No Pearl Harbour: A Sane Imperial Japan Military

[mutiafarida3]

The war between Imperial Japan and Western Allies (mainly USA) already stated as an act of folly and blind optimism...or ignorance...or arrogance. There is no way Imperial Japan can remotely win a war against a committed USA.

What if Imperial Japan militarist of 1941 (who really control the empire) were saner than OTL? They realized that no way USA will let them control South East Asia after a major attack against any US territory. All "Southern Resource Area" oil, mineral, rubber, and food stuff means nothing if American submarine keep sinking their Transport Ships en route to Japan.

The POD are Japan continue its peace negotiation with Western Allies, withdraw from Indochina (while negotiating some sort of independence timetable for the region as a mean to save face), offer a cease fire with China, and followed by gradual withdrawal of all Imperial forces to pre 1937 border.

Do this POD able to prevent the Pacific War? Or this is unlikely to happen?

 

[Nik]

PH attack missed the carriers...

As I understand it, the IJN figured they could stomp the USN at anchor, not have to fight a 'real' Pacific war.

Without those carriers, USN was in truly dire straights. Sure, they could build new in four or five years, but the IJN could have enforced terms across the Pacific, hammered Panama & US West Coast etc etc etc.

It was meant as a beheading strike, like the RAF did to Italian fleet at Taranto, but they missed the carriers which had stayed out on exercise.

( One conspiracy theory holds that UK *warned* USN of strike, but was ignored as alert cast in too-vague terms to protect Bletchley Park's code-breakers...)

So, the later waves of IJN aircraft were pulled, as the risk was they'd get back to find their carriers under attack by irate USN pilots from those 'missing' carriers...

With their carriers and battleship row sunk at anchor, would the US have accepted terms of yielding Philipines etc without a fight ? Staying neutral over Europe & Australia ?

Too big for me to call...

 

[Napoléon Caesar Augustus]

It will absolutely lead to peace. The Japanese just willingly became America's bitch and have shown that they will never do anything without American approval, up to the point of giving up literally all their interests in the region when the Americans turn up the pressure. China will come knocking for Manchuria and Taiwan once it sorts itself out, so they might as well retreat from those places as well.

This is why the Japanese did attack. They could either attack and have a minuscule chance of seeing their plans come to fruition, or accept that they were a second rate power who could never act against US interests. They chose death before dishonor.

 

[Bad@logic]

It will absolutely lead to peace. The Japanese just willingly became America's bitch and have shown that they will never do anything without American approval, up to the point of giving up literally all their interests in the region when the Americans turn up the pressure. China will come knocking for Manchuria and Taiwan once it sorts itself out, so they might as well retreat from those places as well.

This is why the Japanese did attack. They could either attack and have a minuscule chance of seeing their plans come to fruition, or accept that they were a second rate power who could never act against US interests. They chose death before dishonor.

That is a pretty nice spin on Imperial Japanese war crimes and aggressive war! Generally it isn't easy to manage to justify and make it sound good that a nation tried to invade every one of their neighbors and killed millions of people in horribly brutal conflicts that they started, as well as utilizing widespread slavery, forced prostitution, torture, rape, the most vicious reprisals, massacres, and anti-partisan campaigns, but you sure managed it.

A+

 

[Booster Gold]

The war between Imperial Japan and Western Allies (mainly USA) already stated as an act of folly and blind optimism...or ignorance...or arrogance. There is no way Imperial Japan can remotely win a war against a committed USA.

What if Imperial Japan militarist of 1941 (who really control the empire) were saner than OTL? They realized that no way USA will let them control South East Asia after a major attack against any US territory. All "Southern Resource Area" oil, mineral, rubber, and food stuff means nothing if American submarine keep sinking their Transport Ships en route to Japan.

The POD are Japan continue its peace negotiation with Western Allies, withdraw from Indochina (while negotiating some sort of independence timetable for the region as a mean so save face), offer a cease fire with China, and followed by gradual withdrawal of all Imperial forces to pre 1937 border.

Do this POD able to prevent the Pacific War? Or this is unlikely to happen?

So basically you want Japan to surrender without a fight? Sure, that might be the smart plan with hindsight, but I can't see anyone going for it, victory disease or no.

And anyone who tried would just get bumped off by the army anyway. The Japanese political situation at the time was just that twisted.

 

[mutiafarida3]

It will absolutely lead to peace. The Japanese just willingly became America's bitch and have shown that they will never do anything without American approval, up to the point of giving up literally all their interests in the region when the Americans turn up the pressure. China will come knocking for Manchuria and Taiwan once it sorts itself out, so they might as well retreat from those places as well.

This is why the Japanese did attack. They could either attack and have a minuscule chance of seeing their plans come to fruition, or accept that they were a second rate power who could never act against US interests. They chose death before dishonor.

I don't think Japan will be "USA bitch" if they continue the already on going peace negotiation. Even if they let go the war in China (which is already stalemated anyway), at very worse the current government will fall and very likely there will be several coups (or coup attempts). But it will not cause the destruction of the Empire.

