Japan stays neutral in WWII
- Thread starter Hawkeye
- Start date
Flubber
Banned
1935? No.
1941, absent any changes? Yes.
And, yes, I realize you're referring to the official start of the 2nd Sino-Japanese War as opposed to the 1931 invasion of Manchuria after the Mukden Incident.
Other things change before that.
We'll assume no butterflies altering significant events in Europe before 1941 (Hitler is not killed by Elser's bomb; the Mechelen incident convinces Germany to adopt Manstein's plan, while confirming Allied expectations of the right wheel; Germany gets away with the Norway campaign; Rommel gets sent to Africa; Enigma gets broken as OTL, including the Navy break after the capture of U-110; etc).
OK. The first issue is what happens in Indochina, as Japan is not meddling there. I think it sits Vichyite but inactive until 1942.
Next. If Japan is truly neutral, the USSR has less reason to maintain large forces in the Far East. The Siberian reserves come east sooner, and the Battle of Moscow isn't as close. One knock-on: if Japan doesn't occupy Manchuria, then there will be no Nomonhan campaign, and Zhukov doesn't get a boost in his career.
Third. With no threat from Japan, Britain doesn't put much force into Malaya; instead the assets go to North Africa. This really starts to matter in late 1941. CRUSADER is a more decisive Allied success, and unlike OTL the Allies follow up, rather than divert forces to the Far East in December.
Thus the North Africa campaign probably ends with Allied victory in early-mid 1942. The ending is key, because the Axis may retreat into Tunisia and continue fighting, which violates French North Africa's neutrality. Can the Axis get away with that or would they accept the defeat?
Assuming the Axis has surrendered in Libya... What now happens in French North Africa?
One thing that affects this is the status of the U.S. at this time? The U.S. has been providing Lend-Lease since March 1941, opposing U-boats in the Atlantic, pledging support for "the destruction of Nazi tyranny" (the Atlantic Charter, August 1941). And mobilizing for possible war. Without Japan precipitating events, it seems unlikely Hitler will declare war. But the ongoing naval war in the Atlantic will provide FDR with a series of provocations.
I think sometime in mid-1942 the U.S. declares war. Until then, the western Atlantic is off-limits to U-boats, which has a substantial effect on the Battle of the Atlantic (about 2.5M tons not sunk). When the US declares war, the U-boats run wild along the Atlantic coast as OTL - but the U.S. has a lot more escorts and aircraft to counter, holding down losses by about 1.5M tons.
At this time U-boat Enigma was secure, a major disadvantage to the Allies. The break came after the lucky capture of code manuals from a foundering U-boat (an obvious butterfly target) in October. Let's give the Axis a little good news, and put that off three months. So losses are 1M tons higher.
Meanwhile, with the U.S. in the war, and the Axis evicted from Africa, French North Africa comes over in July 1942. (An internal coup by pro-Allied elements of the Vichy French there, supported by immediate US/British intervention.)
This gives the Allies Morocco and Dakar as bases, another boost in the Atlantic. VLR aircraft and improved radar will come on line in early 1943, also the Independence-class CVLs.
The Axis will still resume its offensive on the Eastern Front, and there will be more pressure than OTL for a Second Front Now, since there are no Allied ground forces fighting anywhere.
Three possibilities: 1) Sicily, the obvious choice in the Med. 2) Crete - the planning would start in April or so, and until French North Africa is secured, Sicily isn't practical, plus 8th Army is the most experienced Allied force. 3) SLEDGEHAMMER - a 1942 invasion of France.
Bear in mind the U.S. is not in the war until May or so.
Crete looks like the best option, although it is out of range for land-based air cover. One thing that was not possible OTL was the use of Allied carriers en masse to provide air cover. The carriers were mostly in the Pacific. Here all six U.S. carriers and some British carriers could be used to put say 400 fighters over the beachhead.
It could be done in August. US Marines would be the US ground element. The Marines could then carry on an amphibious campaign in the Aegean. Meanwhile the British and the Army go after Sicily in October. In January 1943 Italy falls.
