No European WW2--What happens to Japan

I don't doubt the potential of all the scenarios you folks are tossing about but one thing that is apparent is that you are all making the same mistake the European powers made OTL during WWII in underestimating Japan's assets.


Ziomatix,

No one is discounting the IJN. On the other hand, we're not counting the IJN's strength and assets in 1941 for a potential war in the mid-1930s either.

For one thing from the 1930s at least up until Midway Japan had the 3rd largest navy in the world which was concentrated in the Pacific.

And, without a European war, the European navies, one of which is already larger than the IJN, can concentrate in the Pacific too.

Not to mention they had 23 of the most advanced destroyers which other navies such as the US's didn't have single vessel to match it in its class until 1934.

You still need to fuel destroyers and the USN is moot in this scenario.

Then you can also factor in it was the only other navy in the world aside from the US (or maybe French if they indeed had a chance to show themselves and militarily build up) to utilize modern aircraft carrier centric naval warfare of the kind that repelled the Pacific British Task Force alphabet soup.

First, Task Force Z was sunk by land based aircraft. Second, the carriers and carrier aircraft Japan used in the OTL Pacific war weren't around in the 1930s.

Soryu and Hiryu won't be launched until 1937 and the two Shokakus won;t be launched until 1941. Counting the marginal Hosho, the IJN has only four aircraft carriers as late as 1936. An examination of exactly what types of carrier aircraft were available in the mid-30s should be equally startling to you. The famous A6M Zero weren't operational until mid-1940 for example and then only in the A6M2 version.

Once again, you're counting on assets that appeared later than the period in question.

Also the Japanese had the initial upper hand in the battle of the hearts and minds...

That upper hand is nonexistent in China and the IJN isn't going to be landing divisions unopposed across southeast Asia as it did in the OTL.

I am not saying that Japan would have had the chance to score a total victory...

We're not saying it will be a cakewalk for the Europeans and Chinese either, but our appraisal of the mid-1930s Japanese military machine is far more realistic than yours.


Bill
 
Bill Cameron said:
And, without a European war, the European navies, one of which is already larger than the IJN, can concentrate in the Pacific too.
Forgive me but I think you putting to much faith in France and the UK dropping into gear in a timely manner. They kicked the can and played with their thumbs with Hitler who was far closer and much more of a threat than anything the Japanese could be. A war will be fought at some point, a war which the Euros will win, but much like the OTL I'd bet for it to be in the forties rather than the late thirties.
 
A war will be fought at some point, a war which the Euros will win, but much like the OTL I'd bet for it to be in the forties rather than the late thirties.


Mr. Nobody,

Sadly, Osakadave seem to have his heart set on the 1930s.

Perhaps if you talked to him about your 1940s ideas?


Bill
 
Still..

Ziomatix,

No one is discounting the IJN. On the other hand, we're not counting the IJN's strength and assets in 1941 for a potential war in the mid-1930s either.

All the Fubuki class destroyers will already be operational at that point in time. You combine that with escort cruisers and the four operational aircraft carriers at the time and it still would have stood as a formidable force for a "decisive battle."

And, without a European war, the European navies, one of which is already larger than the IJN, can concentrate in the Pacific too.

Do you understand the concept behind the capability of first or a preemptive strike? The British may have had the largest navy but it was spread across the 4 corners of the globe protecting all parts of the Commonwealth. Remember this is the 1930s we're assessing, before radar came into wide use and the most reliable communication between great distances was still Morse Code. Having the entirety of even the 5th or 6th largest navy in the area poses a great risk for a fraction of the 1st.


You still need to fuel destroyers and the USN is moot in this scenario.

Alright so that just prompts Japan to go after the Dutch East Indies even sooner and then go forth with their ocean going blitzkrieg across southeast Asia without worrying about the looming threat of a Hawaiian based USN Pacific fleet.

First, Task Force Z was sunk by land based aircraft. Second, the carriers and carrier aircraft Japan used in the OTL Pacific war weren't around in the 1930s.

Those land based aircraft still were still maintained and under the command of a section of the IJN so how do you think they got to their respective airfield in occupied Saigon?

Soryu and Hiryu won't be launched until 1937 and the two Shokakus won;t be launched until 1941. Counting the marginal Hosho, the IJN has only four aircraft carriers as late as 1936. An examination of exactly what types of carrier aircraft were available in the mid-30s should be equally startling to you. The famous A6M Zero weren't operational until mid-1940 for example and then only in the A6M2 version.

