How far would Japan go?

The Japanese chose to put military interests ahead of political. It was a fatal error of the regime. Public opinion may have been shifting towards war, that doesn't mean it was there. Roosevelt said it himself that Japan needed to fire the first shot

In any event, the thread presupposes a neutral US so your suppositions based on public opinon polls shifting one way is irrelevant
That part is true, it isn't completely impossible for the US to remain neutral.
Yes it is about LOGISTICS and the British fanatics always miss that Britain is in one hell of a logistical jam. She would have to defend India against a Japanese invasion (if the Japanese aren't tied up fighting the Americans, they have plenty, by supplying their forces from Britain without command of the sea

Its silly
Except India was quite capable of supporting an army on its own and helped produce things for the British Army. Any sympathy for Japan for being "Anti-Colonial" will completely vanish in a month on the outside after coming under Japanese rule. If there was anything Japan was good at it was inspiring hatred in other Asians for themselves even when there was some sympathy for them in the beginning.
NO an Anglo-Soviet victory is by no means a certainty and there are scenarios where the Germans win
In any universe where a massive lead in industrial production in an all out lengthy war means anything it is pretty much doomed. Nazi behavior in occupied Europe made that even more certain. The Nazis are pretty much screwed.
Oh my, this is a rather pathetically weak argument now isn't it? Let's see, Germany has beaten Britain and the Soviet Union, occupied France and is the master of Europe. So how long do you think it would take for the Germans to build a big bad fleet?
Given that they would have not only their own, albeit small fleet, but the French and Italian navies at their disposal as well as what they capture from the Soviets and the British to start with, not long at all
Only ASBs would allow the Germans to capture a significant portion of the RN intact. The RN sunk much of the French Navy early to prevent it from being used against them and the Soviet Navy was a joke even if ASBs prevent the Soviets from scuttling most of it so it doesn't fall in German hands.
Finally, consider the effects of land based air power, which are considerable against an isolated Japan, the Germans are going to have little trouble at all taking the Japanese down
We know what air power could do to Japan, damage it very heavily but not knock it out. The US made very heavy use of air power against Japan and it didn't surrender until after it was hit by two A-bombs.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
That part is true, it isn't completely impossible for the US to remain neutral.
It would be if Japan attacks the Philippines so we have to take a scenario where that doesn't happen

Except India was quite capable of supporting an army on its own and helped produce things for the British Army. Any sympathy for Japan for being "Anti-Colonial" will completely vanish in a month on the outside after coming under Japanese rule. If there was anything Japan was good at it was inspiring hatred in other Asians for themselves even when there was some sympathy for them in the beginning.

True to a very large degree but India could not supply everything. Yes, the Japanese are likely to create an Indian uprising (thought I mentioned that). It doesn't really matter as Britain's fate is going to be decided in Europe as is Japan's

Told you what would happen in an Anglo-Soviet victory- the defeat of Japan. Also gave you what would happen in a Nazi victory- the defeat of Japan

In any universe where a massive lead in industrial production in an all out lengthy war means anything it is pretty much doomed. Nazi behavior in occupied Europe made that even more certain. The Nazis are pretty much screwed.

Only ASBs would allow the Germans to capture a significant portion of the RN intact. The RN sunk much of the French Navy early to prevent it from being used against them and the Soviet Navy was a joke even if ASBs prevent the Soviets from scuttling most of it so it doesn't fall in German hands.

We know what air power could do to Japan, damage it very heavily but not knock it out. The US made very heavy use of air power against Japan and it didn't surrender until after it was hit by two A-bombs.

A Nazi victory is rather doubtful in Europe especially by the end of 1941. Its not impossible though. Again, the Soviet and British navy aren't as important asthe industrial power of the two which would largely fall into Nazi hands

As for the British attack on the French Fleet, there were plenty of assets that weren't hit and many that could be repaired and refloated. Again, the Germans would command the French dockyards which are the most important thing

Finally, as for Airpower against Japan- it destroyed her, She was beaten into the ground without a leg to stand on. Her actual surrender a mere formality

The only reason that the Japanese held out as long as they did was the prospect that the Soviets would fall out with the Anglo-Americans and Soviet intervention brought that fantasy to an end

But with the Soviets and British defeated, there is no one that Japan could possible hope to save them. Hitler might also have been willing to negotiate over the Emperor rather than demand unconditional surrender

In any event, the only scenarios that don't end in the destruction of Japan are

1) some kind of stalemate in Europe- very doubtful and even if it happens, peace at the expense of the Japanese is the more likely outcome

2) An Anglo-Soviet victory where the Soviets and the British immediately fall out and the Soviets feel that Japan is needed as a check on the British or the British wish to use Japan as a check on the Soviets

Given a Japanese attack on Britain, the latter is extremely doubtful if not ASB and the former, is also unlikely
 
Alright, since I'm seeing a lot about Germany here, I'll give you a premise; France manages to beat Germany in the Ardennes, again not really important. So FDR doesn't run again. The U.S. has no real reason to intervene, since Germany is losing. Russia also doesn't intervene.

