Japan WI

[La Rouge Beret]

There have been several threads that have discussed the numerous flaws with the political, economic and military structure of Imperial Japan.

My hypothetical question is this if the following conditions are met:

• Unified high command between the IJA and IJN
• Cooperative approach to research between the IJA and IJN
• Focus on logistics and establishment of convoys with adequate protection
• Cooperative approach with occupation, i.e. Japan is in charge but does not commit atrocities
• Continued emphasis on R & D during the interbellum period
• Establishment of a puppet government or advantageous peace in China
• Ability to modify doctrine / tactics due to changing situation
• Balance emphasis on attack / defence

And in the words of Sharlin the allies do not turn into lead drinking idiots who bang their heads regularly. So if this rationalist Japanese Empire decide to commence the Pacific War on 7 December 1941 same as OTL, what happens?

How long would the war last and would it be possible for the Japanese to achieve a compromise peace?

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

There have been several threads that have discussed the numerous flaws with the political, economic and military structure of Imperial Japan.

My hypothetical question is this if the following conditions are met:

• Unified high command between the IJA and IJN
• Cooperative approach to research between the IJA and IJN
• Focus on logistics and establishment of convoys with adequate protection
• Cooperative approach with occupation, i.e. Japan is in charge but does not commit atrocities
• Continued emphasis on R & D during the interbellum period
• Establishment of a puppet government or advantageous peace in China
• Ability to modify doctrine / tactics due to changing situation
• Balance emphasis on attack / defence

And in the words of Sharlin the allies do not turn into lead drinking idiots who bang their heads regularly. So if this rationalist Japanese Empire decide to commence the Pacific War on 7 December 1941 same as OTL, what happens?

How long would the war last and would it be possible for the Japanese to achieve a compromise peace?

The war would last 4-6 years, and would end with a completely ruined Japan surrendering to the United States.

The discrepancy between the US and Japan in 1941 was ridiculous. Even if Japan had the modern-day equivalent of the Prussian General Staff with a modern-day Horatio Nelson commanding the IJN and a modern-day Napoleon commanding the IJA, Japan still would have lost, and lost hard.

 

[Zheng He]

I recommend finding a copy of the reinforcements track for the old Victory Games Pacific War. It is quite stunning.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

I am the first to admit the Japanese had no hope of beating the industrial powerhouse that was the United States alone, before we consider the cumulative impact from the other powers that were involved.

For me it is in the greater time that Imperial Japan is allowed to remain in power.

 

[Just Leo]

A co-operative research should include economists and statisticians who would put forth the suggestion that 70,000 tons of high-grade steel should be shaped into Toyotas instead of Yamatos. Replacing bayonets with daisies weren't the style at that stage, however.

 

[TxCoatl1970]

Bumping Cthulu's points!

No hate on you wanting a rational better-run Japan with a strategy for a long war and wondering WI the saner, more competent Japanese leadership still thought tangoing with the US after a surprise attack was a good idea ?!?

Um, then they wouldn't have been the OTL insane gamblers that would've OK'd the carrier strike in the first place.

As Just Leo said, rational actors would've found a way to enforce discipline in the IJA and prevent the various "incidents" of the 1930's that made everyone else look at the Japanese as a bunch of psychopaths not worth negotiating with.

The fatal flaw of the West is they didn't take Japan near as seriously as they did the menace of Hitler's regime in the 1930's.

Basically this is a WI the Nazis were competent, pragmatic, and non-racist, but still miltaristic?

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Exactly right if the Japanese government was comprised of rational actors then they would not have gone to war.

However, this is a thought exercise of how far Imperial Japan could go or last if their collective leadership and behaviour were not insane against the OTL Allies.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

Exactly right if the Japanese government was comprised of rational actors then they would not have gone to war.

However, this is a thought exercise of how far Imperial Japan could go or last if their collective leadership and behaviour were not insane against the OTL Allies.

This might sound kind of strange, but a smarter Japanese military might actually make things worse for Japan in the long run. If Japan was much smarter, but not smart enough to surrender, it could inflict huge casualties on the Americans.