That marginal aircraft carrier you're referring was the first flat deck vessel purpose built from the hull up to carry and launch aircraft as efficiently as possible and like I stated before four is plenty against one British carrier. That is of course if the British don't modernize their naval doctrine sooner to meet the challenge. As for the kind of naval aircraft flying in that period you should consider that it was a Swordfish biplane with a light weight torpedo that gave the killing blow to the battleship Yamato. Also consider in the mid-1930s anti-aircraft artillery and guns were still rudimentary controlled without much help from hydraulic machinery without even mechanically adjusted strafing mechanisms.
Once again, you're counting on assets that appeared later than the period in question.

If the war dragged on for long enough with Japan being able to hold onto and transport resources in relative safety with the added bonus of not worrying about USN submarine wolf packs, those additional vessels still come to fruition later on.

That upper hand is nonexistent in China and the IJN isn't going to be landing divisions unopposed across southeast Asia as it did in the OTL.

Oh yes it would be as that is what Imperial Japan was counting on most was disunity and sectarian strife in China to ensure they're always divided thus don't pose an economic as well as militaristic and quantitative threat. What was the size of the RoC's navy and air force, in fact how was the shape of the Soviet navy as well in the 1930s?

We're not saying it will be a cakewalk for the Europeans and Chinese either, but our appraisal of the mid-1930s Japanese military machine is far more realistic than yours.


Bill

You don't seem to factor in that Japanese forces even in the mid-1930s were very familiar and honed in aircraft carrier as well as amphibious based warfare. To Imperial Japan the lose of Manchukuo would have been greatly lessened by the gains of being able to preside over much of southeast Asia which are far more able to secure by sea. The Soviets probably would have also seen some beneficial interest in this by keeping Western Europe on their toes close to their doorstep and then have Japan launch an initial gambit that would greatly weaken their colonial holdings along with conquering the rest of Manchuria. It is just like how Stalin counted on Nazi Germany in OTL to put up sufficient enough resistance to the rest of the Allied forces in order for the Red Army to gain a greater foothold in Eastern Europe along with as much of Germany as they could.

This maybe completely OT but I have a feeling many of these posts on analyzing Imperial Japanese military capability smack of a kind of revisionism that not only weakens the image of lethality Japan holds during WWII but also indirectly the United States.:confused:

Btw, referring to OsakaDave's question on how the IJN could have aided IJA forces in Manchuria they could have launched air strikes from carriers along with destroyers and battleships providing artillery support. I think the USS Iowa and New Jersey's conduct along with D Day provides a good example of the value of naval support. Considering how much certain Japanese generals obsessed over having a key asset for obtaining "decisive victory" in battle during WWII, I wouldn't put beaching a destroyer out of their reach to do it. :p
 
Again, exactly. The creation of Manchukuo was a dodge meant to increase Japanese control under a figleaf.

A figleaf that entailed armed force.

So Japan deposed the son and set up Manchukuo.

It's a huge difference, and I think you're ignoring it because it doesn't suit your views.

Japan has an entire army stationed there,

Japan had...

One division and six battalions in the region. It shared control of the rail line with the USSR up until the 1930s.

That's not a colony? And that's not indirect rule?

... even the knuckleheads at the League of Nations recognized that a spade was a spade and called the thing a Japanese colony in everything but name.

The Lytton Report was written in response to the conquest and creation of Manchukuo.

And no one did anything because Japan wasn't yet threatening European possessions and economic activities in China while the KMT most definitely was. If the KMT armies had reasserted Chinese control of Manchuria by defeating Zuolin or allying with his son, KMT armies would be in Kowloon, Macao, Shanghai, Tibet, Indochina, and all those other regions next and that was something the European powers feared more than Japan.

I see. What are you basing this on?

In this time line I'm suggesting that Manchukuo will still be founded for much the same reasons in the OTL. I'm also suggesting that during events similar to those in the OTL's 1931-33 period, Japan will find herself rebuffed. It may not be an overwhelming military defeat like Nomonhan, instead it could very well be a European diplomatic offensive which includes economic sanctions and embargoes.

Because the sanctions on Italy were so severe, right? I have no doubt you're going to blame the failure of sanctions against Italy on Germany's presence. But to an extent it was because nobody cared.

So sure, maybe some sanctions against Japan in ATL. But then again, America had no problem selling stuff to Japan during the Sino-Japanese War.

I still have no idea why this "realistic appraisal" of international realations leads to her attacking the USSR, BTW.
 
Bill Cameron;3188587An attack on the Soviet Far East means attacking a nation which has no friends elsewhere in the world. Far from having her oil imports embargoed said:
Unless Churchill is in charge of the UK, who would help Japan?