AGAIN none of that is really important! I just want to clarify what the premise is.
 

nbcman

Donor
Alright, since I'm seeing a lot about Germany here, I'll give you a premise; France manages to beat Germany in the Ardennes, again not really important. So FDR doesn't run again. The U.S. has no real reason to intervene, since Germany is losing. Russia also doesn't intervene.

AGAIN none of that is really important! I just want to clarify what the premise is.

Actually, all of that is very important. If France and the UK are doing better in Europe, it would be unlikely that the Japanese could stop the flow of supplies to the Nationalist Chinese (OTL the Burma Road was voluntarily closed after the fall of France and the Japanese invaded Vichy French controlled Northern Indochina in September 1940). Also, the Japanese would probably not be so bold to attack the French and UK when they were successfully defending against Germany and the Italians would more than likely still be neutral which means the forces that went to the Middle East would be available to help defend the Far East. Plus there would be no major disruptions in the military procurement due to the Fall of France which caused the UK to continue producing older equipment or to accept older equipment to resupply forces which were evacuated from France. This means there would be more and better armed forces available to defend against the Japanese if they did attempt to attack the French, UK and NEI.
 
Last edited:
As stated, the thread's supposition is that the US stays out. And while Roosevelt was making progress in getting America into the war there is no guarantee that he would succeed. Pearl Harbor allows the entry of a united America into the war which a Japanese attack on British and Dutch possessions do not

What is extremely laughable is the notion that a power in control over the continent would have any trouble at all dealing with a naval power-

1) Construction of a fleet- to use a prewar estimate where the Germans are spending huge sums on land armaments to a situation where the Germans command the entire industrial resources of the continent is beyond weak

2) Again, what about the remnants of the French fleet? What its doing with Paris occupied and the Anglo-Soviets defeated? Why cutting deals with Hitler is the only logical play

3) How about the Italian fleet? Its not all that shabby against Japan on its own

4) Japan has more experienced sailors- true but for how long? Since Japan has zero capability of entering European waters, the Germans can train at their leisure.

Add in that very few men in a naval force need nautical training, French and Italians officers are likely to help man the fleet and provide training, this is an easily overcome obstacle

5) Finally, there is the overwhelming technological lead that Germany and Europe have over Japan. What exactly is Japan going to do when the German aircraft carriers are loaded with Jet aircraft?

6) Italy may be theoretically an independent state and an equal partner, but really what would the reality be? Germany would have defeated France, the Soviets and Britain. What chance would the Italians have? Would they even risk it? Or would they join in for what little booty the Germans offered them?
Not matter how much you spend certain factors remain true. You need slipways to build large ships, of which Japan has the same as France plus Germany. Those large ships take a long time to build, 3 years average. You then need a year to get them in fighting shape. So 7 years minimum, 3 to build the slipways, 3 to build the ships, 1 to work up and complete trials

The French fleet is sitting on the bottom of the Med or interned outside Germany. Those in France sank themselves rather than let the Germans have them, the rest would be interned by the US or UK

Yes it is, fewer and worse designed ships, no carriers, shit for AA, and worst of all short ranged. They would run out of fuel trying to reach the Japanese, let alone fight them

A decade at least. It isn't about the sailors, it is about the system as a whole, officers, petty officers and enlisted all working together using well written procedures, learning how to manage that takes time. Otherwise you make mistakes, lots of them. Just poaching a few trained officers won't help, they have no experience operating as a system, and won't be operating under the procedures they themselves don't know, this is something only experience can learn. You'd be amazed at how complicated some seemingly simple things are, like underway refueling

Germany had a lead, it wasn't overwhelming. Japan had its own jet program and own jet engines that owned nothing to the Germans, they weren't as good as the ones the Germans gave them, but they existed. Of course Japan has the advantage of actually knowing how to reliably build decent carrier aircraft, Germany, well 2 of their 3 OTL ones are listed as among the worst carrier aircraft ever built. So Japan will struggle with the jet part, and Germany with the carrier part, and both would get the aircraft in service, the difference is Japanese carriers, while smaller than the planned German ones, can actually carry twice as many planes

Italy won't risk fighting Germany, but if Germany invades to get the Italian fleet, it either runs and gets interned, or scuttles itself, either way the Germans won't get it and they know it. So Germany won't invade to get their cooperation, and the Italians know it. Thus the Germans need to offer booty, and the Japanese have nothing Mussolini wants. They would probaby offer East Africa as a base, but that's all
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Not matter how much you spend certain factors remain true. You need slipways to build large ships, of which Japan has the same as France plus Germany. Those large ships take a long time to build, 3 years average. You then need a year to get them in fighting shape. So 7 years minimum, 3 to build the slipways, 3 to build the ships, 1 to work up and complete trials