By summer 1943, there are enough landing craft and troops for a cross-Channel invasion, and maybe even for a supporting landing in southern France. Allied air power will be striking Ploesti from the Aegean. The Soviets having turned back the Axis 1942 offensive will be on the attack. OTOH, the Allied armies will be less experienced and dominant, and the Luftwaffe much less destroyed. The benefits of no Pacific War (more landing craft) don't matter after the landings. Specifics become hard to lay out; I estimate V-E Day in mid-1944.
Last edited:
Flubber
Banned
How many times a month is this nonsense refuted here?
The USSR never pulled troops out of the Far East during the war. In fact, USSR troops strength grew in the Far East. The "Siberian" troops used in front of Moscow came from Central Asia.
They all look like the same mongrel Chinks to the Nazis and wehraboos.How many times a month is this nonsense refuted here?
The USSR never pulled troops out of the Far East during the war. In fact, USSR troops strength grew in the Far East. The "Siberian" troops used in front of Moscow came from Central Asia.
elkarlo
Banned
If Japan kept control of Taiwan/Korea til about 1950, they would have been deep into becoming integrated. The Korean language was close to be being stamped out by 1945, and it took the Koreans a tremendous effort to save their language.
Source? A lot of people may have spoken Japanese, but to say they were about to forget Korean frankly seems retarded, like saying that Swedish is bound to become a dead language because a bunch of people there speak fantastic English.
Here is a question that occurs to me: If Japan clearly wants to remain neutral and isn't open to joining the Anti-Comintern Pact, does Germany look elsewhere for more allies? If Germany can't count on the IJN trying down large parts of the USN in the event of war, do they pursue a different policy towards the US?
the decolonisation of korea would go as smoothly as the decolonisation of siberia, scotland, hyderabad, north mexico and the papal states.
Is it possible that Japan could end up at the head of a Fascist Bloc during the Cold War?
Flubber
Banned
I'd say yes, but there aren't any other candidates that will even come close to meeting Germany's rather vague requirements. Putting it another way, the Nazis will look but they won't find.
No, no significant changes. Any examination of the US' potential as an enemy will be filtered through a Nazi lens.
Indeed. Of course with a much less expansionist Japan you might see at least some of those troops being sent west this time around, which would be one more nail in Hitler's coffin.How many times a month is this nonsense refuted here?
The USSR never pulled troops out of the Far East during the war. In fact, USSR troops strength grew in the Far East. The "Siberian" troops used in front of Moscow came from Central Asia.
Quote:
If Germany can't count on the IJN trying down large parts of the USN in the event of war, do they pursue a different policy towards the US?
The "nazi Lens" indeed.
Which nazi leader is connected to the remark: "Americans can only build refrigerators and washing machines" ?
IIRC Hitler repeatedly dismissed intelligence estimates of US weapons production as 'insane' & impossible.
This can lead to a twist. First recall how the US had established a small naval force in Iceland circa March 1941. A brigade of Marines, some aircraft and some base operations personnel to service ships and run a communications station. Hitler was anoyed with the US replacing British occupation forces, but took no action at the time. Also recall how Admiral Leahey, the US Ambassador to France & other diplomats had been conducting 'talks' concerning US/French relations and questions about various French possesions world wide should Axis forces threaten to occupy them against the wishes of the French government.
Next recall how Petain was severely disappointed when Hitler failed to start serious peace negotiations with him in 1941, and had become increasingly disillusioned with French prospects by the start of 1942. ..and last review how Petains policy had as its first objective the preservation of the French empire as part of the basis for rebuilding France.
Now lets step a bit onto WI territory. With the Axis pressuring Petains government for the use of Tunisia as both a supply and retreat route, and the prospect that this will drag France back into the war as a active Axis partner Petain may take a radical step. Since the Axis move into Tunisia & presumably other locations would precipitate the British making counter moves, as with Syria the previous year, this would be the start of two major opponents taking control of its empire in seperate bits. A bold and unorthodox move would be for Petain to invite the US to take the French empire into protective custody, one step ahead of a Axis move.
This gambles on slightly better odds the empire will survive than if the Axis and British make their moves. Petain can, as he did in OTL to Darlan, instruct the senior French leaders to form a new French government in exile when as is inevitable the Germans shut down the Vichy rump state & dissolve its residual military power. He can also dispatch his remaining anti German leaders to the colonies to help assemble a legit Free French government.
