What counts as a "victory" for Japan in WW2?

elkarlo

Banned
Perhaps the their ASB luck holds and they win Midway, maybe just sinking 1 US carrier for 1 damaged IJN. The US may back off on offensives for 42', the Japanese fortify, and don't push their limits, so they can support an attacked island, instead of it standing alone. Perhaps they could hold off the US for a few years. That and if all the stuff they made wasn't junk:eek:
 
Well, I'm not sure that kind of engineering was possible in the 1980s, let alone forty years earlier. It'd be difficult to get the plague-laden lice or anthrax they were using to spread effectively in the United States, but since it's almost a matter of randomness, you could make a case ...
That's the funny thing about Alternate History. 990 out of 1000 times the Japanese will probably fail at making biological weapons, but 10 out of 1000 times they could perhaps get one made...and then it's not unrealistic to say they could get it delivered to the USA. Add this to the aforementioned scenario of Japan defeating the first two waves of American carriers, and the USA might seek terms. Or develop ICBMs to go along with those Atomic Bombs--if the USA is still left standing, we may see a fanatical USA genocide the interned Japanese and go on to erase Japan from the Earth.:eek:
 
Discussion thread on semantics.

The more cinematic and sensationalist Axis victory scenarios tend to end up with a perfect mirror of OTL, i.e. the Allied powers carved up and occupied by the Axis. To take one classic example, Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle, the Japanese end up with the entire Pacific states of the USA.

Now after you've taken some alka-seltzer I think most people would agree that that's Not Very Likely, to say the least. On the other hand, there is a distressing tendency on here to assume that victory for the Axis in any way was simply impossible based on quoting industrial production statistics. Fine except people and history do not work that way. The British populace, and even the leadership, thought they were in real danger of invasion in 1940, and while the rational AH.commer with the benefit of hindsight would not react to hints of the Germans preparing their invasion flotilla by e.g. panic-recalling forces from North Africa and thus changing the course of the war there, the cabinet might well do. That's just an example.

Quoted for truth.

I consider that if the pre-war government just survived then that would at least count as minor victory for Japan. So let's say that instead of using nuclear weapons or resort to using traditional bombs, Truman decides to go through with the invasion of Japan and the US is unable to deal the with guerrilla fighters and an endless insurgency so eventually the US signs a peace treaty which strips away the rest of the Empire but allows Japan to keep it's government, military, and emperor so it isn't a total surrender for Japan.

Rant over - anyway, bearing that in mind, what would a realistic 'victory' for Japan look like in the Pacific? The POD is December 7th 1941: Pearl Harbour and the invasion of Malaya must happen, but you can posit them sinking more ships or whatever in the attack.

Don't tell me that it's impossible for the Japanese not to lose. The odds are well stacked against them, but that's not the same thing. My question is, what could Japan realistically come out of the war with on top of what they started it with?

Oh, then forget everything I just said.
 
If we must start with a PoD no earlier than the actual start of the Pacific War, "victory" for Japan needs to be defined very minimilistically. As others have so well pointed out, there are no realistic series of military victories Japan can acheive that would counterbalance the massively disproportionate economic and military balance between the US and Japan. Japan is eventually going to lose, militarily. "Victory" can only be considered as a result that somehow lessened the impact of total military defeat - to sort of make Japan an "Asian Italy" in the eyes of the USA, UK, and (eventually the USSR). To do this several things have to happen, none of them likely:

Politically and diplomatically, Japan must:
(1) pursue a policy toward its conquered territories that is neither harsh or exploitative,
(2) strictly adhere to the Geneva accords regarding treatment of alliwed POWs
(3) win a few more battles such as as Midway
(4) Once it becomes obvious the US and UK are pursuing a "Germany first" strategy, find ways to implicitly or explicitly break with Nazi Germany, such as by offering asylum to Jews and others (something Japanese occupation authorities in Shanghai silently did).
(5) When still in a position of apparent strength, begin offering to negotiate a "land for peace" armistice with the aim of ending the war with the original Japanese Empire still intact and with some of the conquered territories perhaps up for discussion - including an offer to become a co-belligerent in the war against Germany.
(6) Remove the core clique of militarists who started the war from power

