Only the Best for Japan

I know the Japanese involvement in WWII has been discussed plenty on here, with the general opinion being that Japan didn't have to much of a real fighting chance. Now, I'm not willing to ask WI Japan invaded the US or anything harebrained like that, but how can we get Japanese involvement in WWII to go the best possible for them?

Should they 'ignore' the US until the last possible moment? Should they still go after China or the Philippines? Discuss!
 

Hnau

Banned
Chiang Kai-shek dies in 1930. Japan discovers oil in Manchuria sometime during the 1930s. Japan annexes China by 1940 and then Indochina by 1941. With their war over and enough natural resources, they never go to war with the United States and have a large empire to both attain materials from and living space to settle their population in. The Cold War gets a lot more interesting.
 
Uhmm.. here is one possible scenario.

Declare war on Great Britain, France and the Dutch East Indies on December 7th, 1940 - but not the United States. Remain scrupulously neutral with them as long as possible. Invade India after taking the Southern Resource Area, and knock the Western Allies out of the war. Turn east by mid-1942 and invade the Soviet Union. No guarantee of success, but possibly the combined effect of Germany fighting a one-front war and Japanese intervention could knock out the Soviets. Japan now controls Korea, Manchuria, large chunks of China, Indochina, Burma, Malaya + Singapore, Indonesia, nearly all the non-US Pacific islands, all of Sakhalin, and a slice of Siberia that includes Vladivostok.

Now wait ten years and watch the whole thing collapse into a vortex of nationalism and brutal reprisals.
 
Uhmm.. here is one possible scenario.
As has been debated many times, this is impossible for the Japanese. The US will declare war and cut the Japanese supply lines to SEA, and they will be even less successful in SEA than historically, with little chance of invading Burma, let alone Malaya.
 
With hindsight, it's difficult to see how things could have gone differently with regards to Japan. Protectionism in europe and the US after WW1 led to big problems for the japanese economy, which was mostly relying on exports to finance imports of vital resources. Silk still sold, of course, but that wasn't enough to keep buying the resources needed. Japan needed either a free trade agreement with the US (which was even more unlikely after 1929), or a more developed asian market to sell to. Since the western powers were content in letting their colonies remain unindustrialized resource exporters, and China was not seen as competent enough to even handle the commies, the course was clear: Japan needed to gain more territory, first for raw materials, and later as a primitive industrial society that could buy more advanced japanese products.

Perhaps if UK, France and the Netherlands suddenly decide that their colonies should become independant nations and help the industrialize in the early 20th century, Japan may have had a large enough market to satisfy her economy, thus keeping militarism at bay.
 
I'm not sure it's that bad. I would say that Japan can avoid WWII with a post-WW I PoD. If the Kwantung army is restrained and Japan restricts itself to vasselising Manchuria, and then halts its incursions into China, it can probably keep on going well enough.

If WW II still breaks out on schedule the Japanese can then probably make money selling to the Allies and Soviets.
 
Assuming Japan only wants some expansion room, access to raw materials and export markets and not global domination (or at least Asian domination), they might have been able to acquire a lot of this at the bargaining table.

Recognition of the Japanese conquest of Manchuria and access to the colonial markets and resources of the Western powers in return for a withdrawal from the remaining parts of China and a guarantee for the Western colonies. Perhaps even an alliance like Japan had in WWI. This would allow England (and America) to focus on Germany and even gain additional industrial capacity as Japan could supply war materials and escorts in the Pacific.

After all, if England and America could make deals with Communist Russia, they could easily make a deal with Japan, a former ally.
 
Militarily, I think Japan tried too much with insufficient means. It also focused too much on China.

To improve their performance, I would suggest the following;
  • A realization that it lacked the means for a war of attrition. Therefore, it had to make it clear that their enemies would pay a heavy price for eventual victory ==> complete war economy, research and recruitment/training aimed at total war requirements.
  • The army and navy under a joint command and working together instead of pursuing diverging agendas.
  • A realization that China was an insignificant theatre which could be dealt with at leisure once England and America were defeated ==> the bulk of the Imperial Army is deployed to defeat the western powers in Asia , conquer their colonies and beef up the Pacific defenses. (For example, the conquest of India and perhaps a major stab at Australia/Hawaiian islands).
  • Protecting the transport/cargo fleet.
  • Going after the Allied transport/cargo fleet.
Now all of this would inevitably lead to Japanowank as no nation suddenly does everything right while its opponents do not change their own strategies as well.

Japan’s only chance would be in knocking out England and the loss of India and the other British colonies in Asia might well do that. Against America, it could only hope to make the cost of prosecuting the war too expensive for the American people and politicians to bear. If that was even remotely possible is anyone’s guess. America historically suffered negligible losses in WWII. Other countries took much heavier losses and continued fighting so I wouldn’t expect this to work. But it might, stranger things have happened.
 
Militarily, I think Japan tried too much with insufficient means. It also focused too much on China.

To improve their performance, I would suggest the following;
  • A realization that it lacked the means for a war of attrition. Therefore, it had to make it clear that their enemies would pay a heavy price for eventual victory ==> complete war economy, research and recruitment/training aimed at total war requirements.
  • The army and navy under a joint command and working together instead of pursuing diverging agendas.
  • A realization that China was an insignificant theatre which could be dealt with at leisure once England and America were defeated ==> the bulk of the Imperial Army is deployed to defeat the western powers in Asia , conquer their colonies and beef up the Pacific defenses. (For example, the conquest of India and perhaps a major stab at Australia/Hawaiian islands).
  • Protecting the transport/cargo fleet.
  • Going after the Allied transport/cargo fleet.
Now all of this would inevitably lead to Japanowank as no nation suddenly does everything right while its opponents do not change their own strategies as well.

