Japan First!

As we all know, once Roosevelt and Hirohito finally managed to convince America to throw itself into the war, they adopted a 'Europe First' policy to deal with the seperate theatres of war, largely as a result of Churchill and Roosevelt's unflinching belief in its importance.

But what if that hadn't been the case? Say, perhaps, the isolationist politicians, though finally forced to eat humble pie, remain obstinate enough to only agree to engaging Germany if the true aggressor against America- Japan- is dealt with first. Perhaps the generals simply believe that America can't prosecute an effective war against Nazi Germany until they've already 'practiced' and gotten geared-up against a lesser foe. Perhaps Japan is believed to be an actual threat to the American mainland, and so must be defeated first.

Whatever. What matters is that America decides to focus on the Pacific Theatre, and defeating Japan before any large-scale moves are made against Germany.

What happens? Does Chiang take De Gaulle's place? Do the Soviets gobble up Central Europe? Is this a blessing or a boon for the Axis?

Discuss.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Not much difference actually. One of the fictions of WW II is that the U.S. shortchanged the Pacific Theater; any examination of the facts makes it clear that this wasn't the case.

The Pacific War was, in the main, paced by naval construction. You could have had an extra division of Army troop on the 'Canal (although with the supply problems, feeding them might be more than a bit dicey) and a few more squadrons of P-38's in the Cactus Air Force, but that's about it. The infrastructure wasn't in place to handle large numbers of heavy bombers at Henderson Field (especially while it was subject to ongoing naval shelling and air attack, neither of which were going to be solved by a few more troops) or a huge number of fighters and attack bombers so the B-17 & B-24 squadrons sent to England and North Africa wouldn't have had a place to fight from if sent to the South Pacific.

It would, however, have been nice if the Marines on Guadacanal had been equipped with M-1s instead of M1903 & M1917 rifles and a few more tanks, but that's about all that would have helped (although the equipment issues of the USMC in 1942 had much more to do with pre-war Navy budget decisions than any "Europe First" strategy).

The Solomons Campaign was decided by attrition of naval airpower and surface combatants. At best the U.S. can move two fast battleships (Alabama & Massachusetts) and a few cruisers and 25 or so destroyers to the South Pacific if the Atlantic is ignored. The older WW I era ships like Texas are too slow to be of use with the fast carrier groups so sending them is a waste of effort. The USN was extremely reluctant to put heavy ships into "The Slot" after the August cruiser debacle, so the forces fighting around Guadacanal probably aren't helped at all if these ships are sent to the Pacific instead of the Med. The extra BBs, & CAs might help the escort screens of Hornet or Enterprise during East Solomons or Santa Cruz Islands enough that thecarriers get out in one piece; of course they might not.

The USN was playing a limited hand until the Essexes & Independences came off the 'ways & nothing but an ASB was going to get them built faster than IOTL. This being the case, a Japan First policy does nothing; everything that the Pacific could absorb (again, excepting some Garands and a couple dozen M-4 tanks) was pumped into the Theater as quickly as possible.
 
Indeed the battles in the Pacific would not have cvhanged a lot since it was all a matter of shipbuilding,

BUT:

What if as part of the Japan-First-Policy, the US decided to send an expeditionary force to South East Asia, battling Japan in that theatre? How about even more support in China or even a US campaign through India into China? Japan being bombed from airfields in China in 1944?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Indeed the battles in the Pacific would not have cvhanged a lot since it was all a matter of shipbuilding,

BUT:

What if as part of the Japan-First-Policy, the US decided to send an expeditionary force to South East Asia, battling Japan in that theatre? How about even more support in China or even a US campaign through India into China? Japan being bombed from airfields in China in 1944?

The Allies did have a campaign through Burma. It was bloody, brutal, and generally ignored at the time & even today. It was the primary Theater where the UK confronted the Japanese, basing, as suggested, out of India. Link regarding the China-Burma-India Theater: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/CBI/index.html

The U.S. did use bases in India & China to launch B-29 strikes, beginning in June of 1944. The operation was code named Matterhorn. http://www.acepilots.com/planes/b29.html They were very difficult to support logistically and were abandoned in favor of strikes from the far easier to supply & defend Marianas.
 
Top