Japan in WWII without China

Suppose Japan, for whatever reason (mainly an extremely harsh crackdown on army officers who try to unilaterally create incidents) avoids the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937. However, it is still fairly hungry for Empire. As a result, it has it's sights on European colonies in the Pacific. WWII still breaks out roughly on schedule, but Japan takes advantage of the war in Europe to invade European colonies but does not attack the US. How plausible is this and what happens next?
 

Zachariah

Banned
Suppose Japan, for whatever reason (mainly an extremely harsh crackdown on army officers who try to unilaterally create incidents) avoids the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937. However, it is still fairly hungry for Empire. As a result, it has it's sights on European colonies in the Pacific. WWII still breaks out roughly on schedule, but Japan takes advantage of the war in Europe to invade European colonies but does not attack the US. How plausible is this and what happens next?
Fairly plausible- after all, it'd still be firmly on the side of the Allies, markedly more so than the Americans. And as such, they'd likely be called upon to provide the bulk of the occupation forces for the Asian colonial territories of puppetized Axis regimes, by the British and by the exiled French and Dutch government, who'd desperately need as much of their own manpower as possible back in the European and North African theatres. Australia wouldn't be too happy about it, and they'd likely try and occupy and take over as much as they could for themselves (such as French Caledonia and Dutch New Guinea), but they wouldn't be able to do much about it either. And with free rein to administer and Japanize those colonies for as long as the war lasts, the Imperial Japanese would want to milk the situation for all it was worth, rushing to establish puppet regimes in all of their occupied territories in the same manner as they did in Manchukuo as soon as the end of the war's in sight, and handing power over to them (i.e, in reality, to themselves) instead of returning them to the European colonial empires.

Naturally, all of these new independent regimes- Sukarno's Indonesia, the Kingdom of Cambodia and Kingdom of Annam would all be dead-certs, though British territories such as Burma and Malaya would probably remain off-limits- would be integrated as members of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere from the start, and like Manchukuo and Mengjiang, would also likely been integrated into the Yen Bloc wherever possible, widening its reach far beyond Japan's own holdings and making the Yen the world's first economic federation single currency. As for what would be likely to happen next- well, the anti-imperialist movements in Asia would be more likely to congregate under Japan and its Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere than either the Americans' NATO or the Soviets' Warsaw Pact, and you'd wind up with a post-WW2 Cold War world divided into three camps instead of two, with a 'Fourth World' instead of a 'Third World'.

From there, you could take the TL in any direction. If the Soviets (and presumably the Chinese, who would mostly likely be pushed far deeper into the Soviet camp if the Communists do still emerge victorious) were suicidally reckless enough to go after Korea (and/or Manchukuo, and/or Mengjiang) in the 50's though, or conversely if the Japanese and the GEACPS were suicidally reckless enough to go after more territory in Russia and China, then the conflict would definitely wind up becoming TTL's WW3, whether or not the Allies and NATO got involved- WW3 ITTL would IMHO be more likely to kick off in East Asia than in Eastern Europe. If the Japanese had still managed to remain allied with the Allies after all of their gains from WW2 though, then the Soviets would almost certainly wind up losing.
 
They'd likely be called upon to provide the bulk of the occupation forces for the Asian colonial territories of puppetized Axis regimes, by the British and by the exiled French and Dutch government, who'd desperately need as much of their own manpower as possible back in the European and North African theatres.

What??

The Japanese are invading the European colonies in the far east. They aren't allied, they are attacking them. You have no difference between OTL and TTL in that regard outside of the Japanese not being in China.. This never happened in the first World War when the Japanese were allied to the British and French in the region, sure as HELL isn't going to happen when they are attacking the empire.


WWII still breaks out roughly on schedule, but Japan takes advantage of the war in Europe to invade European colonies but does not attack the US. How plausible is this and what happens next?

If the Japanese aren't at war with the Chinese then they have no reason to attack the far eastern possessions. Pretty much the whole reason they struck south was due to the oil embargo that was placed on them when they attacked China in 37. Could the embargo still be happening in TTL? Possible but not anywhere near as likely to happen. The occupation of Manchuria was a few years gone and I'm not sure the powers in the region would force an embargo for that event only, especially the Americans.