All political and prestige losses can be spin-doctored by politicians and diplomats.

Winning a war against USA are totally impossible and they know it. The Japanese already have the information about overall USA strength in raw resources, industrial output, and military power (especially the STAGGERING number of planned capital ships, ready to build on short notice).

The act of war against US always that big thing that I still don't get from the whole mess that is Imperial Japan and its rulers.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

That is a pretty nice spin on Imperial Japanese war crimes and aggressive war! Generally it isn't easy to manage to justify and make it sound good that a nation tried to invade every one of their neighbors and killed millions of people in horribly brutal conflicts that they started, as well as utilizing widespread slavery, forced prostitution, torture, rape, the most vicious reprisals, massacres, and anti-partisan campaigns, but you sure managed it.

A+

When you say neighbours, what you mean is European colonies. I don't think Napoleon was trying to romanticise Japanese atrocities.

 

[Vingilótë]

I don't think Japan will be "USA bitch" if they continue the already on going peace negotiation. Even if they let go the war in China (which is already stalemated anyway), at very worse the current government will fall and very likely there will be several coups (or coup attempts). But it will not cause the destruction of the Empire.

If by "not cause the destruction of the Empire," you mean "not result in Japan being occupied and reduced to the Home Islands as was OTL," then yes, I suppose that's true. On the other hand, there really is no way anyone in the Japanese government could spin doctor what was effectively giving up all of Japan's gains in the past ten years.

All political and prestige losses can be spin-doctored by politicians and diplomats.

That's a bit of a tall order, considering how moderate compromise was at times enough to earn a politician infamy as an incompetent or traitor, and potentially end with his untimely death.

Winning a war against USA are totally impossible and they know it. The Japanese already have the information about overall USA strength in raw resources, industrial output, and military power (especially the STAGGERING number of planned capital ships, ready to build on short notice).

The act of war against US always that big thing that I still don't get from the whole mess that is Imperial Japan and its rulers.

Partly, it's because of the above reason; the Japanese had (completely justly, I might add) earned the deep hostility of America both through an extraordinarily brutal war in China and by threatening to completely overturn the previous status quo in East Asia and the Western Pacific. The only two choices left to her were to accede to the US's demands (politically impossible) or defeat the US militarily (militarily impossible, but less so if you mix in a good amount of wishful thinking). They chose the latter.

When you say neighbours, what you mean is European colonies. I don't think Napoleon was trying to romanticise Japanese atrocities.

China was a European colony? News to me.

 

[mutiafarida3]

So basically you want Japan to surrender without a fight? Sure, that might be the smart plan with hindsight, but I can't see anyone going for it, victory disease or no.

The problem is... there is no fights. Or, at least no fights against USA, UK, and Netherlands.

The fight was started by Japanese themselves.

The Western Allies simply hit Japan with economic sanction over aggressive Japanese expansion on China and Indochina. This sanction only directly hit Japan war making capabilty in the long terms, not the survival of the Empire itself.

In the Pacific War, Japan was literally surrounded by hostile nation with very little communication with their major allies in Europe. They fight largely alone, with minor unreliable support from their puppets in the Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Even if Pearl Harbour was a 100% IJN victory (all USN carrier sunk, the oil farms and drydocks destroyed, etc). By 1944, USA will build all those new Essex and Iowa class (not to mention all submarines, transport, and LSTs) to ground all IJN to dust.

 

[TFSmith121]

What was it they chose for the Koreans?

It will absolutely lead to peace. The Japanese just willingly became America's bitch and have shown that they will never do anything without American approval, up to the point of giving up literally all their interests in the region when the Americans turn up the pressure. China will come knocking for Manchuria and Taiwan once it sorts itself out, so they might as well retreat from those places as well. This is why the Japanese did attack. They could either attack and have a minuscule chance of seeing their plans come to fruition, or accept that they were a second rate power who could never act against US interests. They chose death before dishonor.

What was it they chose for the Koreans?

Or the Chinese?

Filipinos?

Indochinese?

Thais?

Malayans?

Burmese?

Indonesians?

The Chinese and Pacific wars cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Asian civilians, from China to India to the Solomon Islands and the Central Pacific - not to mention thousands of non-Asian civilians, prisoners of war, and military personnel who were slain in a multitude of attacks waged absent a declaration of war... and the Japanese were just as methodical in their final solutions as the Germans were in theirs, just a little more hands-on...

And you find this "honorable"?

 

[oshron]

i'll read the whole thread later since i don't want my spaghetti to get cold, but it's my understanding that Pearl Harbor was at least in part a preemptive strike to keep the United States from interfering and they had no actual intention to invade anywhere else in American territory--they just wanted to establish their Co-Prosperity Sphere

and boy did that plan ever backfire

 

[Bad@logic]

When you say neighbours, what you mean is European colonies. I don't think Napoleon was trying to romanticise Japanese atrocities.