What his leads to is the the US Navy landing some regiments and a few squadrons of aircraft on the North African coast a week or two ahead of Hitler presenting Petain with a ultimatum to allow Axis entry. Now if the Axis do move into Tunisia, or other key locations they will be in direct confrontation with the US Army & Navy & viola you have the US in the war.
REALITY
Admitedly Petain is unlikely to make such a bold move. A more likely variant of this is either the US occupies the Azores to 'help' the Portuguese keep their nuetrality, or after the Axis armies enter Tunisia the US starts occupying French possesions, starting in the western hemisphere and moving on to locations in Africa. At some point this US expansion of its Nuetrality Zone" is going to tip Hitler over the edge & into war with the US.
If Germany can't count on the IJN trying down large parts of the USN in the event of war, do they pursue a different policy towards the US?
The "nazi Lens" indeed.
Which nazi leader is connected to the remark: "Americans can only build refrigerators and washing machines" ?
IIRC Hitler repeatedly dismissed intelligence estimates of US weapons production as 'insane' & impossible.
This can lead to a twist. First recall how the US had established a small naval force in Iceland circa March 1941. A brigade of Marines, some aircraft and some base operations personnel to service ships and run a communications station. Hitler was anoyed with the US replacing British occupation forces, but took no action at the time. Also recall how Admiral Leahey, the US Ambassador to France & other diplomats had been conducting 'talks' concerning US/French relations and questions about various French possesions world wide should Axis forces threaten to occupy them against the wishes of the French government.
Next recall how Petain was severely disappointed when Hitler failed to start serious peace negotiations with him in 1941, and had become increasingly disillusioned with French prospects by the start of 1942. ..and last review how Petains policy had as its first objective the preservation of the French empire as part of the basis for rebuilding France.
Now lets step a bit onto WI territory. With the Axis pressuring Petains government for the use of Tunisia as both a supply and retreat route, and the prospect that this will drag France back into the war as a active Axis partner Petain may take a radical step. Since the Axis move into Tunisia & presumably other locations would precipitate the British making counter moves, as with Syria the previous year, this would be the start of two major opponents taking control of its empire in seperate bits. A bold and unorthodox move would be for Petain to invite the US to take the French empire into protective custody, one step ahead of a Axis move.
This gambles on slightly better odds the empire will survive than if the Axis and British make their moves. Petain can, as he did in OTL to Darlan, instruct the senior French leaders to form a new French government in exile when as is inevitable the Germans shut down the Vichy rump state & dissolve its residual military power. He can also dispatch his remaining anti German leaders to the colonies to help assemble a legit Free French government.
What his leads to is the the US Navy landing some regiments and a few squadrons of aircraft on the North African coast a week or two ahead of Hitler presenting Petain with a ultimatum to allow Axis entry. Now if the Axis do move into Tunisia, or other key locations they will be in direct confrontation with the US Army & Navy & viola you have the US in the war.
REALITY
Admitedly Petain is unlikely to make such a bold move. A more likely variant of this is either the US occupies the Azores to 'help' the Portuguese keep their nuetrality, or after the Axis armies enter Tunisia the US starts occupying French possesions, starting in the western hemisphere and moving on to locations in Africa. At some point this US expansion of its Nuetrality Zone" is going to tip Hitler over the edge & into war with the US.
Utterly outside the box for Petain, and sure to be opposed by the rest of the Vichy crowd. The U.S. is after all a de facto British ally. Even if they want to avert Axis occupation of Tunisia, they don't want to risk German occupation of all France, which is a likely result of handing over North Africa to an enemy of Germany.
Highly unlikely. Portugal's neutrality is under no threat. The Allies would love to have bases in the Azores, but they won't invade a neutral country. Iceland was not a neutral country, it was a possession of Denmark which was at war with Germany.
If Axis forces do move into Tunisia... In what strength? The British having entered western Libya, Malta has been massively reinforced and the Axis is going to have trouble supporting forces in Tunisia. The French in general are going to be annoyed, and expect the British to beat the Axis, which means pro-Allied opportunism among them. Maybe the British can take control of Morocco and Algeria. They don't have the force for TORCH level operation, but the Axis looks a lot weaker, so the French may roll over. The Axis is in Tunisia because they got their asses kicked out of Egypt and Libya. There could be a pro-Allied coup d'etat in response to the Axis incursion.