If they still for some reason did the exact same thing America wouldn't stay out for long. A environment where the Japanese strike south but do not attack PH or the Philippines will entail their lines of communication under constant monitoring by increasingly aggressive and intrusive American sea and air patrols. Sooner or later, somebody is going to take a shot at somebody.
American skippers will be given very liberal rules of engagement and they will be told to use their "best judgement" when it comes to acting in self defense and if that means shooting first, the chain of command up to the President will back you up.

In the Pacific, there will be Japanese commanders down at the unit level who think that to attacking the Americans and just leaving them alone was a bad idea.

Somebody is going to shoot.
 
Yeah the Japanese taking possession of places like Indonesia without occupying the Philippines is highly unlikely as that would be a huge tactical and strategic disadvantage. Imperialistic, military expansion like that didn't sit well with the Wallies and Japan can't take possession of any Pacific territories without pissing off the US and have them stay out all of it. They have to take into account the possibility. If they don't they are signing heir own death warrant and eventually the US is going to do something about it simply because they can.

and i'm not sure what got into @Zachariah but that is a really absurd scenario.
 
There are several opposing factors that not going to war in China would result in:

1. No need to expend all that resources and men into fighting the war, meaning Manchurian development would have happened on schedule or perhaps even accelerated.
2. Unless Japan starts "pressuring" Europe to station troops in the colonies, there are less reasons for conflict with the US, meaning less plausibility for the embargo and such.
3. The two factors above means higher plausibility of a conflict with the Soviet Union, so if Japan somehow convinces the (future) Western Allies that they are not going to be hostile to direct interests, perhaps Japan might start a Soviet-Japanese War.
4. (3) would cause massive butterflies which would make this post a lot longer.
 
There are several opposing factors that not going to war in China would result in:

1. No need to expend all that resources and men into fighting the war, meaning Manchurian development would have happened on schedule or perhaps even accelerated.
2. Unless Japan starts "pressuring" Europe to station troops in the colonies, there are less reasons for conflict with the US, meaning less plausibility for the embargo and such.
3. The two factors above means higher plausibility of a conflict with the Soviet Union, so if Japan somehow convinces the (future) Western Allies that they are not going to be hostile to direct interests, perhaps Japan might start a Soviet-Japanese War.
4. (3) would cause massive butterflies which would make this post a lot longer.
I was going to say that not only are the butterflies huge, but that the Japanese are more likely to go after the Soviets.

Then again, if the Kwantung Army is pulled back under civilian control after the massive crackdown, the militarists are likely heavily hurt and will lose its influence. Why would they continue to be aggressive and expansionist? The war on China was the principle cataclyst for Japan's imperial and resource thirst. A return to Taishou-style democracy is even possible at that point if the crazies are neutered and government-by-assassination ceases.

Seriously, don't underestimate the butterflies this causes.
 
I was going to say that not only are the butterflies huge, but that the Japanese are more likely to go after the Soviets.

Then again, if the Kwantung Army is pulled back under civilian control after the massive crackdown, the militarists are likely heavily hurt and will lose its influence. Why would they continue to be aggressive and expansionist? The war on China was the principle cataclyst for Japan's imperial and resource thirst. A return to Taishou-style democracy is even possible at that point if the crazies are neutered and government-by-assassination ceases.

Seriously, don't underestimate the butterflies this causes.

You still have the looming threat of the Red Bear standing over your (increasingly important) Manchurian and Korean resource base though. If Japan is depending on mainland rice, coal, and iron in order to keep its economy going and to pay for goods from the Europeans, than having Stalin (Who showed he had no compunction attacking other states on Russia's border: See Finland, the Baltics, and Poland) having a knife aimed at your industrial heart is a major threat, since you have no strategic depth. The Red Menace is real, even without Fascist pressure.

Granted, you might not see the Japanese government actively pushing for a conquest of the USSR or tying itself to Hitler (Who could very well maintain Germany's old ties to the Chinese in this case). But Manchuko is still going to need defending, and more active roles on both sides could very well spark off a conflict where Japan is arguably playing the part of the victim rather than the aggressor. In that case, the military is going to regain at least some of its former power in "war measures" for the protection of Japanese society and sovereignty from Stalin's dictatorship.
 
Last edited:
I was going to say that not only are the butterflies huge, but that the Japanese are more likely to go after the Soviets.

Then again, if the Kwantung Army is pulled back under civilian control after the massive crackdown, the militarists are likely heavily hurt and will lose its influence. Why would they continue to be aggressive and expansionist? The war on China was the principle cataclyst for Japan's imperial and resource thirst. A return to Taishou-style democracy is even possible at that point if the crazies are neutered and government-by-assassination ceases.

