on Wake. There was only one potential target for B-17s operating out of Wake, the Japanese bases in the Mandates.

The reality of the era was that, in July of 1940 the United States Congress had approved the largest peacetime naval and aircraft building program the world had ever seen. The United States did not need EIGHTEEN fleet carriers to intervene in Europe, it also did not need four Iowa and five Montana class battleships, twenty seven cruisers and 40 submarines to deal with Europe. There was only one potential enemy that the Vinson-Walsh was aimed at, and they didn't speak German. The Japanese knew that. The Japanese knew that if the waited to oppose the U.S. until the Americans decided that they were ready to fight that the U.S. would crush them like bugs.

The Japanese also knew that they were rapidly, dramatically, going broke. They had a very limited time to construct a defensible perimeter, get the essential resources needed to survive, and be ready to hold against the U.S., If they left the Philippines, Guam, Wake, American Samoa, Johnson Island, etc. in American hands they would never be able to establish a perimeter since the U.S. would hold bases at every choke point across the Central Pacific.

The reality was that the United States had entered WW I because of a telegram. Not because its forces or possessions were attacked. It entered the war because a couple cargo ships were sunk a really stupid telegram from Germany to Mexico. Japan had to figure that reality into the plan.

In planning for war you have to account for threats. Once identified you have to honor them and come up with a way to neutralize them.

The question isn't if Japan could have ignored all the threats posed by the U.S. bases and U.S. building program based on sixty years of hindsight and reading of the Presidential papers of every President since FDR, the personal papers of most significant members of Congress of the era, it is if the Japanese High Command was stupid enough to disregard ALL the threats posed by the U.S.in 1941. They were not (although they were stunningly clueless about their enemy). No military officer would have been.

I agree that, to the Japanese, ignoring the US and praying it doesn't intervene is not a very appealing course of action. However, it doesn't seem implausible that they could reason that it is less likely to end in disaster than a guaranteed war with the US in which they have some initial advantages. There were certainly people in the Japanese establishment that saw the war with the US as guaranteed to end in disaster, and almost certain crushing defeat is preferable to a certain but more prolonged, less crushing defeat. Japan could very easily ignore the Philippines - unless the US entered the war, all of the things you mentioned above are irrelevant.

I do agree that there is a very high chance of the FDR somehow bringing the US into the war. But if Japan exercises careful diplomacy and pointedly ignores US aid to Britain, is there not a chance of it avoiding war with one enemy and defeating another? I'm not saying it's likely, but it does seem possible. Like others, I'm not fully confident in FDR's ability to convince the American people of the necessity of war. Yes, we intervened in WWI on fairly little pretext -- but the majority of Americans in 1941 thought that had been a mistake. And I still think that if Japan were able to concentrate only on Britain and Australia, it would be able to bring the British Asian empire crashing down.

Again, I understand that this is all highly unlikely -- but is it possible? I'm trying to see if Japan had any hope of any sort of victory once it started down the path to war. If it can't win even without US intervention, then it seems that they must have been entirely crazy.

 

[Astrodragon]

I don't think they would really need to occupy India, just invade it. Australia had a population of 7m, mostly in cities. The part not in cities could be nearly ignored. Considering how much manpower Germany needed to devote to occupying France, I think Japan could have invaded Australia and occupied the important parts of it. But I think it would have been extremely difficult and costly. Is there any other way Japan could have dealt with Australia? Would a blockade have even worked?

'They dont need to occupy India, just invade it'. With what, precisely, and where? Given that they will be fighting troops on their own ground, with tanks that look like Tigers to the Japanese armour, with HUGE sources of supply local and on a rail net (qas opposed to coming in over the truly poor Burmese logistice net), just how are they supposed to be doing this??

Blockade Australia. Yes, of course. Its a _continent_... all you can do is make it invonvenient and force shipping to take a longer route...

 

[Tannhäuser]

Blockading Australia probably wouldn't work. I'm really skeptical about Britain's ability to hold India against a concentrated Japanese attack, however. Imagine all the forces that fought against the US in the Pacific relocated to India, supported by a navy that has dominance (at least for the moment) in the area, and invading a nation that will, I think, very quickly support what is clearly a serious contest to British dominion. Bear in mind that, in this TL, British forces will be hard-pressed in Africa without US support. Does anyone have data on what sort of forces the British had in India?

 

[Garrison]

Blockading Australia probably wouldn't work. I'm really skeptical about Britain's ability to hold India against a concentrated Japanese attack, however. Imagine all the forces that fought against the US in the Pacific relocated to India, supported by a navy that has dominance (at least for the moment) in the area, and invading a nation that will, I think, very quickly support what is clearly a serious contest to British dominion. Bear in mind that, in this TL, British forces will be hard-pressed in Africa without US support. Does anyone have data on what sort of forces the British had in India?

India might intially be tempted to side with the Japanese, problem is the Japanese will in their inimitable manner make it rapidly clear that 'liberation' actually means trading in one set of foreign masters for another, and the new ones apt to be far more brutal than the old. The British might imprison Gandhi, the Japanese would simply behead him.

 

[LeX]

I don't think they would really need to occupy India, just invade it. Australia had a population of 7m, mostly in cities. The part not in cities could be nearly ignored. Considering how much manpower Germany needed to devote to occupying France, I think Japan could have invaded Australia and occupied the important parts of it. But I think it would have been extremely difficult and costly. Is there any other way Japan could have dealt with Australia? Would a blockade have even worked?

The thing is that Australia is too big. It's not like the Germans taking a ten hour drive into France, it's a journey of comparatively epic proportions that, while technically possible, would stretch Japan's naval lines so thin to the point of being ridiculous.

