Plausibility Check: Japanese "Victory" in WWII

[Emperor_Coz]

The British might be able to be bludgeoned into making peace with Germany (probably meaning giving Germany a free hand in Eastern Europe and turning some colonies over to Italy) with the right combination of a failed Dunkirk; a worse performance in the Battle of Britain; Axis successes in North Africa and USD assets running short with no lend-lease on the table.

But out and out surrender is only happening post-Sealion (grossly implausible) or after a successful U-Boat blockade (not gonna happen quickly enough to have the poms out before the end of '41, and if no US support likely to push the British to seek peace before surrender)...

I dunno,put Mosley in charge?With this one its very unlikely,but one way we could do it is do a hoi4 and keep Edward VIII,have him go ultra-nationalist,but puts in another can of worms.German support of a Scottish Uprising,this means more control of the North Sea,but again,that may be too unrealistic.
You have any suggestions?

 

[TDM]

The problem as I understand it is threefold:
First, as I understand it Japan didn't know for sure whether or not America would intervene, but assumed it would've happened sooner or later with various incidents building up over time. Thus it would've been better, in their view, to take the initiative while they still had it.
Secondly, anti-war feelings would probably dissipate once Japan starts committing war crimes against American servicemen (and the occasional woman).
Thirdly, even a limited American-Japanese War could spell doom for Japan's long term goals in Asia. Say goodbye to the IJN once they have to fight against a foe that has all the advantages.

This is why I say get Roosevelt killed, then get someone who's more openly isolationist. If you can get someone willing to overlook the inevitable clashes AND have Japanese leadership understand as much, then Japan has a shot.

The problem is being isolationist doesn't mean letting Japan do what it likes in the pacific. Honestly I think Isolationist is an oft misused term. It never meant ignore the rest of the world it meant more don't attempt to take a leading role in the rest of the world and concentrate on what's best for the US first. I.e. don't get dragged into fighting wars on other's behalf, but it certainly allows for fighting wars on your own behalf

Even pre-WW2 the US is a naval power (certainly in the Pacific), that means what they view as their sphere of influence is pretty much the far edges of the oceans they operate in. and even isolationist they're not going to risk a new power messing around too much within their sphere of influence

(NB the fact that you end up with two naval powers on friendly terms with at time overlapping spheres of influence in the US and UK in the early part of the C20th is actually rather important for the history of that part of the century).

So to have Japan best avoid the US I agree with the others they have to go into the USSR for the resources. Thing is their already committed to a land war in a massive country and although they're doing OK it's still a tarpit for them.

 

[Cockroach]

I dunno,put Mosley in charge?With this one its very unlikely,but one way we could do it is do a hoi4 and keep Edward VIII,have him go ultra-nationalist,but puts in another can of worms.German support of a Scottish Uprising,this means more control of the North Sea,but again,that may be too unrealistic. You have any suggestions?

Getting Mosley (and keeping Edward) in probably keeps the British from supporting the French, thus keeping the French from supporting the Poles, short circuiting the whole war. However, if Mosley is in power and the war somehow still breaks out like OTL, he probably would be more willing to make peace once defeated in France and maybe align with Germany against the USSR but I doubt he'd be willing to keel over into abject surrender and/or satellite state status (a fascist government which builds it's legitimacy on nationalist/racialist superiority isn't going to last long when it immediately contradicts said alleged superiority...) short of Seelowe.

A Scottish uprising seems utterly absurd given any reasonable 1930s PoDs.

 

[Garrison]

It needs to be remembered that in reality that Churchill was not some lone voice insisting on fighting on. He became PM precisely because his intention to fight on made him someone all the political parties could get behind. This is the reason why Halifax never really had a chance, he simply didn't have the support in the House of Commons he needed. If Churchill dies he will be replaced by someone like Eden who will continue the fight.

 

[Lazer Raptor]

A Nazi victory scenario is relatively plausible given that they were very successful in 1939-1930 against France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Luxembourg not to mention that Dunkirk was a military disaster as admitted by Winston Churchill in his speech which was only prevented from being a total catastrophe thanks to the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and other Allied soldiers successfully evacuating the town and a halt order issued by one of the Wehrmacht commanders as well as the weather to an extent. Had Dunkirk being a catastrophe, Nazi Germany would have likely gotten it's peace terms with Britain and thus focus on the Soviet Union and conquer the non-Ural European/Caucasian parts of the country as part of the destructive Lebensraum program. Of course, after Adolf Hitler dies there would be a power struggle within Nazi Germany and this causes them to collapse at around the 1950s (see Thousand Year Reich as a good example).

A Japanese victory is almost impossible to achieve since the United States had more resources than Japan and after Pearl Harbor it was inevitable they would be victorious over them.

This is pure fantasy. If the BEF was *entirely* lost at Dunkirk, the immediate situation for Britain changes not one whit. There was general willingness and desire to fight on, and the BEF was rendered completely combat ineffective in real life as well. The later parts of the war are a bit different with Britain suffering manpower shortages, but otherwise what you are describing is pure nonsense.

Japanese Victory in WWII?

