Help With a Plausible Japanese WWII Victory

[ObssesedNuker]

Even if by some magic you kept the US out of the European Theatre[1], the Soviets still won't be able to take all of mainland Europe from the Germans. They don't have the capability to do so before the British can force a landing and liberate France.

Once the Red Army is on (or even near) German soil, you can expect the Germans to try and throw all of their available combat formations against them[2], leaving garrison and static forces which the British can almost walk right through. The Soviets will manage to seize everything up to the Rhine though and that still leaves them in a stronger position post-war then OTL even if they suffer similar damage.

Also: Japan taking China is near-impossible and even if they did manage it, it would be a drain rather then a boon with the endless guerrilla warfare operating amongst a population of 600 million that thoroughly hates the Japanese's guts. Japan taking Australia and/or India? Truly impossible. Japan taking all three? Excuse me while I laugh at the prospect.

[1]Which is almost difficult as keeping the US from getting into the Pacific War. By the end of '41, lend-lease was already going to both the Brits and the Russians while US naval forces were actively cooperating in anti-submarine hunts against the Germans.
[2]Which would still wind-up being a case of too late anyways.

 

[Tannhäuser]

I can't see how the British could effect a D-Day when the OTL one was such a close call, especially since they will probably still be tied up in Egypt. And Italy will still be standing, so there will be no Gothic Line. Maybe when the Soviets actually enter Germany, the Germans will pull enough forces away to make a landing possible, but I doubt that the British would be able to get to Paris before the Soviets get to Berlin. Once that happens, the Soviets will be able to provide aid to the Communist resistance that nearly took control of Paris in OTL, and voila.

As for China, the Japanese lost about 1m men in OTL. I'm not too worried about the guerilla warfare. When they surrendered in 1945, they still controlled much of China. If in this TL they can redirect forces that were in OTL used in the Pacific, they could do still better. Japanese technology will only continue to improve, and at some point they will develop the bomb...

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?

The Burmese? Sort of the Indonesians. Again, the Japanese intended to keep most of the places they conquered. They had no reason to not genuinely support Indian nationalism.

 

[lukedalton]

I can't see how the British could effect a D-Day when the OTL one was such a close call, especially since they will probably still be tied up in Egypt. And Italy will still be standing, so there will be no Gothic Line. Maybe when the Soviets actually enter Germany, the Germans will pull enough forces away to make a landing possible, but I doubt that the British would be able to get to Paris before the Soviets get to Berlin. Once that happens, the Soviets will be able to provide aid to the Communist resistance that nearly took control of Paris in OTL, and voila.

If for some reason the Russian army get to Berlin it will be on the last leg of his logistical capacity with a lot more loss and damage, they will first risk a counteroffensive and second i really doubt they will even something to spare or aid...and when they/if enter Germany there is the strong possibility that Adolf will try to settle things with Britain and with a worse strategic situation than OTL as no US forces Churchill can be tempted to accept

As for China, the Japanese lost about 1m men in OTL. I'm not too worried about the guerilla warfare. When they surrendered in 1945, they still controlled much of China. If in this TL they can redirect forces that were in OTL used in the Pacific, they could do still better. Japanese technology will only continue to improve, and at some point they will develop the bomb...

No, sorry the Japanese that develop the bomb is akin to fascist Italy who get the bomb: basically so ASB that even the the ASB thinks is not doable. Japan was very similar to Italy, a resource poor nations not really industralizated and we are really see how italian forces fared against real modern army and how much the tecnology of Italy improved.

The Burmese? Sort of the Indonesians. Again, the Japanese intended to keep most of the places they conquered. They had no reason to not genuinely support Indian nationalism.

Except that is really out of characters for them do so?

 

[Garrison]

The Burmese? Sort of the Indonesians. Again, the Japanese intended to keep most of the places they conquered. They had no reason to not genuinely support Indian nationalism.

Please have a read of this:
Japanese War Crimes

And then explain to me why its plausible that the IJA is suddenly going to be ever so civil to the Indians?

 

[Snake Featherston]

Liberation by the URSS of all Europe is also very difficult, regaining lost territories yes, but in OTL the red army strectched is supply lines to the breaking point to get in position, more is difficult (to use an euphemis) without an enemy civil war at least.