Seriously, don't underestimate the butterflies this causes.

See, i don't think thats true. the war with China didn't cause the imperial and resource thirst, it was part of it. Both the politicians, the emperor and the masses thought and spoke in Imperialistic ways. The IJA and IJN were two seperate entities headed for the same goal, expansionism. The acted on their own and the Japanese navy, since the 20's was build around the idea of a fight against the Americans and the resource rich pacific territories.

No war with China won't stop them being Imperialists(although it sound un-imperialistic), it will just give them resources to use elsewhere for their imperialistic goals. Anyone who replaces the people starting the war in China will have imperialistic goals elsewhere.
 

Deleted member 1487

Here is a response I gave to OP via PM earlier:
without a war in China the Japanese probably go to war with the USSR or at least escalate the border conflict in 1938-39. They are probably still part of the Comintern and without the sanctions put on them as a result of the war with China (though maybe due to occupying French Indo-China?) they most certainly go with war with the USSR in 1941 when Germany invades; IOTL it was the conflict in China+US sanctions that kept them from getting involved, but the IJA would more likely than not drag them into the war in 1941 in probably September.

Also @BobTheBarbarian this might be something you could weigh in on in terms of the border battles of 1938-39 without the war in China or sanctions on.
 
The problem I see however, is that Japan and China are still probably going to go to war sometime in the future, mainly over Manchuria; The Japanese aren't going to give up their jewel crown, and the Chinese are going to want it back since it was former Chinese territory for roughly 300 years.

They may possibly go to war against the USSR, especially when Germany starts Barbarossa since they might see the USSR as being weak, with it's Siberian territories as easy pickings.

Edit: Fixed Grammar and Spelling Errors.
 
Also @BobTheBarbarian this might be something you could weigh in on in terms of the border battles of 1938-39 without the war in China or sanctions on.

Historically there was a major war scare in the Kremlin that Japan would attack the USSR in 1937, but nothing came of it because Japan invaded China instead. In the late '30s neither country was really mobilized to support a protracted total war with the other; had Japan committed most or all of the troops that it did against China in 1939 to a war against the Soviets, say, after Khalkhin Gol, plus those available in Korea and Manchuria, there would have been about 35 divisions plus other units (Independent Brigades, Regiments, etc.) adding up to roughly 1.2 million soldiers, 3,500 or so field guns, 2,000 tanks, and 1,800 aircraft according to Soviet data.

Although the local Red Army forces in Far Eastern Russia were at the time considerably smaller than the above, the Japanese figures account for the vast majority of their standing Army in 1939; IGHQ would have only had about 550,000 men, 1,000 field guns, 300 tanks, and 1,200 aircraft on hand elsewhere, whereas the Soviets could call on tremendous reserves from European Russia to deploy to the Far East. Even if they took Vladivostok and Primorye they would be looking at a war of attrition in the Trans-Baikal against an undistracted USSR with a much larger standing force before the Japanese 1938-41 four year industrial plan could take effect. To decisively defeat the Soviet Union in a one-on-one confrontation (i.e, defeat the Red Army and occupy all of Siberia to Lake Baikal) it was estimated that they would have to wait until 1943 (Hachi-Go plan).

When Germany attacked the USSR in 1941, though, it led the Army General Staff to draft (and partially implement) a truncated version of the 1940 War Plan (itself similar to Hachi-Go Concept A), referred to as the Kantokuen Plan (article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantokuen). With no US sanctions to worry about Japan might have gone through with it - though likely not without economic fallout with the Americans for being so blatantly in bed with Hitler.
 

Deleted member 1487

Historically there was a major war scare in the Kremlin that Japan would attack the USSR in 1937, but nothing came of it because Japan invaded China instead. In the late '30s neither country was really mobilized to support a protracted total war with the other; had Japan committed most or all of the troops that it did against China in 1939 to a war against the Soviets, say, after Khalkhin Gol, plus those available in Korea and Manchuria, there would have been about 35 divisions plus other units (Independent Brigades, Regiments, etc.) adding up to roughly 1.2 million soldiers, 3,500 or so field guns, 2,000 tanks, and 1,800 aircraft according to Soviet data.