No, I mean every neighbor. Every neighbor Japan had they invaded or attacked. USSR, Mongolia, China, Siam, Australia and yes also the colonies of France, USA, UK, and partially Portugal.

And he said "Death before dishonor", as Japan's only actions. That implied that somehow launching a war that involved brutality on a scale that only the Nazis exceeded was somehow the "honorable", course of action. I am sorry, but killing that many people because you want to hold onto a recently conquered territory - Manchuria - against a possible long term threat does not justify violence and death on that scale.

In addition only referring to European colonies - what about the Japanese colonies of Formosa, Korea, and Manchuria? Was Japanese rule in Manchuria the height of enlightenment and human progress?

 

[TFSmith121]

You may want to look up the histories of the Philippines

i'll read the whole thread later since i don't want my spaghetti to get cold, but it's my understanding that Pearl Harbor was at least in part a preemptive strike to keep the United States from interfering and they had no actual intention to invade anywhere else in American territory--they just wanted to establish their Co-Prosperity Sphere

and boy did that plan ever backfire

You may want to look up the histories of the Philippines and Guam.

I mean, seriously?

 

[TFSmith121]

Korea?

When you say neighbours, what you mean is European colonies. I don't think Napoleon was trying to romanticise Japanese atrocities.

Korea?

China?

The Philippines?

Thailand?

Much less the civilians (Asian and European) in Indochina, Malaya, Burma, Indonesia, India, etc.

Death before dishonor, huh?

The Americans evacuated Manila and declared it an open city in 1941-42.

The Japanese made it a battleground in 1944.

Seriously?

 

[oshron]

You may want to look up the histories of the Philippines and Guam.

I mean, seriously?

thanks, can you be a bit more condescending next time? i was pulling prior knowledge literally off the top of my head for a quick post.

 

[TFSmith121]

I dunno; Japan's war against the Asian civilian populations

thanks, can you be a bit more condescending next time? i was pulling prior knowledge literally off the top of my head for a quick post.

I dunno; Japan's war against the Asian civilian populations was, if anything, even more brutal than the war the Japanese waged against European civilians in Asia and the Pacific.

Ask a Filipino.

Best,

 

[oshron]

i'm not arguing that it wasn't. i'm just not as familiar with the Pacific Theater as i should be and was adding what i figured was relevant to the discussion.

 

[Shaby]

And you find this "honorable"?

I do not think NCA intended to say that the Japanese actions were honorable, just that the Japanese leaders thought they were choosing between what THEY, in their warped worldview, viewed as honorable and the totally unacceptable (for themselves) outcome.

As for the OP proposal that the Japanese be sane and negotiate the peace, abandonning Indochina and retreating to prewar borders in China, the trouble is that the Japanese were fighting in China for four years already. To retreat without anything to show for all the effort would involve a huge loss of face. It would be like they said 'Look, we scr*wed this one big time! Sorry, let's go home!'.

I actually think it would require a government entirely composed of non-Japanese for this to happen. Or at the very least, would require a government system that largely excludes military from having any say in foreign policy decisions. Maybe, just maybe, Hirohito might pull this off but would require pretty much him growing balls to actually stand up against the military, brake with the Japanese law, constitution and customs and order the military to break off with their insolence and get back to Earth.

Otherwise, this event does not and can never be a PoD in and of itself, but only an effect of a PoD that happens some time earlier. A PoD that probably has WW2 as we know it not happening.

 

[Alex1guy]

That is a pretty nice spin on Imperial Japanese war crimes and aggressive war! Generally it isn't easy to manage to justify and make it sound good that a nation tried to invade every one of their neighbors and killed millions of people in horribly brutal conflicts that they started, as well as utilizing widespread slavery, forced prostitution, torture, rape, the most vicious reprisals, massacres, and anti-partisan campaigns, but you sure managed it.

A+

Korea?

China?

The Philippines?

Thailand?

Much less the civilians (Asian and European) in Indochina, Malaya, Burma, Indonesia, India, etc.

Death before dishonor, huh?

The Americans evacuated Manila and declared it an open city in 1941-42.

The Japanese made it a battleground in 1944.

Seriously?

Well he's not wrong, as far as the Imperial Japanese Army was concerned, not trying to bash most of Asia into economic and colonial servitude was seen as a "giving up", therefore dishonorable. So yeah, they did choose death over "dishonor". As Shaby said, they had a super messed up world view, I don't think Napoleon was saying going to war was the honorable thing to do, it's what the Imperial Japanese leadership saw as the honorable thing to do, seemed pretty obvious to me in the context, he wasn't defending Japan.

 

[Green Painting]

Was Japan able to leash on its own radical officers? Even if the country struck a deal with the United States, and withdraw from Vietnam and most of China (save Manchuria , and probably Shanghai, Tianjin and Shandong), the government had hardly any power to stop its army from provoking skirmishes and incidents.