Well, the USSR's plenty able to chew up and spit out Nazi offensive capability and the Nazis' military ability to destroy the USSR. There's a huge leap between doing that and getting past the USSR's 1939 borders, however.

The scenario is that Japan decides that there's a better chance of the US not getting involved than there is of Japan defeating it. Therefore, Japan launches a surprise attack on Singapore and follows up with an invasion of Indonesia. It carefully skirts the Philippines and does its military and diplomatic best to avoid war with the US. New Guinea falls in 1942, Australia in 1943, and India has been fully "liberated" by 1944, in large part due to the assistance of Indian freedom fighters (I think that an initially successful invasion of India would have prompted a lot more Indians to resist, and the Japanese would have had few problems recruiting in occupied areas). The Chinese army is defeated in 1946. With only a little US material assistance, the USSR suffers even more than it did in OTL, but eventually turns things around and liberates all of Europe in 1947 or 1948.

My question is: what happens to France's colonies if the mainland goes Communist? The Vichy regime may still be in power in some areas. Would either they or the Free French have been willing to submit to a Communist government? Would they have tried to set up a French Union without France? Would they have been annexed by Britain? Would the USSR let that occur?

The Soviets were able to destroy the three strategic Nazi offensives aimed at them before the logistical element of Lend-Lease was too much of a factor IOTL. They'd grind up the Nazis in a relatively "short" amount of time the same as per OTL. The problem is that doing that in 1941-3 is a whole different ballgame from what they did IOTL. The USSR is very much going to clear its own borders, but going from that to overrunning too much outside them requires multiple leaps of logic.

 

[Snake Featherston]

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

If we look at the IJA and IJN relative to everything else in Asia, it's actually not that impressive. After they chewed up and spat out Chinese mechanized forces in 1937 they were the only mechanized force actively involved in Asia. The USSR's giving it two asskickings shows that even at its greatest strength the IJA was too much a WWI army to fight a WWII army.

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.

I doubt they were ever concerned about the Japanese given how soundly the Red Army thrashed them both times in 1938 and 1939. In fact I think that the Soviet hesitation to attack them had much more to do with the rational viewpoint that if one can avoid a two-front war, one should, due to concentration of force. It was more of a risk for the democracies to wage a two-ocean war on land, sea, and air than for the Soviets to follow a proper strategy and fight one war at a time. At least this kept Dugout Doug from Europe, where he probably would have given the Germans a chance to inflict on the USA the worst defeat since the ACW.

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.

Or alternately when the USSR promised to enter the war in three months they fulfilled the exact terms of the promise, not expecting that the additions of nuclear weapons would cause the whole thing to end as abruptly as it did?

 

[Tannhäuser]

No, sorry the Japanese that develop the bomb is akin to fascist Italy who get the bomb: basically so ASB that even the the ASB thinks is not doable. Japan was very similar to Italy, a resource poor nations not really industralizated and we are really see how italian forces fared against real modern army and how much the tecnology of Italy improved.

A. When the Italians did poorly, it was more due to their leadership than their technology.

B. Japan was moving towards a bomb in 1945. In this TL, they would have no threat to the homeland to spur the development of wonder weapons, but they would also be able to allocate more resources, and those resources wouldn't be subject to firebombings every couple of weeks.

Please have a read of this:
Japanese War Crimes

And then explain to me why its plausible that the IJA is suddenly going to be ever so civil to the Indians?

I'm aware of what they did - I'm just not convinced they'd do it to people who I think they would see as allies. It's not like they were ideologically required to commit crimes like the Germans.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the Soviets would drive all the way to the Rhine in this scenario. Maybe it would have cost them more, maybe it would have taken them longer, but they would have done it. The USSR still had manpower reserves in 1945. And the British are not going to accept a negotiated peace with Germany. Period. They'll try to get Western Europe back, and will, except for France because of its powerful Communist movement.

 

[Garrison]

A. When the Italians did poorly, it was more due to their leadership than their technology.

Which doesn't change the fact that when it came to things like tanks Japanese equipment was genuinely bad. Even the vaunted Zero was in reality a flimsy machine that achieved its performance by leaving out such basic things as self sealing fuel tanks..