And since the slipways are there, you don't need to build them. Even if we assume your timetable is right, a rather dubious one, your only delaying the inevitable- Japan has no chance against a victorious Germany

The French fleet is sitting on the bottom of the Med or interned outside Germany. Those in France sank themselves rather than let the Germans have them, the rest would be interned by the US or UK

The error in this premise is that Germany has won the war in Europe. Therefore, the British aren't interning anything nor is it likely that the Americans are going to bother


Yes it is, fewer and worse designed ships, no carriers, shit for AA, and worst of all short ranged. They would run out of fuel trying to reach the Japanese, let alone fight them

Oh please- German technology is light years ahead of Japan and of course, the Germans would have access to the captured technologies of her defeated foes

Again, building carriers doesn't take all that long when your ruling Europe and those carriers will have jet aircraft on them. Take two old freighters, put a flat top on them and some messermichts and the Japanese are done for

As for bases, do what the Americans do- step by step build on move on. Won't take more than two years

A decade at least. It isn't about the sailors, it is about the system as a whole, officers, petty officers and enlisted all working together using well written procedures, learning how to manage that takes time. Otherwise you make mistakes, lots of them. Just poaching a few trained officers won't help, they have no experience operating as a system, and won't be operating under the procedures they themselves don't know, this is something only experience can learn. You'd be amazed at how complicated some seemingly simple things are, like underway refueling

Germany had a lead, it wasn't overwhelming. Japan had its own jet program and own jet engines that owned nothing to the Germans, they weren't as good as the ones the Germans gave them, but they existed. Of course Japan has the advantage of actually knowing how to reliably build decent carrier aircraft, Germany, well 2 of their 3 OTL ones are listed as among the worst carrier aircraft ever built. So Japan will struggle with the jet part, and Germany with the carrier part, and both would get the aircraft in service, the difference is Japanese carriers, while smaller than the planned German ones, can actually carry twice as many planes

Italy won't risk fighting Germany, but if Germany invades to get the Italian fleet, it either runs and gets interned, or scuttles itself, either way the Germans won't get it and they know it. So Germany won't invade to get their cooperation, and the Italians know it. Thus the Germans need to offer booty, and the Japanese have nothing Mussolini wants. They would probaby offer East Africa as a base, but that's all



1) The Italians are joining the Germans. Its what they did when Hitler attacked France- jump in and get what you can. Certainly, the Italians aren't delusional enough to fight Hitler so joining is the only option

2) Hitler is just as likely to devour his Italian allies before turning on Japan which would render the whole matter moot. Hitler isn't stopping till he's overrun everything

3) As you point out, German planes are far superior to Japanese ones and the critical operational equipment on carriers is the aircraft. So yes, the Germans win the technological arms race by your own assertion

4) Even if it took a "decade", a rather dubious assumption, the only thing that does is delay the inevitable German victory over Japan. Since no timetable for that was given, the argument is at best irrelevant
 
And since the slipways are there, you don't need to build them. Even if we assume your timetable is right, a rather dubious one, your only delaying the inevitable- Japan has no chance against a victorious Germany
They only have enough to match Japan, they need to build more to make up ground. All of this is of course expensive, and given how often the Nazi's just scraped by avoiding economic collapse, they may not keep it up
The error in this premise is that Germany has won the war in Europe. Therefore, the British aren't interning anything nor is it likely that the Americans are going to bother
So Britain and the US are just going to let French ships sitting in their ports during the war sail back to Germany when it is over? More likely they do something like keep them on behalf of the French government in exile, or seize them for non payment of debts, there are plenty of excuses they can use
Oh please- German technology is light years ahead of Japan and of course, the Germans would have access to the captured technologies of her defeated foes
Not light years ahead, a few years at best, and only in some places. Frex Japan was ahead of Germany with regards to nuclear tech. For jet engines, Japan deployed indigenous ones in 1944, and used them in combat in 1945. Indigenous, not the ones they got from the Germans

Also UK ain't giving up shit without a SeaLion
Again, building carriers doesn't take all that long when your ruling Europe and those carriers will have jet aircraft on them. Take two old freighters, put a flat top on them and some messermichts and the Japanese are done for
A lot more complicated than that. If you want the planes to survive the trip, you need hangars and an elevator. If you want fully loaded aircraft to launch you need catapults, and arrestor gear if you want them back. These are major structural modifications, and even then your freighters will cut your fleets speed in half, and will be too small to operate most post 1945 carrier aircraft

Building new all up fleet carriers, 3 years. 2 years if you are willing to pay twice as much, and have sub par build quality