All that's needed is to declare War on Germany after news of the Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the USSR come out, and they divvy up Poland in 1939

They plan on 'North' rather than 'South'

So they get French/Dutch and UK/Commonwealth supplies as they have the IJN to operate from European bases.

Most of the surface Kriegsmarine is sunk at harbor over the early parts of 1940, and U-boats kept in check by H6k Mavis Flying boats with their long near 3000 mile range
and 24+ hour endurance

Khalkin Gol effectively soured Japanese leadership on the idea of conflict with the USSR because of how badly they were smashed. Even assuming an ASB changes their minds, the war in Europe won't really change so France and the Netherlands will still fall, as the UK already had total naval superiority and the IJA doesn't have the men or material to spare on an expiditionary force that would matter.

Once the Japanese do a stupid and invade the USSR things don't get much better. Significant numbers of Japanese troops are already tied up in China, and now they're fighting a land war in the expanses of Siberia and the steppes of Mongolia against one of the largest armies in the world. Japanese naval superiority means pretty much nothing, and the Soviets even with their issues are more than capable of making things incredibly difficult for the Japanese. End result? The Japanese likely get left out to dry because at the end of the day they just aren't that useful of an ally to the WAllies.

 

[marathag]

The Japanese likely get left out to dry because at the end of the day they just aren't that useful of an ally to the WAllies.

Beats two nuked cities and most every other city with a population over 100000 souls burned to ash by LeMay

 

[Deleted member 96212]

This will not happen without a fight as the DEI government was pretty independent during WWII. So no peaceful secession will happen. However, if Japan attacks the DEI in late 1940 I am absolutely sure that the US and the UK will not intervene and the colony will fall. Of course then the best scenario for the Japanese is Indonesian self government but that's problematic ideologically speaking.

Interesting, did not know that. I will ask though, how feasible would attacking the DEI in 1940 be for Japan? Aren't there still way too many British bases nearby that they pretty much have to cross through?

It needs to be remembered that in reality that Churchill was not some lone voice insisting on fighting on. He became PM precisely because his intention to fight on made him someone all the political parties could get behind. This is the reason why Halifax never really had a chance, he simply didn't have the support in the House of Commons he needed. If Churchill dies he will be replaced by someone like Eden who will continue the fight.

This is pure fantasy. If the BEF was *entirely* lost at Dunkirk, the immediate situation for Britain changes not one whit. There was general willingness and desire to fight on, and the BEF was rendered completely combat ineffective in real life as well. The later parts of the war are a bit different with Britain suffering manpower shortages, but otherwise what you are describing is pure nonsense.

I like these responses because I feel it highlights the fact that a Nazi victory scenario is roughly as plausible as a Japanese one, yet everyone puts far more focus on Hitler and his cabal than the Japanese militarists, which is disappointing, IMO, and I'd even go so far as to say it demonstrates a lack of imagination when it comes to the Pacific theater.

 

[DreadDjinn]

Late replies to the above points, so I apologize.



Which is pretty much why I suggested to bump off Roosevelt and get someone who's a tad more isolationist. AFAIK Japanese war planners expected American involvement in the war sooner or later, but if we can get a President who makes it more clear to Japan that they're not going to war over the European colonies or over some small skirmishes, then Japanese planners might see this as enough of an incentive to resist attacking the US. After all, even they acknowledged that they'd never be able to win a long war with America.

Granted, maybe that wouldn't work out well in reality. After all if America starts building up its navy as a deterrent against Japanese militarism then the Junta could see that as a threat and at that point we'd be back to square one.



Actually, come to think of it how about something like Germany capturing the Dutch Royal family or government, then forcing them to cede the East Indies to Japan a la Vichy France and Indochina?



Yeah, I should have figured as much.



Honestly I'm not so sure I agree with the idea that war was inevitable; I get the impression that war with the US was seen as a sort of last resort, chosen decisively only after the oil embargo threatened to choke the Japanese economy and war-making abilities.



It would be a moot point if Hitler's megalomanial plans of genocide and ethnic cleansing are implemented in an even slightly more successful Barbarossa. Japan wouldn't need to bring Russia to the table if Hitler has already crippled or destroyed Russia as a country...

The problem is that the US and Japan had their hands in the same cookie jars. You probably need more than isolationism from the US, but ironically an American-style sakoku. The US would need to abandon its global interests nearly in total.

 

[RMcD94]

The US would need to abandon its global interests nearly in total.

The US basically did abandon China and it's not like they had significant interests in Southern Indochina or the rest of colonial South East Asia.

If the USA had been willing to go to war over China they'd have done so long ago.

At the outset, U.S. officials viewed developments in China with ambivalence. On the one hand, they opposed Japanese incursions into northeast China and the rise of Japanese militarism in the area, in part because of their sense of a longstanding friendship with China. On the other hand, most U.S. officials believed that it had no vital interests in China worth going to war over with Japan. Moreover, the domestic conflict between Chinese Nationalists and Communists left U.S. policymakers uncertain of success in aiding such an internally divided nation. As a result, few U.S. officials recommended taking a strong stance prior to 1937, and so the United States did little to help China for fear of provoking Japan.