B. Japan was moving towards a bomb in 1945. In this TL, they would have no threat to the homeland to spur the development of wonder weapons, but they would also be able to allocate more resources, and those resources wouldn't be subject to firebombings every couple of weeks.[/QUOTE]

Can you provide a shred of evidence the Japanes had a credible nuclear weapons program.

I'm aware of what they did - I'm just not convinced they'd do it to people who I think they would see as allies. It's not like they were ideologically required to commit crimes like the Germans.

Really? They viewed themselves as racially superior and had nothing but contempt for surrendered enemies. They are not going to suddenly change their established habits after invading India, and it would be an invasion, however tired the Indians might be of the British they aren't going to just roll over for the Japanese.

You wanted a plausible WWII Japanese victory? Sorry but there just isn't one. The US will get involved, the British will eventually aim to take back their lost colonies and India will resist an invasion and almost certainly repel it, all while the war in China drains the life out of the IJA.

If you want imperial Japan to conquer the Pacific and SEA you will need to have your POD(s) much further back in time.

 

[CalBear]

The Japanese were moving toward a Bomb in the sense that they wanted one. They hadn't actually gotten any closer to it than the Reich did. The Bomb was an almost unimaginably expensive project, and one that required a very strong industrial base. Japan lacked the time AND the money.

If, as stated, you are aware of the behavior of the IJA across Asia, why would they suddenly stop at the Indian frontier?

The IJA wasn't the U.S. Army, or the Commonwealth's, hell, it wasn't even the Red Army, it was more like an underarmed Waffen SS than anything else. Its troops (and far more importantly, officers) had been raised fro childhood to see any non Japanese as an inferior life form. The officers treated their men in ways that would have found them hanged in the SS, and the troops followed this policy with the prisoners and civilians under there control. We are talking about an army where regular infantrymen, not a Japanese version of Enisatzgruppen, mind you, but basic enlisted troops, used to force Chinese mothers to throw their infants up in the air so they could bayonet them. We are talking about an Army were the officers thought nothing of killing a handy prisoner just to test their sword blade for sharpness and who regularly beat the living shit out of THEIR OWN MEN.

The Japanese brutalized every single independence movement they encountered across Asia. Ho Chi Minh made his bones fighting the Japanese. The Japanese used to take women and girls and force them into troop brothels until they used the poor souls up, they then either dumped the damaged husks back onto their families or dispatched them, and brought in a fresh supply. Japan wasn't looking for allies, it was looking for serfs and slaves.

In a lot of ways the Japanese treatment of civilians was worse than that of the Reich. At least the Reich had a obscenely perverted & utterly insane reason for what they did. The Japanese did it just for the hell of it.

A. When the Italians did poorly, it was more due to their leadership than their technology.

B. Japan was moving towards a bomb in 1945. In this TL, they would have no threat to the homeland to spur the development of wonder weapons, but they would also be able to allocate more resources, and those resources wouldn't be subject to firebombings every couple of weeks.



I'm aware of what they did - I'm just not convinced they'd do it to people who I think they would see as allies. It's not like they were ideologically required to commit crimes like the Germans.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the Soviets would drive all the way to the Rhine in this scenario. Maybe it would have cost them more, maybe it would have taken them longer, but they would have done it. The USSR still had manpower reserves in 1945. And the British are not going to accept a negotiated peace with Germany. Period. They'll try to get Western Europe back, and will, except for France because of its powerful Communist movement.

 

[Snake Featherston]

The Japanese were moving toward a Bomb in the sense that they wanted one. They hadn't actually gotten any closer to it than the Reich did. The Bomb was an almost unimaginably expensive project, and one that required a very strong industrial base. Japan lacked the time AND the money.

If, as stated, you are aware of the behavior of the IJA across Asia, why would they suddenly stop at the Indian frontier?