Using Messerschimdts as carrier fighters. Not gonna work. Carrier fighters need special features, beefy structure to survive stress of catapult launch, beefy landing gear to survive landing, arrester hooks to land, folding wings to fit on elevators, corrosion resistant parts to survive the salt. Need effectively a new design
As for bases, do what the Americans do- step by step build on move on. Won't take more than two years
Except the US could shoot straight across the Pacific, Germany would have to cross the Indian Ocean, deal with the Indonesia and Malaysia, with only carrier aircraft against lots of land based aircraft and the IJN, then nuetralize Indochina, Soth China, Formosa and fight their way up via the Ryukyus
1) The Italians are joining the Germans. Its what they did when Hitler attacked France- jump in and get what you can. Certainly, the Italians aren't delusional enough to fight Hitler so joining is the only option
No their is staying nuetral and letting Hitler use their bases and buy their stuff as an option. Italy jumped on France as they wanted parts of France since the 1800's and France is right there, and they only did it after France was clearly beaten, they did not jump in first thing. Germany won't reach that point

2) Hitler is just as likely to devour his Italian allies before turning on Japan which would render the whole matter moot. Hitler isn't stopping till he's overrun everything
Hitler had absolutely no plans to do that. And if he did, well more land to occupy, more money wasted, and the Italian fleet gets sunk in the process
3) As you point out, German planes are far superior to Japanese ones and the critical operational equipment on carriers is the aircraft. So yes, the Germans win the technological arms race by your own assertion
German land based planes. 2 of their 3 carrier designs were disasters, as in even without combat would run out of planes in two weeks normal carrier duty due to accidents bad. Carrier planes and land based planes have different needs. Carrier planes need to be tougher, resistant to corrosion, store compactly and have long range. Germany has the overall edge, but Japan has the edge in the specific niche, so it evens out overall. And of course Japanese carrier designs pack in more bang for the buck regarding aircraft, so assuming parity in tech, Japan has advantage in numbers

And not even all land planes, Japanese naval recon birds were better, as were their naval strike aircraft
4) Even if it took a "decade", a rather dubious assumption, the only thing that does is delay the inevitable German victory over Japan. Since no timetable for that was given, the argument is at best irrelevant
No, it lasting that long means its not easy, possibly means German economic collapse trying, probably means Hitler dying and someone sane deciding not to waste money on a fools endaovor. That assumes of course the Germans can win, which I do not think so
 
Actually under this premise, Germany doesn't actually win. A bunch of generals overthrow Hitler in 1942, after numerous defeats. The Generals end up suing for peace.
 
Actually under this premise, Germany doesn't actually win. A bunch of generals overthrow Hitler in 1942, after numerous defeats. The Generals end up suing for peace.

I take it that means Barbarossa crashed and burned even more spectacularly then IOTL? The thing is there wouldn't be a whole lot of incentive for Britain and the Soviets to accept a peace then.
 
The more of China that Japan conquers, the more the Soviets are worried about their back door. They'll want to neutralize that threat, so Manchuria goes to Mao earlier and northern Korea goes to Kim earlier.
 

Fenlander

Banned
As stated, the thread's supposition is that the US stays out. And while Roosevelt was making progress in getting America into the war there is no guarantee that he would succeed. Pearl Harbor allows the entry of a united America into the war which a Japanese attack on British and Dutch possessions do not

One big problem here is that the main driver for Japanese plans to grab the Anglo-Dutch colonies was the embargo. The embargo that America was pushing. If you have an America that's staunchly neutral in the Sino-Japanese conflict the Brits and Dutch aren't likely to set up an embargo on their own, thus removing the key reason for war.
Even if you somehow set up a separate Anglo-Japanese war there's no way on this earth the Japanese are just going to leave the American-occupied Philippines lying across their main supply lines.
 
More like "without an enormous USN fleet to sink the IJN for the Soviets". Without the Japanese Navy sitting at the bottom of the ocean, ain't no way the Soviets are pulling any successful amphibious ops.

That was exactly my point. It was just that while we have German fanboys and High Tory Britons and American Exceptionalists, we also have believers in the Ten Foot Tall Ivan Ivanovich.:rolleyes:

Well, continental Europe & Asia. Assuming they can beat the Nazis (not guaranteed unless the way things develop in Barbarossa are drastically more favorable for the Soviet Union in some way and/or the US still sends lend-lease).

As stated (or implied) the USA is strictly neutral ITTL, meaning no war loans, no L-L. That latter of which is devastating for the USSR long term regarding Russia's ability to feed itself. As one now deceased friend of mine once told me (he was a cook in the Soviet Army): "Without American Spam we never would have made it.":D
 
As stated (or implied) the USA is strictly neutral ITTL, meaning no war loans, no L-L. That latter of which is devastating for the USSR long term regarding Russia's ability to feed itself. As one now deceased friend of mine once told me (he was a cook in the Soviet Army): "Without American Spam we never would have made it.":D

Once again, if the Americans are strictly neutral, why on earth are they embargoing Japan? Coz if they aren't, Britain and Holland won't embargo Japan. And if they don't, Japan won't need to attack them for resources, and will merrily keep throwing itself against the wall of men in China using nice fresh store bought American, British and Dutch oil.