Why wouldn't Japan back down after a bloody nose like OTL?
 
Just some thoughts....

-With no Nazi Germany, won't the main enemy of the Western European powers be the USSR? If not enemies, at least antagonistic. I don't think that without the Nazi's, Stalin can completely ignore the European border. Considering how paranoid he was IOTL, I suspect he'd believe that the West would invade had they that chance.
-The Soviet Union had a joke fleet when compared to that of the European powers. I do believe that if necessary, Britain or France could spare the ships to challenge Japan, despite having a global empire to protect.
 
Unless Churchill is in charge of the UK, who would help Japan?


Faeelin,

Those nations that want to see the USSR taken down a peg. I'm not saying they will be an alliance complete with troops on the ground. I'm saying there'll be material and financial assistance because diverting Japan into Siberia means it isn't looking at European holdings elsewhere in Asia.

Why wouldn't Japan back down after a bloody nose like OTL?

Oh, they're going to "back down" and they'll get more than a bloody nose too. The difference this time is that there won't be some Nomonhan Incident involving a few divisions. Japan is going to scream and leap, just as it did in another direction in 1937 and 1941.

While reading your last response I see that I've failed to explain my thinking to you, so I'll try to recap.

Japan created Manchukuo out of it's holdings in Manchuria as a way to maintain the control it already had, extend it's control even further, and dress the results up in a package that would contain a level of plausible deniability. Japan used armed force and assassinations to create a figleaf for what was a naked colonial power grab. When anyone complained, Japan could claim Manchukuo was a sovereign state allied to Japan and not something a crass as a colony.

No one fell for that, of course, and the League correctly condemned the situation as pure colonialism. Not that the condemnation did anything. By the way, this was the same League whose major members controlled nearly all of Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and Indochina, but only Japan and Italy got slammed for creating and owning colonies.

No one really gave a damn because, just as with Italy in Ethiopia, it was only non-Europeans being slapped about and they don't really count in the 1930s. So, no one is going to hit Japan with sanctions for creating Manchukuo because no one really cares about Manchuria. However, if Japan turns south towards European possessions or more chunks of China, the European powers can turn off Japan's oil in a nanosecond.

In the OTL the sanctions that might have been imposed after 1937 were moot because the European powers were hoping top appease Japan while dealing with Nazi Germany far closer to home. In the ATL, the European powers who control the resources Japan needs will have no such fears. They can focus on Japan and Japan nearly alone.

I hope that was a bit clearer.


Bill
 
Mr. Nobody,

Sadly, Osakadave seem to have his heart set on the 1930s.

Perhaps if you talked to him about your 1940s ideas?


Bill

:) Not necessarily. It just seems the timing is right

Btw, referring to OsakaDave's question on how the IJN could have aided IJA forces in Manchuria they could have launched air strikes from carriers along with destroyers and battleships providing artillery support. I think the USS Iowa and New Jersey's conduct along with D Day provides a good example of the value of naval support. Considering how much certain Japanese generals obsessed over having a key asset for obtaining "decisive victory" in battle during WWII, I wouldn't put beaching a destroyer out of their reach to do it. :p

I'm not entierly convinced the naval air power will make a significant difference. However, I expect tthe majority of the fighting will be well out of range for naval artillery support.
 
No one fell for that, of course, and the League correctly condemned the situation as pure colonialism. Not that the condemnation did anything. By the way, this was the same League whose major members controlled nearly all of Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and Indochina, but only Japan and Italy got slammed for creating and owning colonies.

Sure. I'm with you so far.

No one really gave a damn because, just as with Italy in Ethiopia, it was only non-Europeans being slapped about and they don't really count in the 1930s. So, no one is going to hit Japan with sanctions for creating Manchukuo because no one really cares about Manchuria. However, if Japan turns south towards European possessions or more chunks of China, the European powers can turn off Japan's oil in a nanosecond.

But would they? Why wouldn't America just keep selling it? Even after the Panay incident OTL, America didn't squeeze them. Why would the Dutch do so in the ATL?

Aid to China? Sure. Slowly escalating tensions? Sure. But an immediate issuance of sanctions? Mmm.

And, of course, Stalin could provide oil too.
 
Sure. I'm with you so far.


Faeelin,

Good. I knew my poor prose style had been confusing things. You and I had been writing essentially the same stuff about Manchukuo, but my lousy writing had conveyed the wrong message to you.

But would they? Why wouldn't America just keep selling it? Even after the Panay incident OTL, America didn't squeeze them.