The IJA wasn't the U.S. Army, or the Commonwealth's, hell, it wasn't even the Red Army, it was more like an underarmed Waffen SS than anything else. Its troops (and far more importantly, officers) had been raised fro childhood to see any non Japanese as an inferior life form. The officers treated their men in ways that would have found them hanged in the SS, and the troops followed this policy with the prisoners and civilians under there control. We are talking about an army where regular infantrymen, not a Japanese version of Enisatzgruppen, mind you, but basic enlisted troops, used to force Chinese mothers to throw their infants up in the air so they could bayonet them. We are talking about an Army were the officers thought nothing of killing a handy prisoner just to test their sword blade for sharpness and who regularly beat the living shit out of THEIR OWN MEN.

The Japanese brutalized every single independence movement they encountered across Asia. Ho Chi Minh made his bones fighting the Japanese. The Japanese used to take women and girls and force them into troop brothels until they used the poor souls up, they then either dumped the damaged husks back onto their families or dispatched them, and brought in a fresh supply. Japan wasn't looking for allies, it was looking for serfs and slaves.

In a lot of ways the Japanese treatment of civilians was worse than that of the Reich. At least the Reich had a obscenely perverted & utterly insane reason for what they did. The Japanese did it just for the hell of it.

What makes all that much worse is that at one time the IJA had been about the best-behaved of all the Great Power armies.

 

[AdA]

Barbarism and discipline

One of the strange things about the IJA was that they encouraged their soldiers to commit barbaric actions, and yet retained a total discipline. As a general rule, when soldiers re allowed to commit crimes against civilians, that damages discipline a lot, for if you break one moral rule you're more liable to break others. The IJA had either to have a totally perverted sense of humanity, that really made them see non Japanese as subhumans, or be built with a deeply set class system to the point of brainwashing to have worked like that.

 

[lukedalton]

A. When the Italians did poorly, it was more due to their leadership than their technology.

The italian armored corps begs to differ (notwisthanding poor leaderships)

B. Japan was moving towards a bomb in 1945. In this TL, they would have no threat to the homeland to spur the development of wonder weapons, but they would also be able to allocate more resources, and those resources wouldn't be subject to firebombings every couple of weeks.

Except that there were two different programs in competiotion between them (army and navy) and Japan don't have the resource for a nuclear programs...sorry for a succesfull nuclear program, the OTL was basically a cooperations between USA, Commonwelth (plus a number of expatriate scientist)...i found really difficult that Japan alone can achieve that.
And better not talking about the delivery system.

I'm aware of what they did - I'm just not convinced they'd do it to people who I think they would see as allies. It's not like they were ideologically required to commit crimes like the Germans.

Unfortunaly real life accounts beg to differ with you

Also, I'm pretty sure that the Soviets would drive all the way to the Rhine in this scenario. Maybe it would have cost them more, maybe it would have taken them longer, but they would have done it. The USSR still had manpower reserves in 1945. And the British are not going to accept a negotiated peace with Germany. Period. They'll try to get Western Europe back, and will, except for France because of its powerful Communist movement.

How they will drive to the Rhine? the manpower reserves of OTL 1945 are now occupied in build machines and in the camps without US land and lease, and even if by some miracles and abysmal german mistake they obtain that result they will be in a condition that even OTL italian army will kick their ass till their border.
Regarding UK not accepting a negotiated peace, well no USA force to help them, more costly war and the damn communist making inroad and maybe trying to take over the continent...Churchill was stubborn not crazy

 

[Unconsensual]

Let's see how the odds are stacked against Japan, some of which were ninja-ed by those before me:

• It had two militaries; IJA & IJN that actively obstructed each other, rarely cooperated, ran parallel production, research, and logistical projects. In essence cutting down Japanese potential by half, more so if you count the damage they do to each other.
• The IJA lacked experience and equipment to fight a modern army.
• Japan started the war with 1/4 of it's shipping tonnage supplied by foreign freighters (which left as hostilities commenced), that's right it started the war short of freighters.
• The IJN was designed to be high-quality to get around the Washington treaty, which meant that it couldn't sustain a long war.
• It (Japan) Tried to subjugate SE-Asia: 46% of the world population with a 4% of world pop. and an industrial base of Italy, not till they invent magic.
• Due to their policies there was massive insurgencies in every country they occupied.
• The British and Americans were already in the works for a mutual defense treaty in the Pacific (forgot what it's called). There was already a degree of anti-Japanese Anglo-deterrence. If America doesn't enter the war immediately, it will soon .