For any of your premise to come about, the US has to at least be hostile to Japan, and refusing to sell it any oil. That is not being strictly neutral.
If America is hostile (though not a combatant), Japan simply cannot risk bypassing American possessions in the region, because they'd be leaving a very hostile power sat right in the middle of their supply lines.
 
Actually under this premise, Germany doesn't actually win. A bunch of generals overthrow Hitler in 1942, after numerous defeats. The Generals end up suing for peace.

Sorry, just seen this now. So if the war is going so badly for Germany in 1941 that in 1942 he's overthrown, Japan is unlikely to think attacking European colonies will be a good play.

Say Japan attack in '41 and they're taken by surprise by a German collapse in 1942 suddenly Britain no longer has one arm behind it's back. Britain can strip forces from Europe, Africa and the Middle East and send them all in Japan's direction. Also presumably France is liberated as is Holland so they'd be taking a more active part in the fight too. Even without American involvement other than L/L Japan would be in deep trouble.
 
In any event, the thread presupposes a neutral US so your suppositions based on public opinon polls shifting one way is irrelevant

Ok, I'll concede that one.

Yes it is about LOGISTICS and the British fanatics always miss that Britain is in one hell of a logistical jam. She would have to defend India against a Japanese invasion (if the Japanese aren't tied up fighting the Americans, they have plenty, by supplying their forces from Britain without command of the sea

As has been answered already, India could supply itself. Also are we assuming that Japan will be operating off the East African coast? Coz if not Britain can send whatever it needs to India.


NO an Anglo-Soviet victory is by no means a certainty and there are scenarios where the Germans win

This has been answered already, but once again in any world where resources and production means anything, Germany is done for.

Oh my, this is a rather pathetically weak argument now isn't it? Let's see, Germany has beaten Britain and the Soviet Union, occupied France and is the master of Europe. So how long do you think it would take for the Germans to build a big bad fleet?

Years, and years, and years. They'd also have no bases en route to Japan, and have to sail across three oceans to test their brand new navy and unfamiliar doctrine against a battle hardened experienced navy.

Given that they would have not only their own, albeit small fleet, but the French and Italian navies at their disposal as well as what they capture from the Soviets and the British to start with, not long at all

The French scuttled what the British didn't sink, Italy isn't just going to tag along on a three ocean trek to Japan, they're unlikely to get anything of use from the Soviets and won't get anything from Britain. Without Sea Lion there'll be a White Peace, maybe, and no naval handovers.

Finally, consider the effects of land based air power, which are considerable against an isolated Japan, the Germans are going to have little trouble at all taking the Japanese down

Interesting approach. Where are they going to base their land based air power to attack Japan?

You keep mentioning Germany's mastery of Europe in this scenario, and nobody is disputing it. What we're saying is they don't have any means of attacking Japan directly, other than spending a decade building a navy and sailing it across three oceans to attack a far more experienced enemy who know you're coming and are on home turf.
 
A lot of these arguments are pretty circular

If we're going to have the US ignore Japan at that level, then Japan would not need at all to intervene in the colonial SE Asia.

Actually, the whole reason for Japan's naval expansion revolved around the two-pronged national strategy of "China First" OR going for the "Southern Resources Area". The Embargo made it easier for the IJN to press its case, but the IJA was sympathetic enough as it was. Besides, the Japanese economy needed those resources anyway. Japan HAD NO natural resources to speak of. So America's lack of involvement/interest would have had no effect. I imagine this assumes less Chinese immigration to the USA ITTL and a lack of a powerful "China Lobby".

And if Japan keeps receiving oil from the US, it can stick to its initial plan: domination of China.

Japan didn't have the $$$ to keep buying/trading for everything they needed for a continental conquest of so vast and populous a region as China.

How likely is for Japan to swallow China if the US keeps it supplied?

That's outside the purview of TTL. Strictest US neutrality, including no aid to China.

Nothing ASB about it- if Japan doesn't attack Pearl Harbor and the Philippines and goes after the British and Dutch colonies instead, the US is unlikely to intervene

Roosevelt would want to<snip>

The OP has declared strict US neutrality, leaving US domestic politics set in stone in a very different ATL.

Therefore, the likely military course is that the Japanese thump the British in the Pacific and Indian Oceans because the British have their hands tied down in Europe. Japan should be able to incite a rebellion in India and cut off British reinforcements as well

True enough. Gandhi, in the worst misjudgment in his life, seems to have totally screwed the pooch regarding his views on the Imperial Japanese and the threat that they represented to India. You would have thought that China would have been lesson enough for him. But then was Eamon de Valera any different regarding Hitler?