When I talk about the country, I am talking about her political leadership, not the people. As the saying goes: "Good people in the world anymore, but bad people are better organized." I see no reason to power in Japan, while pacifists came.
IIRC, Tooze pointed out that the Germans were much more concerned about the US industrial potential than they would utter in public. Even Goering, "refrigerators and washing machines" was very apprehensive about the US. Hitler, in fact, admired the US production and the US empire (as he understood it) and saw it as a ideal to follow. In his twisted world, the Germans would enjoy American life standard at the expense of everyone else.
What the Germans doubted was not so much industrial potential of the US, but the fighting spirit and military prowess of the US Army and its soldiers, as well as the desire of the US government to get into the war.
Absent Japanese, I think the Germans would pursue more conciliatory diplomacy towards the US, their in-house public blustering notwithstanding.
That is going to happen anyway when the British execute their plan for Operation Gymnast, and pursue the Axis from Lybia into Tunisia.
Actually the Danes signed a armistice with the German government & continued to administrate the nation into 1943. In 1941 the Danish ambassador to the US signed a treaty allowing the US to militarily occupy Greenland. IIRC it was quite awhile before the Germans learned about that one.
I've seen descriptions of the British/Potuguese discussion of letting the Brits occupy the Azores. Ultimately the Brits did establish two naval stations and two airfields on 1943. It is not beyond belief the Portuguese might accmodate the US in 1942.
Malta does not interdict the sea routes to Bizerte & Tunis the same way it does Tripoli. The route from Naples along the north coast of Sicily is not prohibitively further to Bizerte than the route via the Strait of Messenia.
That creates the same conditions for a German occupation of Metropolitan France as the US occupation. In any case inviting the US in is a preemptive move, before the Axis enter Tunisia. It would be politically 'difficult' for any French government, but from a purely logical stand point it makes sense.
I think without World War II or without Japan entering the war, I think it would be Jun'ichi Nakahara be known as one of the people that pushed the development of Anime/Manga, he was an illustrator for a magazine but it was him that inspired some early mangaka and his artstyle is similar to the Animes and Manga that we now see nowadays but the development might be slower..
Last edited:
Unless you posit a PoD in the early 20th century that essentially eliminates any Japanese expansionist trends toward SE Asian and Indonesia, I think it is unlikely Japan would remain a true neutral in the European War and will still have hostile relationships with the USA. The strategic view of the Japanese navy was that Japan needed eventually to secure the oil resources of the Dutch East Indies to ensure a reliable source of oil for the fleet.
Assuming the European War trends pretty much as OTL through 1941, the temptation will be there for Japan to sieze both Vichy Indonesia and the Dutch Indies. An interesting wrinkle might be that Japan could do this in collaboration with its old ally Britain and claim the occupations were to ensure that neither area falls under the control of German client states. This would complicate how the US responds, especially with respect to protection of the Phillipines. This might result in a situation where the US cools a bit toward Britain and focus its interest more on Asia.
All of this might affect the aggressive stance the US takes against Germany and its Lend-Lease assistance to Britain - both of which might lessen the possibility of the US entering the European War.
Assuming the European War trends pretty much as OTL through 1941, the temptation will be there for Japan to sieze both Vichy Indonesia and the Dutch Indies. An interesting wrinkle might be that Japan could do this in collaboration with its old ally Britain and claim the occupations were to ensure that neither area falls under the control of German client states. This would complicate how the US responds, especially with respect to protection of the Phillipines. This might result in a situation where the US cools a bit toward Britain and focus its interest more on Asia.
All of this might affect the aggressive stance the US takes against Germany and its Lend-Lease assistance to Britain - both of which might lessen the possibility of the US entering the European War.
Malta
What Malta does interdict is the Sicilian airfields, the transports can be left to the Med Fleet. see Operation Retribution and Flax.
How well it does in that depends entirely on the dates.
What Malta does interdict is the Sicilian airfields, the transports can be left to the Med Fleet. see Operation Retribution and Flax.
How well it does in that depends entirely on the dates.