Although the local Red Army forces in Far Eastern Russia were at the time considerably smaller than the above, the Japanese figures account for the vast majority of their standing Army in 1939; IGHQ would have only had about 550,000 men, 1,000 field guns, 300 tanks, and 1,200 aircraft on hand elsewhere, whereas the Soviets could call on tremendous reserves from European Russia to deploy to the Far East. Even if they took Vladivostok and Primorye they would be looking at a war of attrition in the Trans-Baikal against an undistracted USSR with a much larger standing force before the Japanese 1938-41 four year industrial plan could take effect. To decisively defeat the Soviet Union in a one-on-one confrontation (i.e, defeat the Red Army and occupy all of Siberia to Lake Baikal) it was estimated that they would have to wait until 1943 (Hachi-Go plan).

When Germany attacked the USSR in 1941, though, it led the Army General Staff to draft (and partially implement) a truncated version of the 1940 War Plan (itself similar to Hachi-Go Concept A), referred to as the Kantokuen Plan (article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantokuen). With no US sanctions to worry about Japan might have gone through with it - though likely not without economic fallout with the Americans for being so blatantly in bed with Hitler.
How would the border clashes have gone without a war in China? Perhaps with an undistracted Japan and no non-aggression pact does the USSR leave large forces locked down in the East for fear of invasion? Also without any sort of tensions in the 1930s over China or the European colonies in the early 1940s, you really think the US Congress would immediately jump on the sanctions bandwagon for Japan if they invade the USSR? The US was not pro-Soviets at the time.
 
How would the border clashes have gone without a war in China? Perhaps with an undistracted Japan and no non-aggression pact does the USSR leave large forces locked down in the East for fear of invasion?

At all times the Soviets stationed enough forces to deal with any conflict short of total commitment by Japan.
 

Deleted member 1487

You're forgetting that Japan did not have the industrial capacity to handle logistics need for an full-scale invasion, as shown in 1939. Sure, no striking into China would mean a lot of butterflies which might make things better, but it's a long march.
How do you mean? They invaded a ton of China despite having to hold back substantial forces to guard Manchuria against the Soviets.
 
How would the border clashes have gone without a war in China? Perhaps with an undistracted Japan and no non-aggression pact does the USSR leave large forces locked down in the East for fear of invasion? Also without any sort of tensions in the 1930s over China or the European colonies in the early 1940s, you really think the US Congress would immediately jump on the sanctions bandwagon for Japan if they invade the USSR? The US was not pro-Soviets at the time.

I can't say for certain - historically the government in Tokyo was eager to put a lid on Lake Khasan and Khalkhin Gol precisely because the raging war in China was soaking up the bulk of their field strength, without that happening there is a possibility that one of the major border incidents might have been turned into a full-scale war retroactively justified by IGHQ, but IMO if Japan wanted to attack Siberia they would have taken a much more deliberate approach to buildup and readiness. Without a doubt Stalin and the STAVKA would have scrambled to cram as many men and machines as possible into Siberia to deter an attack from their rear, as the Japanese were regarded as the primary enemy (over Germany) until well into the '30s, with priorities shifting only after the 2nd Sino-Japanese War. It's probable that this would have been at the expense of the defenses of European Russia, and if a war broke out in the late 1930s there's no question the armies facing Germany would have been significantly weaker.

As for sanctions from the US, if Japan allied with Germany and invaded the USSR in 1941 - the USSR being the primary combatant against Hitler at that stage - it would be in America's vested interest to keep the Red Army fighting as long as possible to give themselves time to prepare.

Bob sort of proved otherwise in a thread on another forum:
https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/how-exactly-was-khalkhin-gol-a-loss.482434/page-8
Effectively raw numbers don't tell the full story.

It should be noted that those figures deal expressly with an invasion in 1941, and while having the China Expeditionary Army on hand to act against the Soviets would have been a boon to Japanese efforts, the general impression I get is that their army as a whole was considerably weaker logistically than it was during the Kantokuen period. Even then, pushing to Baikal was out of the question. Furthermore, under the 1938-39 hypothetical, even if Japan could concentrate enough troops to take the first objectives they would have relatively little in the way of standing reserves and a much reduced industrial base compared to 1941. They could inflict large casualties in an attrition campaign opposite the Great Khingan range as the border battles showed, but would likely tire before the Soviets after a period of a few years leading to some sort of settlement.

Perhaps if the war was still going on in 1941 and the Russians were bogged down and bleeding in Siberia the German "Barbarossa" plan might have been more successful, but we're drifting a bit too far off topic.
 
Top