Soon enough, the Japanese would face an insurrection from the Indians as well but their biggest dilemma is the war in Europe which will decide the fate of her Empire

India was the Jewel in the Crown of Britain's empire. Without her...? As to the Japanese, if they try for a naked conquest and direct Japanese (typical mis-)rule of India, they will simply lack the military means to do so. The IJA total rated 100 divisions or so. With a vastly committed IJN, they aren't going to expand the IJA anytime soon. Japan was already fully mobilized for war.

People like Subhas Chandra Bose might be able to raise a large Indian National Army, but the desertion rate for the INA will be sky-high as Japanese atrocities mount, unless the IJA adopts the British policy of divide-and-conquer between Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs. Certainly the ground was much more fertile for such tactics in India than in China, where it was also employed, but to limited effect.

If the Soviets/British are victorious, the Japanese would then face the full brunt of the British.

I'm having a hard time seeing the Anglo-Soviets being OTL-level victorious. You're just as likely to see Hitler removed*boom*as that. More likely the Germans overextend themselves even further than OTL. The logistics pretty much ban them from doing any better in North Africa OR Russia than they did OTL in 1941.

But the financial circumstances for Britain will be an utter disaster considering the U-Boat War and no US loans. The Soviets in 1942-43 are looking at outright famine. You aren't launching vast counter-offensiveness with a starving army. More likely they will have a more professionalized better armed version of the Chinese Army.:(

After 1942 the British will likely have dropped out of the war, with the Soviets dropping out one full year later. NOTE: This is based on the huge assumption that Hitler ITTL will be willing to negotiate, particularly with the Soviets. Very unlikely when the Germans are riding so high. Their war plans after all called for them to advance to the Urals.:eek: Pretty fantastical goals, even for the Nazis.

The Soviets would be likely to play the same game they played OTL- let the British and Japanese fight it out and pouncing upon Japan late to grab what they can.

Assuming some kind of ATL victory over the Axis in Europe, the Anglo-Soviets may not have the stomach for a war on the Japanese. Not after the Japanese have run roughshod over the British (and Chinese) over the previous 4 (5? 6? 7?) years. They be dug in (fighting still China plus Chinese and Indian insurgents ), built up, and will have suffered relatively few losses. At least in the IJN. And where the UK has found the $$$ and resources, and the USSR the food, to win the war IDK.

They might also try and preserve a much weakened Japan as a check on the British

ITTL I don't see a defeat of Japan outright short of nukes, which ITTL will be a much longer time in coming. Yes, the Soviets had the Bomb by 1949, but much of that was based on purloined US/UK data from the Manhattan Project (assuming there is none ITTL). And when they did build one, it was years before they could build one that Soviet aircraft could carry. The Tu-4 won't be built ITTL, with no air-pirated captured aircraft to copy.

If Hitler wins, then war between Germany and Japan is inevitable. Hitler had turned on his Soviet allies and there's no reason to believe that Hitler would have any more sympathy for the Japanese

Hitler isn't about to attack Japan with the USA still on the gameboard, and even then it would take longer than Hitler would have to live to build up the forces needed to engage Japan.

With total control over the industrial power of the Continent, the Germans would quickly demolish the Japanese

How? Driving across the Eurasia landmass on a four-track Siberian railway using a Russian gauge that can only be converted to European gauge in warm clear weather? And to say it again, IN SIBERIA!?

Essentially, the problem with a Japanese plan of conquest is that Japan is too weak- she can exploit the divisions of others but once those divisions are solved, Japan is a pygmy

The Japanese, beyond a handful of airy-fairy talking heads, never considered anything beyond a conquest of the Pacific and Asia (up to the Urals). They NEVER gave serious though to any conquest of White inhabited lands beyond Australia and New Zealand, who probably would have faced genocide.:eek:

LOGISTICS. LOGISTICS. LOGISTICS. You know what, I'll say it again for good measure. LOGISTICS. Japan could barely reach India IOTL. Even if they committed everything to driving to India, leaving themselves completely defenceless against the massive US forces presumably stationed in the Philippines, this will not happen.

ATL. ATL. ATL. I'll say it again. ATL.:p No US forces, nothing to stop the IJN from turning the entire Indian Ocean into a Japanese lake. And there is your solution for logistics. Though I will not deny that the Imperial Japanese will probably have to sacrifice a lot of future warship construction in favor of merchant shipping to provide the tonnage to do all this. The OP hasn't ruled against this happening. And merchant vessels can be built a lot faster than combat vessels.

Oh my. Taking aside the odds of a German victory, Germany had no navy to speak of. What are they going to do, drive across Russia and China to have a dust up with Japan? How are those supply lines going to work?!

They're not. No Germano-Japanese War. Period. Not in the 20th century.

