Tojo's Alaskan Alternative

[Cook]

You are very much on point regarding IJA tactics. Their troops were very tough, but overall the IJA was, by design, a light infantry force with minimal armor and a fairly light artillery train. The Japanese Army did not achieve one significant victory against Western (or Soviet) forces that was not the result of both surprise and engagement against colonial forces.

G'day Cal,

I’d suggest the Malaya and Singapore Campaign has a few wins for them. A lot of Japanese success there was because of appalling Allied Command but credit where credit is due that was a very slickly executed campaign.

Apparently when they took Singapore they only had a few days worth of artillery ammunition left.

 

[CalBear]

G'day Cal,

I’d suggest the Malaya and Singapore Campaign has a few wins for them. A lot of Japanese success there was because of appalling Allied Command but credit where credit is due that was a very slickly executed campaign.

Apparently when they took Singapore they only had a few days worth of artillery ammunition left.

The Malaya/Singapore Campaign was indeed a very well executed bit of work. It was, however, still against colonial forces (and very poorly trained and equipped ones at that) and very much a surprise.

The Japanese had no small degree of brilliance in infantry tactics and troops who were exceptionally brave, not to mention an inhuman willingness to drive their own troops beyond their endurance on fairly short supply, but the fact remains that the IJA never took on a prepared force from the UK, USSR, or U.S. and walked away a winner. Even in circumstances that were all in the IJA force commander's favor (Malaya and the Philippines) the Japanese Army had far more difficulty than it should have.

The situation at Singapore is an excellent example of IJA difficulties, despite utter incompentence by the Senior Commonwealth leadership, utter air supremacy, total naval supremacy, and the advantages coming from having a force of combat veterans up against troops that were close to raw recruits, it took a very bold bluff on the part of Yamashita to secure his victory before running out of supplies. The situation in the Philippines comes close to being equally bad (if not actually worse). The American forces, despite the criminally poor leadership offered by MacArthur, compounded by logistical errors that the average video game player wouldn't commit and insufficient supplies of some critical munitions right from the start of the conflict denied the Japanese use of Manila Bay for FIVE MONTHS (Corregidor fell on May 6, 1942, 150 days aqfter the attack on Pearl Harbor). For that matter, the IJA's inability to find fix and defeat the Chinese field armies speaks volumes.

 

[Cook]

Going home to play Hoodoo Guru’s “Tojo never made it to Darwin” on the stereo.

 

[mailinutile2]

One thing I do not fully agree is the concept that in case of a japanese attack ONLY to the USA, then the commonwealth would immediately declare war.
Does anybody know if there was there some guarantee (poland-like) of UK over the USA?
Given the bad state of UK force in the indian pacific (not to mention war in north africa) that would be an hazardous move.

One common justification is that UK hoped to "drag the USA into the european war", but this also would be quite a risky gamble since it would require 2 conditions which were not depending on UK:
1) that germany declare war to USA, since the congress is not willing to declare a war itself and figure as "the aggressor" (otherwise, the war would split into 2 separate wars)
2) that USA agree to a europe-first strategy, since a "pacific first" strategy would be worhtless to UK (but with japanese on the american continent is that plausible)

 

[Readman]

Are you kidding me? Yeah, I can see the convo:
(Obviously super sterotypical lol)
Britain: I say, dear boy seems a spot of trouble in Alaska is brewing, just letting you know we're here to help old, eh wot?

Canada: Hey, budday need some help with those Japs? We'll lend a hand no doot aboot it

ANZACS: Oi! Don't forget about us, mate!

India: Oh, good the Japanese are bashing their heads against the Americans, this will leave us less open to attack.

 

[Caspian]

One thing I do not fully agree is the concept that in case of a japanese attack ONLY to the USA, then the commonwealth would immediately declare war.

A Japanese DoW on the United States alone accomplishes Japan nothing except to take the gold medal in sheer insanity away from Hitler and leave him with the silver. No oil, no rubber, no minerals, no food - nothing except a bunch of Japanese-built artificial reefs scattered around the Pacific and a lot of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians.

 

[mailinutile2]

A Japanese DoW on the United States alone accomplishes Japan nothing except to take the gold medal in sheer insanity away from Hitler and leave him with the silver. No oil, no rubber, no minerals, no food - nothing except a bunch of Japanese-built artificial reefs scattered around the Pacific and a lot of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians.

You're basically right (the thread was based on the POD that there were useful materials on the alaskan coast -oil- but since it turned out that that oil is too deep, it has turned ASB), but it does not answer the question.
Stereotypical character aside, why everyone is sure that the Commonwealth would declare war?
The possibiliites of the USA replying "thank you, John Bull, and since we're grateful we'll ignore the japs until we have the germans smashed" appear quite thin to me
D Sorry, the Stereotypical Character won )
Is there a document I am missing here?

 

[The Red]

You're basically right (the thread was based on the POD that there were useful materials on the alaskan coast -oil- but since it turned out that that oil is too deep, it has turned ASB), but it does not answer the question.
Stereotypical character aside, why everyone is sure that the Commonwealth would declare war?
The possibiliites of the USA replying "thank you, John Bull, and since we're grateful we'll ignore the japs until we have the germans smashed" appear quite thin to me
D Sorry, the Stereotypical Character won )
Is there a document I am missing here?