Really it was Japan's growing ties with Germany that resulted in the advancement of the embargos. Certainly they were useful in that it was an excuse but did anyone actually think the USA cared economically about Saigon? "Cut all of China off from us, fine by us, but not Saigon it's so vital to us"

Trade volume between the US and Japan grew from 37 to 40

And even with the actual oil embargo Roosevelt wasn't trying to do something as drastic as actually happened.

 

[HJ Tulp]

Interesting, did not know that. I will ask though, how feasible would attacking the DEI in 1940 be for Japan? Aren't there still way too many British bases nearby that they pretty much have to cross through?

It is little known that the Dutch government-in-exile as well as the colonial government in the DEI spend most of 1940 and most of 1941 - until December 1941 in fact - trying to convince the British government (who required American backing) and the USA to guarantee their territorial integrity without much succes. This situation led.the DEI to enact a policy of neutrality in Asia which, in turn, made the US hesitant in arms deals, fearing that the Netherlands East Indies might go the way of French Indochina.

Was a Japanese invasion of solely the DEI possible? Yes, through their Pacific mandates. This would initially not include the main DEI oil-ports though, and their logistic situation - as would their whole hold on Indonesia - would be threatened by American and British positions in the region.

 

[Deleted member 96212]

This would initially not include the main DEI oil-ports though

But eventually it would, right?

and their logistic situation - as would their whole hold on Indonesia - would be threatened by American and British positions in the region.

When you say "threatened", what exactly does that mean? Blockade? I'm genuinely asking.

 

[HJ Tulp]

But eventually it would, right?

Oh yes certainly. The only thing the Dutch have for them is that the Japanese will probably want to make short work of it to finish the job before a possible Anglo-American intervention and to forestall destruction of the oil infrastructure. If the submarine doctrine of the Interbellum would be used they could give one of the invasion fleets a bloody nose. The end result is never in doubt though, especially with Helfrich leading the Dutch fleet.

When you say "threatened", what exactly does that mean? Blockade? I'm genuinely asking

This is a map of South East Asia in 1940. The most direct route from Palembang (the oil capital of the DEI) goes through the Southern Chinese Sea but that can be easily blocked by the British and Americans. The other route is through the Caroline Islands by way of Palau. That will be the probable way of invasion if a coup de main is deemed too dangerous. But also the route through Palau can be interdicted by American forces based in the Philipines or Guam. OTL the Japanese were psychologically incapable of allowing it's SLOCS to be in such danger, hence Pearl Harbour.

 

[RMcD94]

It is little known that the Dutch government-in-exile as well as the colonial government in the DEI spend most of 1940 and most of 1941 - until December 1941 in fact - trying to convince the British government (who required American backing) and the USA to guarantee their territorial integrity without much succes. This situation led.the DEI to enact a policy of neutrality in Asia which, in turn, made the US hesitant in arms deals, fearing that the Netherlands East Indies might go the way of French Indochina.

Was a Japanese invasion of solely the DEI possible? Yes, through their Pacific mandates. This would initially not include the main DEI oil-ports though, and their logistic situation - as would their whole hold on Indonesia - would be threatened by American and British positions in the region.

Japan attacked DEI from Hainan and Palau in OTL, but if you're not attacking Borneo then you can't really come in from Hainan. Still it wasn't like they overextended in their OTL invasions, considering the number, the scale and the distance they covered I'm sure they could handle a smaller more direct invasion. It's not like the DEI can do anything if it finds out the invasion forces are sailing straight from Hainan to Java.

 

[Deleted member 96212]

This is a map of South East Asia in 1940. The most direct route from Palembang (the oil capital of the DEI) goes through the Southern Chinese Sea but that can be easily blocked by the British and Americans. The other route is through the Caroline Islands by way of Palau. That will be the probable way of invasion if a coup de main is deemed too dangerous. But also the route through Palau can be interdicted by American forces based in the Philipines or Guam. OTL the Japanese were psychologically incapable of allowing it's SLOCS to be in such danger, hence Pearl Harbour.

Makes sense. My two follow-up questions then:
1. Were Japanese fears of Anglo/American interdiction or obstruction warranted (in other words, would they actually do such a thing)?
2. If the answer to #1 is no, then is there any possible way for the Japanese to understand that or at least take the risk of it not happening?

That map looks cool BTW. Where'd you get it from?

 

[RMcD94]

Makes sense. My two follow-up questions then:
1. Were Japanese fears of Anglo/American interdiction or obstruction warranted (in other words, would they actually do such a thing)?
2. If the answer to #1 is no, then is there any possible way for the Japanese to understand that or at least take the risk of it not happening?

That map looks cool BTW. Where'd you get it from?

The map is from https://omniatlas.com/maps/asia-pacific/19220206/

At least for 2 if you allow the Americans in particular to massively reinforce the Philippines then you lose the advantage that Japan had in OTL, barely defended, far off islands. As you can see in New Guinea when you give them time to reinforce island invasions become much harder, especially if you can't stop supply lines and in PH it can self supply a lot of its needs.

For 1 as I posted before Roosevelt thought that the Japanese would eventually give enough of a reason to get the USA in war but it's anybody's guess whether they really would have or whether the public would support it.