Note the 2m casualties statistic. Compare it to their population of c. 73m. By the end of OTL war, the Japanese had run out of everything but people.

They had, as you note, a lot of people left, but those people are useless if you can't arm them, train them, or ship them off (literally) to fight. And every soldier that dies and loses his gear is a burden. For Japan, not being as industrialized or gifted with natural resources meant that they were particularly sensitive to (especially overseas) casualties.

In this TL, the Soviets would be so weakened and preoccupied with their extremely tense cold war with Britain that I doubt they would want to invade Japan. That said, Japan would obviously be aware of its exposed position following the war - how long would it take them to develop a bomb?

Even in OTL, the Soviets did not think that the Japanese Kanto Army would be the pushovers they were until they actually attacked. Had the USSR had even a slightly better reason not to attack, they would'nt have done so IMO. That they started their operation on the day after Hiroshima had been nuked even though they had a full three months to prepare means that they really wanted to ensure that the Japanese were as weak as possible before doing anything.

The Soviets could've crushed the Japanese easily anytime before 1941 or after 1943. They simply didn't realize how pathetic the enemy they faced was.

 

[CalBear]

Blockading Australia probably wouldn't work. I'm really skeptical about Britain's ability to hold India against a concentrated Japanese attack, however. Imagine all the forces that fought against the US in the Pacific relocated to India, supported by a navy that has dominance (at least for the moment) in the area, and invading a nation that will, I think, very quickly support what is clearly a serious contest to British dominion. Bear in mind that, in this TL, British forces will be hard-pressed in Africa without US support. Does anyone have data on what sort of forces the British had in India?

The Japanese didn't really deploy that many ground troops initially against the U.S. The same special Brigade (the South Seas Detachment) formed to take Guam packed up and took Rabaul, with a fairly small garrison left to physically hold the island. The SNLF units used in the PI were packed back aboard ships and used in the DEI. The same is true for Wake, where the garrison was around a battalion (even the initial landing only used around a brigade, all that was needed to give a 4:1 advantage over the defenders for the second assault).

The Japanese didn't really use all that large of a force in the entire initial thrust, mainly because the IJA wasn't willing to part with more since the main fight was with the Chinese. There were less than five divisions used overall, with many units doing double or triple duty (unlike the policy common in the Commonwealth and U.S., Japanese forces were moved from on action to another during the Thrust South from one action to another without any time to refit or reorganize).

Even if the Japanese took all of 14th Army, the force used to take the Philippines, and redeployed it, it only amounts to a bit more than two divisions. They are not going to take Australia or India with two divisions.

The Indian Army had seven regular divisions in the country, with additional forces in Burma, Singapore and of course in the Western Desert. These are all regulars. Additional territorial forces were also available, these ranged widely in quality, with some Sikh and Punjab units being close to regulars and others being more or less worthless. It is important to note that the Japanese would have been utterly incapable to logistically support any force landed anywhere on the sub-continent (Japan barely had sufficient merchant tonnage to support domestic needs and the troops in China) and the only realistic way of reaching India was via Burma. IOTL when the Japanese tried this the Indian Army kicked their ass.

BTW: The Japanese Army NEVER won a stand-up, set piece fight against a "Western" Army (this usage includes the USSR). This is an issue that has been widely discussed here on the Board. The IJA was a light infantry force, with a pathetic armor force (one that never was really improved throughout the war, mainly due to lack of steel), a remarkably weak artillery train for a modern army, and, despite the skill of their pilots early on, no useful CAS doctrine (many Japanese fighters didn't even carry the radios assigned to them to save weight). Japan's spectacular victories were against colonial forces ill prepared to deal with an invasion (as an example of the 70,000 troops eventually surrendered in the Philippines only about 18,000 were fully trained and equipped. The rest were partially trained and equipped militia, some, like 51st Division didn't even have rifles for their entire paper strength). Every fight against a force that wasn't utterly surprised or mainly consisting of militia ended in a Japanese defeat. There are a lot of reasons the Japanese offensives ran out of gas by mid 1942.

 

[Tannhäuser]

Would it still have even if the Japanese used all the forces they ultimately used against the US? And would those Indian forces mentioned all have fought? And would Japan have received any support from Indian nationalists?

The thing is that Australia is too big. It's not like the Germans taking a ten hour drive into France, it's a journey of comparatively epic proportions that, while technically possible, would stretch Japan's naval lines so thin to the point of being ridiculous.

Okay. So in this scenario, when the Japanese take Port Moresby and their fleet has relatively free reign in the Indian Ocean/Oceania/Pacific region, what do they do with Australia? Stalemate until peace negotiations? Targeted strikes to force surrender?

India might intially be tempted to side with the Japanese, problem is the Japanese will in their inimitable manner make it rapidly clear that 'liberation' actually means trading in one set of foreign masters for another, and the new ones apt to be far more brutal than the old. The British might imprison Gandhi, the Japanese would simply behead him.

Most of the places the Japanese conquered they wanted to keep for geopolitical (China) or resource (Indonesia) reasons. They only want to take India to prevent the British from getting it. Therefore, I don't see any reason that their behavior would have been objectionable to the Indians.

 

[Garrison]

Most of the places the Japanese conquered they wanted to keep for geopolitical (China) or resource (Indonesia) reasons. They only want to take India to prevent the British from getting it. Therefore, I don't see any reason that their behavior would have been objectionable to the Indians.

So no forced labour? No sex slaves? The Japanese are suddenly going to start trying to win hearts and minds? Name one place the Japanese invaded and didn't treat the locals abysmally?