Japan Doesn't Fight

I've looked over the recent thread discussing the possibility of the Japanese winning WWII in some shape or form, and I agree with most of the posters there that a Japanese victory isn't possible without ASB intervention.

However ... WI Japan doesn't fight? As in, Japan is not a part of WWII for whatever reason, be it a more equitable WWI ceasefire involving them or better deals with the US over oil. Possible PODs are welcome, but aren't the thrust of this thread.

What would the world look like without a Pacific Theater of WWII? I'd say that the European Front is wrapped up somewhat quicker than in OTL, with the British and the Americans able to focus all of their resources on Germany.

What would WWII look like? What about the world post-this-TL-WWII?
 
Here's how:

Japan is invited and seated as a Member of the Allies in the treaty of Versailles, courted as an equal and these nations quietly amend their racist laws to make the Japanese "White". This is probably because Japan, after knocking out German forces in the Pacific, begins to contribute men to the Western Front, and the Japanese quickly develop a reputation for bravery and tenacity. It's this reputation and the skill of the Japanese General on the scene that brings this about face from the Allies.

Japan returns from Versailles with a major victory on their hands. China, meanwhile, is ignored by the Allies--to the point where the Japanese recieve most of Germany's colonies in the East.

Japan, which was never threatened in WW1, is already a fragile democracy. Its friendship and its inclusion in global politics begins to stimulate Japanese Civilian production. The Anti-Trading Tariffs of the 1920s are never enacted, instead, they are placed outside of a Tariff "Pact". The Allies will enjoy free trade with each other while the rest of the world has to pay to play.

As a result, the Great Depression never comes to pass, although Germany is broke. Japan's Democracy strengthens throughout the 1930s, and the power of the army is reduced when a corruption scandal tarnishes the Army. By 1940, Japan might have ideas of puppeting China, it also has another wave of territory seized during the Russian Civil War that it is allowed to keep.

Thus, by 1940, Japan is a Democracy with considerable trade ties to the USA and the UK, and less with France and China.

This a good start?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Keeping the Japanese OUT of WW II is the hardest part. They were the first major belligerent (Manchuria 1931) to engage in aggression. Two full years before the generally recognized outbreak of WW II with Germany's invasion of Poland, the IJA with strong IJN air support, was cutting a swath across China. To prevent the Chinese War is almost an ASB event.

As far as the war in Europe the impact ranges from minor to massive. The massive, of course, is the American entry into the war. Finding an excuse for the U.S. to declare war on the Reich was not going to be easy. Even the sinking of the USS Ruben James by a U-boat had been an insufficient cause belli to get the U.S. into the war. If Hitler hadn't been stupid enough to declare on the U.S. it might have been 1943 (if then) before the U.S. entered the war.

The actual change in men & material to the ETO would be a minor change, although the 1944 introduction of the B-29 would greatly increase the bombing capacity of the 8th Air Force. The timing of the ETO actions was pretty much set by factors far different than supply availability. It is possible that undivided attention of the USN could have changed the Battle of the Atlantic slightly, with a change in the P/Q convoy's success the most likely alteration.
 
The turning point is 1931 where the army got Japan involved in a war of conquest of Manchuria without orders, and also planned a coup.

If the later was discovered and then the former, before either took place, maybe another group could have been in charge.
 
Is there anyway for Japan’s forays into China not to lead to an economic boycott and a resulting war with the western powers?

Perhaps the western powers recognize their own hypocrisy in opposing Japan while having their own colonies while Japan is willing to settle for limited gains like Manchuria and preferential/beneficial trading agreements.

After all, the western powers do not want war in Asia (’36-’39) and have never shown any moral problems with carving up weaker nations. So there is a window of opportunity to reach some kind of settlement that would satisfy Japan, allow the western powers a free hand to focus on Germany and leave China with most of its territory intact.

The result on WWII could be very great or relatively minor. In OTL, the western powers did not deploy that much military potential in CBI/Pacific so while their forces arrayed against Germany are strengthened, they are not strengthened by that much! The possible butterfly is Russia. If Japan is pro-Germany, Russia will be forced to maintain a sizeable force in the east (yes, Stalin still kept forces in Asia but what he could redeploy turned the tide in 1941), possibly leading to a German victory in 1941. On the other hand, if Japan is now pro-allies, it will allow Russia to redeploy even more forces to the west, perhaps easing their victory over Germany.

On a tactical level, the emergence of the carrier as the queen of the seas is severely retarded while the battleship retains its supreme position.
 
The possible butterfly is Russia. If Japan is pro-Germany, Russia will be forced to maintain a sizeable force in the east (yes, Stalin still kept forces in Asia but what he could redeploy turned the tide in 1941), possibly leading to a German victory in 1941. On the other hand, if Japan is now pro-allies, it will allow Russia to redeploy even more forces to the west, perhaps easing their victory over Germany.
You have to be aware that IOTL USSR maintained the same troop strength on the Far East in 1941-1945 as in 1939-1941. Red Army wasn't less ready to teach Japanese a lesson in a darkest hours of 1941 then it was in 1939.

One event that could butterfly Japanese getting into WWII (i.e. declaring war on European powers and USA, as world seemed to be positively unwilling to go to war over Japanese screwing up China) is early discovery of the Daqing Oil Field. American oil embargo was an event that practically forced Japanese to attack, they were strangled without American or Indonesian oil. Give them Daqing and thy have no immediate reason to go to war.
 