Japan’s only chance would be in knocking out England and the loss of India and the other British colonies in Asia might well do that. Against America, it could only hope to make the cost of prosecuting the war too expensive for the American people and politicians to bear. If that was even remotely possible is anyone’s guess. America historically suffered negligible losses in WWII. Other countries took much heavier losses and continued fighting so I wouldn’t expect this to work. But it might, stranger things have happened.

OK, focusing on China was Hajime Sugiyama's fault, proclaiming it would be over in a few months and all that. In reality they faced 2 enemies, Mao Tsetung and Nationalist China. Maybe making them bicker over each other first?

1) It would have to happen before 1900. They needed a lot of time to gear for war. Japan was simply too small. Even in OTL the civilian and industrial zones mixed because there was nowhere to put them. Do you think distributing the Industrial zones would work (where though? China?).
This was the reason why they adopted a 'Desicisive Battle' doctrine. Hit once but hit hard.

2) Yes. Some more coordination would work to their advantage. Didn't the ABDA collapse without it?

3) Concentrating on China wasn't an option. But they could bide time until the Communists and Nationalists start fighting each other. The British, for all I know, could just march into Korea from the Burma road.
To topple India means there is a substansial risk that the Army is going to be overstretched. But the British administration was far from perfect, either. If the Japanese could deceive the Indians to incite a mass revolt, hindering the British AND 'support' their fight for independence, this could work out pretty well.
 
As has been debated many times, this is impossible for the Japanese. The US will declare war and cut the Japanese supply lines to SEA, and they will be even less successful in SEA than historically, with little chance of invading Burma, let alone Malaya.

Alratan

I would disagree. The US may stay neutral. If it doesn't there are several advantages for the Japanese in such a scenario.

a) They would be able to concentrate more resources on winning the south quickly. Then switching to blockading and picking off the US possessions when the US declares war.

b) Without the attack on Pearl Harbour the US commitment to the war will be far more divided. As such a compromise peace is a reasonable chance if Germany looks a greater threat and the US suffers some major checks in the Pacific.

c) With the BBs still active this is far more likely. The USN with still operate largely cantered around them with impacts on tactics and logistics. Also, not seeming greatly weakened it will come under immense pressure to intervene in the Philippines. In that case there is a good chance of a serious defeat for the USN with more ships lost, this time for good and much higher military casualties.

If the Japanese had aimed for a limited war and negotiated peace, which they talked about historically but didn't actually work towards, they may get it at this point.

If not the US faces a long war that will be very costly and seen as increasingly unnecessary so some steps far short of the eventual peace after the brutal bombing of Japan may well occur. If the war goes on long enough Japan will lose land but quite possibly not all the empire.

Steve
 
As has been debated many times, this is impossible for the Japanese. The US will declare war and cut the Japanese supply lines to SEA, and they will be even less successful in SEA than historically, with little chance of invading Burma, let alone Malaya.

Your central contentions seems unlikely. Why would the US declare war? They didn't declare war on Germany until they had been declared on. FDR would not do this.
 
Without the atrocities committed in China by Japanese troops the chances of America declaring war (baring a direct attack) is insanely low.

Americans where very fond of Japan, they look on them as younger brother who was doing very well for himself.
 
Japan had backed itself into a corner by the early 40s, so war was likely if not inevitable. I think a good move would have been to try to get hold of DEOI like they did with French Indochina. If they can move in there without fighting they'd be in a better position to fight the US when the time came, that's the only 'coup' I can easily envisage.

But they were an industrial lightwieght, dependant of US being unwilling to crush them to dust even with their new found resource wealth.
 
Now, I'm not willing to ask WI Japan invaded the US or anything harebrained like that, but how can we get Japanese involvement in WWII to go the best possible for them?

King Arthur and his knights wake up in Britain's hour of need but Art bumps his head on the way out. Whilst woozy, he happens to catch the end of an old samurai film at the cinema. He becomes convinced he is in fact a samurai, and leads Japan's armys to victory against the Allies.
 
1.) Imposition of a convoy system early in the war could result in safer military passage for troops, equipment, supplies, and could have sustained Japan's industrial ability for a longer period of time.

2.) Offensive use of submarines against American transport, and supplies would have a great impact. For jsut as Japan has to bring in every single bullet, and grain of rice to some far off island America has to do the same.

3.) Construction of a series of defenses to allow defense in depth. Japan for whatever reason went about the idea of creating strong defenses at the end of supply routes, and little to none closer to home. A reverse of this could allow the Japanese a stronger defensive position throughout the war, instea dof the Americans making a strong breakthrough and funneling through it.

4.) Limits on over expansion to save the combined fleet to be used to defend Japanese waters from the allied fleet, instea dof going out to seek battle.

5.) Earlier use of suicide planes to counter ships, and offenseive actions.

6.) Stronger army involvment in the Pacific to allow more defenses in key regions. This is not a call for the millions of troops in China to pack up and go home it is simply having a 100,000 or so more to throw agaisnt the Americans in key positions.

7.) Pulling out the most experinces pilots to train new ones. Japan could shorten its pilot training time, but in truth this is why they are such good pilots even when going up agaisnt the best the US had.

8.) No victory disease, but that is almost impossible to overcome.

The above is not outside of the ability of Japan, and in fact plays on fact of that with time they can have a more successful chance for peace with conditions. If Russia invades just as Americans are looking to the Soviets with contempt, then Japan may not seem so evil.
 
Top