These are just the major systemic problems, I won't even get on the list of technical, bureaucratic, and geographic problems. It just simply isn't possible for Japan to pull this off short of a domestic POD going back over a century or an Anglo-POD in the 20's.

 

[Winston Smith]

I remember reading somewhere that the Manhattern project took up more electricity then the entritity of Germany was capable of producing. Prey tell where Japan gets even that amount of energy from.

 

[d32123]

The only way Japan can win WWII is if WWII is drastically different. For starters, they'll have to be supported by both the Russians and the Americans (especially the latter).

 

[Faeelin]

Cal, your position is that the US public and Congress, when faced with a war against Hitler, would have declared war on Japan of their own accord?

 

[Elizaeth]

The only way Japan could have won a war in WWII requires a Pod of at least 1918 to 1920 with the Japanese becoming more closely allied to the British Empire instead of losing the Anglo-Japanese alliance entirely. This was not going to happen as long as the British Dominions in the Pacific felt that Japan's ambitions in the Pacific were such a huge threat to their own existence. It would have required Japan making major concessions to ANZAC concerns prior to the Washington Naval Conference and Japan actively backing Britain's issues on the size of cruiser fleets needed by the British Empire. Only one of Japan's delegates actively sought this and he was not listened to, as a result the US delegation was able to isolate Japan from the British and assure eventual American domination of the Pacific. If you examine American policy going back to the 1800's with their so-called open door policy this had been a major concern of American industrialists and politicians for 30 plus years at the time of the 1st Washington Naval Conference. Once the Japanese had been isolated it was only a matter of time until the US found a reason to attack the Japanese. The entire reason for violating the 4 Power treaty over naval bases in the Pacific by starting construction of the Subic Bay naval base in the Phillippines was to provide logistical support for the eventual war with Japan.

 

[Johnrankins]

The Japanese were moving toward a Bomb in the sense that they wanted one. They hadn't actually gotten any closer to it than the Reich did. The Bomb was an almost unimaginably expensive project, and one that required a very strong industrial base. Japan lacked the time AND the money.

If, as stated, you are aware of the behavior of the IJA across Asia, why would they suddenly stop at the Indian frontier?

The IJA wasn't the U.S. Army, or the Commonwealth's, hell, it wasn't even the Red Army, it was more like an underarmed Waffen SS than anything else. Its troops (and far more importantly, officers) had been raised fro childhood to see any non Japanese as an inferior life form. The officers treated their men in ways that would have found them hanged in the SS, and the troops followed this policy with the prisoners and civilians under there control. We are talking about an army where regular infantrymen, not a Japanese version of Enisatzgruppen, mind you, but basic enlisted troops, used to force Chinese mothers to throw their infants up in the air so they could bayonet them. We are talking about an Army were the officers thought nothing of killing a handy prisoner just to test their sword blade for sharpness and who regularly beat the living shit out of THEIR OWN MEN.

The Japanese brutalized every single independence movement they encountered across Asia. Ho Chi Minh made his bones fighting the Japanese. The Japanese used to take women and girls and force them into troop brothels until they used the poor souls up, they then either dumped the damaged husks back onto their families or dispatched them, and brought in a fresh supply. Japan wasn't looking for allies, it was looking for serfs and slaves.

In a lot of ways the Japanese treatment of civilians was worse than that of the Reich. At least the Reich had a obscenely perverted & utterly insane reason for what they did. The Japanese did it just for the hell of it.

Yeah, people tend to keep doing what they have done all along. It makes no sense for IJA troops to stop acting like IJA troops the moment they enter India. Within two weeks they make India fanatically pro-British, at least for the duration of the war.

 

[Elizaeth]

If not less than two weeks, by WWII the IJA had moved from being one of the most civilized in its behavior towards civilians at the time of the Boxer Rebellion to being one of the most brutal and rapacious armies in history.

 

[Johnrankins]

If not less than two weeks, by WWII the IJA had moved from being one of the most civilized in its behavior towards civilians at the time of the Boxer Rebellion to being one of the most brutal and rapacious armies in history.

True enough, two weeks is pretty much the maximum length of time for the Indians to decide that being ruled by the Brits is far preferable to being ruled by the Japanese.