Unfortunately, this is only going to make the Americans even angrier, which means that some of the more brutal members of the American military might be given the green light for some of their more inhuman proposals*.

*Like nuking Japan back into the stone age, starving the population to death, or permanently partitioning and occupying the country.

 

[Namayan]

This might sound kind of strange, but a smarter Japanese military might actually make things worse for Japan in the long run. If Japan was much smarter, but not smart enough to surrender, it could inflict huge casualties on the Americans.

Unfortunately, this is only going to make the Americans even angrier, which means that some of the more brutal members of the American military might be given the green light for some of their more inhuman proposals*.

*Like nuking Japan back into the stone age, starving the population to death, or permanently partitioning and occupying the country.

If the Japanese were smarter, they wouldn't even be fighting the USA. The best of Japanese military thinkers already recognized USA's industrial might in OTL pre-WW2.

The OPs requirement is really conflicting. In order for Japan to achieve that, it would not result to a Pacific war with the Allies nor even be a militarist nation. As per OP, A rationalist Japan would be benign as the Taisho democracy or as politically wise a Meiji government(allying with the Allies).

 

[La Rouge Beret]

This might sound kind of strange, but a smarter Japanese military might actually make things worse for Japan in the long run. If Japan was much smarter, but not smart enough to surrender, it could inflict huge casualties on the Americans.

*Like nuking Japan back into the stone age, starving the population to death, or permanently partitioning and occupying the country.

Hmmm, such as a Japanese version of the 'Second Happy Time,' or even flexible defence.

With greater American casualties hardening their resolve, this could result in a worse outcome for Imperial Japan.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

If the Japanese were smarter, they wouldn't even be fighting the USA. The best of Japanese military thinkers already recognized USA's industrial might in OTL pre-WW2.

The OPs requirement is really conflicting. In order for Japan to achieve that, it would not result to a Pacific war with the Allies nor even be a militarist nation. As per OP, A rationalist Japan would be benign as the Taisho democracy or as politically wise a Meiji government(allying with the Allies).

True, but the OP is assuming that this Japan is rational and smart except when it comes to going to war in the first place.

Hmmm, such as a Japanese version of the 'Second Happy Time,' or even flexible defence.

With greater American casualties hardening their resolve, this could result in a worse outcome for Imperial Japan.

Exactly. The US, up until that point, had no experience with losing large numbers of troops in warfare (with the possible exception of the Civil War). Add that to pre-existing anti-Japanese racism, and there is a terrifying possibility of a "Japanese Morgenthau Plan", where the US deliberately and permanently deindustrializes Japan, killing millions of civilians.

 

[Alex1guy]

If the Japanese were smarter, they wouldn't even be fighting the USA. The best of Japanese military thinkers already recognized USA's industrial might in OTL pre-WW2.

The OPs requirement is really conflicting. In order for Japan to achieve that, it would not result to a Pacific war with the Allies nor even be a militarist nation. As per OP, A rationalist Japan would be benign as the Taisho democracy or as politically wise a Meiji government(allying with the Allies).

I admit it's confusing me too. Because arguably the dumbest thing Japan did after invading a nation with twenty times it's population is get into a war with one that has ten times's it's industrial capacity.

Smart Japan probably wouldn't have pissed off the USA to such an extent. Smart Japan could keep it's military in line and not allow the tail to wag the proverbial dog. The reason for US antagonism and embargo was expansion in China and Indo-China the very same embargo that resulted in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in the first place.

I mean I suppose we could look at an Imperial Japan that more legitimately tries to create an "Asia for the Asians" or are at least not massive pricks in the process of building their own Empire and then ends up in a war with the USA for different reasons?

 

[Namayan]

True, but the OP is assuming that this Japan is rational and smart except when it comes to going to war in the first place.

You cannot really have a smart and rational japan and still declare war with the US or the allies.

All those hypothetical conditions by the OP will not lead to a pacific war with the US.