The idea that a victorius Nazi Germany could do anything to a victorius Japan in a short time is laughable. The Nazi's estimated that optimistically it would take them until 1949 to have a fleet inferior to that of the Japanese in 1939, and once the war started circumstances were no longer optimistic. Combined with a massive gulf in operational experience in favor of the Japanese, the Japanese being able to match or exceed the German building pace unless the Germans embark on a long and costly expansion program and it will be a long time before the Germans could do anything to them

Its not just that. Without a longstanding blue water naval tradition, the Germans would only have been presaging what the Soviets did in the 1960s-1980s. The Soviet Navy in the Brezhnev Era was a perfectly good fleet for fighting in the nuclear environment and for coast defense. That was it. Everything else they did or tried to do was a failure based on their trying to play against NATO strengths. They built a tremendous ship-sinking navy that was worthless for power-projection or for defending itself beyond short-ranged land based air support. Not to mention their being dubbed 'The Powderkeg Fleet" (1), for the USSR's predilection for not taking damage control so seriously as they should have and stuffing their hulls with weapons. Also, developing weapon systems and then building the ships around them. Insuring that when the weapons systems became obsolete, the warships could not be modernized.

1) Like the Fascist Italian Navy referring to their own ships as "The Cardboard Fleet", all speed and no protection (at least until the Littorio-class of battleships).

The German Z-Plan was the Brezhnev Era Soviet Fleet design policies on steroids. At least in terms of trying to do too much too soon with no serious level of naval design experience. A large number of capital ships (2), poorly designed (250) destroyers and (45+) light cruisers (all had serious blue water issues), 4 aircraft carriers, and hundreds of submarines.

2) If you include the "pocket battleships", which you really shouldn't)

The Bismarcks were good, the submarines as well (the later designs seen at the end of WWII were superlative), the heavy cruisers very tough, the light cruisers a joke, but their destroyer, though well armed, also had blue water handling problems. Their carriers would have been a disaster. Not least being the reason that Goering insisted that anything that flew be under the control of the Luftwaffe. The best part of Plan Z was Raeder's talking Hitler out of his crazy scheme for superbattleships that no shipyard in the world could have handled.

In short, enough steel wasted to strip the German Army's panzer force bare.

]In any event, the thread presupposes a neutral US so your suppositions based on public opinion polls shifting one way are IRRELEVANT

Highlighted for emphasis. 100% correct.:cool:

Yes it is about LOGISTICS and the British fanatics always miss that Britain is in one hell of a logistical jam. She would have to defend India against a Japanese invasion (if the Japanese aren't tied up fighting the Americans, they have plenty, by supplying their forces from Britain without command of the sea

Double, double:)

Its silly

Be nice.:( We DO have a lot of younger members, you know.:eek:

Oh my, this is a rather pathetically weak argument now isn't it? Let's see, Germany has beaten Britain and the Soviet Union, occupied France and is the master of Europe. So how long do you think it would take for the Germans to build a big bad fleet?

HEY! Be nice! Anyway, the answer to your question is GENERATIONS. The USA started building a modern fleet from scratch in 1880. Without the Washington Naval Treaty, they would have had a fleet more powerful (fractionally, due to the overaged/overused nature of all those obsolete worn out RN pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts) than the Royal Navy. That's 40 years! The Soviets tried to do the same, and wound up with a terribly imbalanced fleet that had a conventional WWIII ever happened, EVER, would have had a bloody glorious and above all brief life on the high seas. Even the worst Western pessimists acknowledged Western naval supremacy.

Had the Germans ever developed a "big bad fleet", their own history in the Z Plan shows that the IJN would have eaten the Kriegsmarine's breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Precisely because the IJN was designed to be a war winning fleet on the high seas and the Kriegsmarine wasn't. The Germans were, like the Soviets, very good at sinking ships. But that was ALL they could do. All the other important missions of a modern blue water navy (3) was terra incognita for them.

3) ASW, amphibious warfare, all forms of carrier warfare, combined fleet operations, convoy operations, the importance of inter-service cooperation, just to name a few. And history shows you don't get that kind of know-how, experience, and training just by unleashing a massive ship building and construction dockyard expansion program.

Finally, consider the effects of land based air power, which are considerable against an isolated Japan, the Germans are going to have little trouble at all taking the Japanese down

German maritime air operations sucked canal water when faced against real opposition by CAP. Besides, where are they going to base from? Vladivostok!?

The French scuttled their Navy rather than let the Germans have it. The Soviets are going to do the same. So would the RN if they were in a position to do so, which, given that the British were one of the few people Hitler was prepared to offer reasonable terms to, seems unlikely.

Just as likely the RN (what was left of it assuming a successful USM:rolleyes:) would sail for Canada. They had plans to do just that worst came to worst. NO peace plan with the UK can include the RN or any part of it being handed over. That constitutes Unconditional Surrender. Even the German High Seas Fleet of WWI scuttled itself.