If Japan goes hostile it's in the common interest, the same way the US would have declared war without Pearl Harbour (which was the whole point of the attack)

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Japan invading North America means war with Canada as well as the US and the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth declare war in support of Canada. After Canada coming to the support of the British in both World Wars there simply isn't an alternative for London.

 

[mailinutile2]

If Japan goes hostile it's in the common interest, the same way the US would have declared war without Pearl Harbour (which was the whole point of the attack)

I seems to me that you're talking as if UK was the 51st state of the union (or whatever number it was) or as if USA was part of the Commonwealth.
IIRC there was not even an alliance between them.
Now, a benigne neutrality i can understand, maybe even allowing troops to transfer through Canada and/or organizing "Volunteers" (Franco-like in Barbarossa), but a declaration of war?

 

[CalBear]

I seems to me that you're talking as if UK was the 51st state of the union (or whatever number it was) or as if USA was part of the Commonwealth.
IIRC there was not even an alliance between them.
Now, a benigne neutrality i can understand, maybe even allowing troops to transfer through Canada and/or organizing "Volunteers" (Franco-like in Barbarossa), but a declaration of war?

I have to say that you brought the Canadian/UK connection in yourself with your map back in Post #1. You showed three Japanese target right along the Alaska/Canada frontier. There is also the high likelyhood that Hitler does the same as IOTL and jumps in to support his Japanese Axis partner (Hitler had a very poor opinion of the U.S. military, with the Americans otherwise distracted a DoW allows the U-Boat force to increase activity).

As far the UK coming in or not coming in it is really of no significant difference. The assistance that is available is balanced by the increased depth that now has to be defended. Bottom line is a defeated Japan.

 

[mailinutile2]

I have to say that you brought the Canadian/UK connection in yourself with your map back in Post #1. You showed three Japanese target right along the Alaska/Canada frontier.

You mean this one?
it is just a view of where oil deposit are, I was not certainly assuming they woud attack all them
they'd require spaceship technology to do that

There is also the high likelyhood that Hitler does the same as IOTL and jumps in to support his Japanese Axis partner (Hitler had a very poor opinion of the U.S. military, with the Americans otherwise distracted a DoW allows the U-Boat force to increase activity).

However, that would drag USA into europe for sure, while ITTL i think I can hear the Congress grumbling: "Why are we thinking of meddling in europe when there are Japs on the American soil?"
In short I think the key difference is the way USA perceive "the american continent" ("the mainland", if you prefer, but Alaska is a bit too peripherical for that) differently from "the islands" (maybe with a bit of colonialistic heritage).
I think that "Japanese feet on the American soil" would almost automatically mean "pacific-first strategy"
That said, I think Goebbles (if not Hitler himself) would refrain H from a declaration of War.
Notice also that, with "Japs on the American soil"-frenzy, I expect shipments toward the uUK to decrease

As far the UK coming in or not coming in it is really of no significant difference.

I thought that the commonwealth would mean that ALL the commonwealth members go at war at once

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The Commonwealth will declare war, there won't be a rush to deploy South Africans or New Zealanders in Vancouver.

As for Hitler, he had everything to gain by not declaring war on the US OTL so why expect sanity when the American mainland is somehow invaded?

 

[mailinutile2]

As for Hitler, he had everything to gain by not declaring war on the US OTL so why expect sanity when the American mainland is somehow invaded?

because the American mainland is somehow invaded.
In OTL it wasn't, so an Europe-first strategy made sense.
here I see a Pacific-first strategy (or even a pacific-only one) much more probable

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Then you don't have a clue about what you're talking about and I'm tired of wasting my time.

 

[The Red]

here I see a Pacific-first strategy (or even a pacific-only one) much more probable

After America experiences a very easy and large victory right at the outset?

 

[mailinutile2]

After America experiences a very easy and large victory right at the outset?

Even in that case, would't be more probable an effort to vindicate the offence bringing war on japanese soil?
I don't pretend to be right at all cost, but it seems quite probable to me.

 

[CalBear]

Even in that case, would't be more probable an effort to vindicate the offence bringing war on japanese soil?
I don't pretend to be right at all cost, but it seems quite probable to me.

The thing about a "Pacific First" strategy is, well, its impossible. The U.S. needed ships to sweep the entire Pacific free of the IJN. Ships take time to build. Until the Fleet was ready to go, the best thing to do was engage the more dangerous opponent. If there had been a "let Europe wait" strategy the entire U.S. military, save a couple extra Army divisions and a fighter wing or two that could be sent to the Solomons to back up the 1st Marine Division would be out of a job.

The nature of the Pacific War did not require a 100 division Army. It required 20 fleet carriers and their escorts and about 10 ground divisions (Assuming that the CBI is excluded). The whole "Europe 1st" meme is more of a matter of necessity being reflected as Strategic Decision than an actual choice.

 

[mailinutile2]

On the subject of Canada/the UK/the rest of the Commonwealth declaring war on Japan in support of the United States, in addition to the fact that Alaska is right on Canada's doorstep, Canada and the US formed the Permanent Joint Board on Defense in 1940. Given that, it seems likely that we would come to their defence.

Thus there was some document I was missing!
Do you know what were the terms of the Permanent Joint Board ?
Did it regarded the Canadian Dominion only?
what I mean is: is there the signature of Tweedsmuir only (or Duff, or whatever it was) on the document or was it ratifyed by London, too?

 

[RogueBeaver]

The PJBD was signed by Mackenzie King and FDR in Ogdensburg, NY on FDR's private railway car. The GG doesn't conduct foreign affairs, the PM does.