I'm not suggesting an immediate and total embargo, just more like one in the OTL that perhaps occurs a little faster. The US is going to listen to Europe more than Japan however because A) the US trades more with Europe and B) Europe is "white".

If Japan moves south like it did in 1937, it will be threatening European possessions in China and further destabilizing China. That's something the European powers did not like in the OTL but could do nothing about because of the threat at their front door.

Why would the Dutch do so in the ATL?

Again, not immediately but any move to the south by Japan is a threat to the Dutch colonies and the Dutch cannot defend those colonies against Japan alone. If Britain and France begin targeting an escalating series of embargoes at Japan in response to further Japanese attacks on China, the Netherlands is going to join those embargoes in order to be part of an "allied" defense against the possibility of direct Japanese aggression towards European colonial territories. Joining the other powers in attempts to contain Japan's aggression is in the Netherlands' best interest.

Aid to China? Sure. Slowly escalating tensions? Sure. But an immediate issuance of sanctions? Mmm.

In the OTL there was a slow escalation of tensions between Japan and China which led up to Japan's attack in 1937. And again, like you, I think we'd see an escalation of a series of embargoes and sanctions in response to Japan's escalating pressure on China.

Eventually things are going to reach a point similar to where they did in the OTL with Japan facing more and potentially crippling sanctions if it continues along the same course. Unlike in the OTL, however, Japan is facing somewhat rearmed opponents and opponents not distracted by events in Europe. In the OTL, thanks to the hubris that had built over her continued successes in the 1930s and the disasters that had befell her European opponents, Japan liked her chances in war. In this TL, Japan's successes haven't been as great and her possible European opponents are in much better shape, so I'm suggesting she won't choose a war in the south at this time.

As she did after the First Sino-Japanese War, she'll bide her time and turn her energies to towards fruit that she perceives to be lower hanging.

And, of course, Stalin could provide oil too.

From where and how? And can it be enough to fuel a possible Japanese-European war? Or even enough to fuel Japan's overheated, armaments at all costs, "peacetime" economy?

In a recent thread, I explained how oil production in Sakhalin took a year to produce less than two month's requirements for the IJN and there is no possibility of Siberian oil at this time. That means any Soviet oil is going to come from the Caspian basin but there's no trans-Siberian pipeline, the Soviets don't have fleet of tankers, and shipping oil by tankcar from Baku is going to be very costly compared to shipping oil from Baku into Europe. Even Stalin cannot repeal the laws of economics.

Stalin can help one imperialist fight another, but he can't fuel Japan's wartime oil needs.


Regards,
Bill
 
In the OTL there was a slow escalation of tensions between Japan and China which led up to Japan's attack in 1937. And again, like you, I think we'd see an escalation of a series of embargoes and sanctions in response to Japan's escalating pressure on China.

I think the situatio would be as follows:

-1937: The war breaks out again. Nanjing calls for aid! And... herm. Boy, this is awkward. We're holding a conference. As we did about the Rhineland. And Manchuria. And Spain. And Ethiopia.

But, Britain realizes they should probably finish Singapore.

(I am uncertain about how the Royal Navy develops sans the Third Reich. Britain will spend even less on rearmament; but will more go to the navy? Does Britain get more battleships, or more Mars Bars?)

1938: Aid to China increases. Bloody fighting, as aid increases. Nobody wants to risk a war; those are expensive. But it breaks Europe's heart to see Japan bleed itself in China.

The *Panay Incident leads to the deployment of warships to Singapore.

You either get a Japan which screams and leaps south (can it take Singapore before relief from Europe arrives?) or you get League imposed medaiation taht demlitarizes Norther n China eand entails Chinese recognition of Manchukuo.

As she did after the First Sino-Japanese War, she'll bide her time and turn her energies to towards fruit that she perceives to be lower hanging.

Well, the difference is that the Japanese military was assassinating any politicians insufficiently patriotic by 1940.

In a recent thread, I explained how oil production in Sakhalin took a year to produce less than two month's requirements for the IJN and there is no possibility of Siberian oil at this time. That means any Soviet oil is going to come from the Caspian basin but there's no trans-Siberian pipeline, the Soviets don't have fleet of tankers, and shipping oil by tankcar from Baku is going to be very costly compared to shipping oil from Baku into Europe. Even Stalin cannot repeal the laws of economics.

Stalin can help one imperialist fight another, but he can't fuel Japan's wartime oil needs.

To get the war to work, you need Japan to find Daqing. I have no idea of the Trans-Siberian railway's capacity, but...

Again, I do think a war would be disastrous for Japan. But it ani't like American industrial statistics were secret information in 1941.
 
Top