The Italians are an independent state and in theory an equal partner. Mussolini has nothing to gain from attacking Japan. He will not risk his expensive ships on something he has nothing to gain from

The argument could be made that he'd be promised colonies in Africa, but then there's the whole Suez Canal thing. And the lack of power projection into the Indian Ocean around the Cape of Good Hope. Though losing Gibraltar due to the Spanish jumping in isn't an outrageous possibility.

<snip>
The US, UK and Japan spent decades building that operational experience Germany has just started with. The US and UK also had way more building slips than Germany/Japan, and did not need to build more. The US also started building its mammoth fleet in 1940, and it was only ready at the end of 1943

The USN actually never completed the Two-Ocean Navy IOTL. Many battleships, battlecruisers, Essex-class vessels were cancelled. Not ITTL. But they wouldn;t have been finished short of 1948, short of constricting US Army expansion. On second thought, without Lend Lease...? The US was limited by numbers of slipways, but those could be expanded in a neutral US. So maybe completion by 1946, if you throw in the Montana and Midway-class too.

As stated, the thread's supposition is that the US stays out.

It seems very difficult for some on this thread to remember that. And usually I'm the one with that problem.:eek:

What is extremely laughable is the notion that a power in control over the continent would have any trouble at all dealing with a naval power.

Not so laughable when its an island nation on the other side of the planet from you, and three whole continents between the two of you (Africa, Australia, and Europe).

1) Construction of a fleet- to use a prewar estimate where the Germans are spending huge sums on land armaments to a situation where the Germans command the entire industrial resources of the continent is beyond weak

Occupation of an entire continent is going to require a vast Heer and Waffen SS. Hitler isn't about to turn into Horatio Nelson. He'll have plenty on his plate as it is. Again, this is a work of generations, not just a flip on Nazi policies.

2) Again, what about the remnants of the French fleet? What its doing with Paris occupied and the Anglo-Soviets defeated? Why cutting deals with Hitler is the only logical play

This isn't the Age of Sail, where giving up ships in treaties (or losing them to combat capture) was typical. The officers and seaman of these fleets will scuttle themselves whatever their "collaborator masters" may tell them. The German officers of the High Seas Fleet scuttled their ships after reading British newspapers suggesting the idea of using German battleships to shell their own coastlines if the German government didn't adopt the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles quickly enough.

3) How about the Italian fleet? Its not all that shabby against Japan on its own

Actually, it is.

4) Japan has more experienced sailors- true but for how long? Since Japan has zero capability of entering European waters, the Germans can train at their leisure.

The Germans and Italians have no better means of going after the Japanese. Remember what happened, TWICE, to the Russians in the Ruso-Japanese War? And everybody had expected the Russians to kick Japanese ass. How did the Japanese win? Surprise combined with superior naval technology and training.

Add in that very few men in a naval force need nautical training

What? The Soviet Fleet was a force of draftees and officers, and their performance reflected that fact.

French and Italians officers are likely to help man the fleet and provide training, this is an easily overcome obstacle

WHAT!? French and Italian officers? What are they, mercenaries? And what about language barriers?

5) Finally, there is the overwhelming technological lead that Germany and Europe have over Japan.

Not in naval technology they don't.

What exactly is Japan going to do when the German aircraft carriers are loaded with Jet aircraft?

Do you realize how long it took the Anglo-Americans to develop jet aircraft for carrier warfare? They had to design the aircraft from scratch, with 25+ years of experience in naval air operations. Plus 4-6 years in WWII. NONE of Germany's carriers built or on the drawing boards would have been able to handle jets. Hell, even the Essex-class had problems with them until the British split-deck design helped alleviate (somewhat) that problem. Then you're getting into the issue that Goering will want his Luftwaffe completely re-equipped with jets before letting the first into the hands of the Kriegsmarine. Between his total control of aviation, the German economy, Axis victory, and his closeness to Hitler, He Will Get His Way.

6) Italy may be theoretically an independent state and an equal partner, but really what would the reality be? Germany would have defeated France, the Soviets and Britain. What chance would the Italians have? Would they even risk it? Or would they join in for what little booty the Germans offered them?

Hitler was a very great admirer of Il Duce. From his position as a lowly street agitator in the early 20s watching from afar as the First Fascist took power in a Democratic state by force, he closely followed his career and emulated him when he could. In the end, by 1943, he was denouncing the Italians in every way you could imagine, but with every insult he ended with "...except Il Duce!" No way in Hell does Hitler turn on the Italians in a TL where the Axis are victorious.

IF the US was isolationist, as the OP suggests, would there even be a trade embargo? lacking that, what is the incentive for Japan to attack the British and Dutch possessions? Japan needed the resources of SE Asia to carry out its aim of dominating China through force. IF these are flowing freely anyway, it has no (immediate) need to conquer them.

money-money-money

Why buy what you can take? The Japanese had always been planning this anyway.
 
Last edited:
Top