Keeping the Japanese OUT of WW II is the hardest part. They were the first major belligerent (Manchuria 1931) to engage in aggression. Two full years before the generally recognized outbreak of WW II with Germany's invasion of Poland, the IJA with strong IJN air support, was cutting a swath across China. To prevent the Chinese War is almost an ASB event.

Why? The war's beginning was a very unlikely event, done without any sort of premeditation on the High Command in Tokyo. Even once it began, most people expected Chiang to cave and allow the formation of a larger Chinese puppet in NOrth China.

The actual change in men & material to the ETO would be a minor change, although the 1944 introduction of the B-29 would greatly increase the bombing capacity of the 8th Air Force. The timing of the ETO actions was pretty much set by factors far different than supply availability. It is possible that undivided attention of the USN could have changed the Battle of the Atlantic slightly, with a change in the P/Q convoy's success the most likely alteration.

What about the Royal Navy being present in the region, or Australian troops?
 
Japan is invited and seated as a Member of the Allies in the treaty of Versailles, courted as an equal and these nations quietly amend their racist laws to make the Japanese "White".

I think it's quite possible to overlook Japan's success at OTL Versailles. Recognized as a Great Power, receiving Germany's colonies....

Japan returns from Versailles with a major victory on their hands. China, meanwhile, is ignored by the Allies--to the point where the Japanese recieve most of Germany's colonies in the East.

Isn't this OTL?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Why? The war's beginning was a very unlikely event, done without any sort of premeditation on the High Command in Tokyo. Even once it began, most people expected Chiang to cave and allow the formation of a larger Chinese puppet in NOrth China.

Some recent research has called the whole "Rouge Kwantung Army" into some question. Among other published works Combined Fleet Decoded, where the authors are looking at original Japanese records, indicate that the entire series of events may have had a good deal more higher authority than previously believed.

Even if the Kwantung Army did go off on its own, the IJA didn't relieve commaners (much less encourage them to make amends to the Emperor) which would be the norm. Japan, overall, was attempting to fit an early 19th Century model of colonialism into a mid-20th Century event. Worse, it continued to push on in a bad situation (hardly an unique act, but particularly bad when you are contemplating a second, far more dangerous, war).



What about the Royal Navy being present in the region, or Australian troops?

The RN presence in the Pacific was far from debilitating to the British ( or Allied) War effort. Australian troops were deployed vs. the Germans in considerable number, with the number left being what the Australian government would have held for continental defense in any case.

The ETO followed a schedule that had little to nothing to do with the Pacific War. The bomber offensive was completely unaffected (at least until 1944 when the B-29 wasn't deployed to the ETO, by which time the combined bomber commands were blotting out the sun & stars over the Reich in any case), and the Battle of the Atlantic was decided by Intel more than vessels deployed. Ground combat, from Torch onward, were paced by available troops and landing craft construction. The USMC only had a total of two divisions deployed in 1942-43, with additional Army troops going into the Southwest Pacific in 1943 (when the manpower tap was opened sufficiently that it didn't cause problems in the ETO). The invasion of Sicily, Italy, even Normandy, happened at just about the earliest date possible for success. Especially in the case of Normandy any earlier attempt would have been an invitation to disaster.

Even if the Japanese hadn't gone to war with the West, the U.S. would have left force deployments for the USN virtually unchanged. The IJN presented a force in being and a possible threat, one that the U.S. had to honor.

Could the presence of several carriers, two or three BB's with the regular assocciated CA, CL, & DD escorts helped significantly in the Atlantic or Med starting in mid 1942?

It's hard to see how, considering the teething problems the USN had once it entered the war IOTL.

The Marines, which were the primary U.S. Pacific infantry force engaged in 1942, were also not well equipped to deal with ETO conditions. They were mostly a light infantry force, albeit one with more heavy equipment and far better developed combined arms doctrine than the IJA or IJN Landing Forces possessed. The Marines would have been good infantry, but the Allies HAD plenty of good infantry, and Marine formations generally lacked the logistical tail to engage in combat well inland (something that is still largely the case).

Could the Allies have taken Sicily a few days faster with 1st & 2nd Marines involved? Probably. Would that change the ETO in any significant way? No.

Would Italy have been changed into a rapid victory instead of a slugging match crawling across ground ideal for defense? Almost certainly not; although it is unlikely that a Marine led Anzio would have turned out as poorly as IOTL (of course it is hard to see how it could have gone worse).

Would Normandy have been easier with the troops engaged in the Pacific?

Very unlikely. There was only so much landing beach available & the thing the Allies needed most was better heavy armor; unfortunately, the Allies didn't HAVE heavy armor, nor did they realize that any was needed until after engaging the Heer.

The Pacific War didn't hurt the ETO, just as the famed "Europe First" strategy had minimal impact on the Pacific.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Maybe, if the Japanese don't seize French Indochina and actually try to talk business with the Dutch Governement instead of trying to puppet them, the embargo could be averted. That means a financially better Netherlands, a VERY different post-war East Asia and a different ETO as well ofcourse. I still think that the US would join the fray. Post war independence of French Indochina, the DEI and Burma happen on European terms instead of through wars.
 
Top