Although this is a stretch, it might be possible for Japan to end WW2 in a situation somewhat akin to Italy or Finland. Stripped of all of its wartime conquests on mainland asia, but unoccupied, independent, not completely disarmed, and still with some original possessions in hand. Depending upon what happens in China and with the Wallie/Commie split, Japan may be soon ready for an alliance with the USA as a more equal partner. This is about the closest Japan could hope to come to "victory" and it would take an amazing change of heart, both among the Japanese ruling elite and the UK and USA.
 
If we must start with a PoD no earlier than the actual start of the Pacific War, "victory" for Japan needs to be defined very minimilistically. As others have so well pointed out, there are no realistic series of military victories Japan can acheive that would counterbalance the massively disproportionate economic and military balance between the US and Japan. Japan is eventually going to lose, militarily. "Victory" can only be considered as a result that somehow lessened the impact of total military defeat - to sort of make Japan an "Asian Italy" in the eyes of the USA, UK, and (eventually the USSR). To do this several things have to happen, none of them likely:

Politically and diplomatically, Japan must:
(1) pursue a policy toward its conquered territories that is neither harsh or exploitative,
(2) strictly adhere to the Geneva accords regarding treatment of alliwed POWs
(3) win a few more battles such as as Midway
(4) Once it becomes obvious the US and UK are pursuing a "Germany first" strategy, find ways to implicitly or explicitly break with Nazi Germany, such as by offering asylum to Jews and others (something Japanese occupation authorities in Shanghai silently did).
(5) When still in a position of apparent strength, begin offering to negotiate a "land for peace" armistice with the aim of ending the war with the original Japanese Empire still intact and with some of the conquered territories perhaps up for discussion - including an offer to become a co-belligerent in the war against Germany.
(6) Remove the core clique of militarists who started the war from power

Although this is a stretch, it might be possible for Japan to end WW2 in a situation somewhat akin to Italy or Finland. Stripped of all of its wartime conquests on mainland asia, but unoccupied, independent, not completely disarmed, and still with some original possessions in hand. Depending upon what happens in China and with the Wallie/Commie split, Japan may be soon ready for an alliance with the USA as a more equal partner. This is about the closest Japan could hope to come to "victory" and it would take an amazing change of heart, both among the Japanese ruling elite and the UK and USA.
Something like this is likely about the only way, IMO. The toughest part might be reining in the junior army officers and the Kwantung army.

Maybe the navy does better against the US (Coral Sea?), and the Kwantung army does something stupid like attack the Soviets and get their heads handed to them, which makes them less politically powerful. Yamamoto and other naval officers offer peace talks.... Of course, the Japanese would have to have 'warned' the US officially (no DoW was even planned, but the 'warning' might have been enough to prevent the 'stab in the back' reaction).

Absolute most I see Japan keeping is Manchuoko, Korea and Taiwan. Maybe just Taiwan, with puppets the other two places? Since that's less than they started the war with, the Japanese wouldn't consider it a 'victory', but from OTL's perspective, it might be.
 
When Japan went to war with the western powers in December 1941 their strategy was built around the assumption that the U.S.A would eventually give up and go home. In 1945 the Japanese Government still believed that the U.S.A. would give up and go home. I forget the name of the book but I recall reading about discussions within the Japanese government in June and July 1945 that destribed a government divided between those who realised that Japanese strategy had failed and that Japan would have to fight to the last man, woman and child and those who favoured peace, believeing that they could ask the Americans to give up and they would go home.
If the atomic bombs had failed, and the U.S. government decided against an invasion in favour of a total blockade then the Japanese Government would claim victory. The nation would be in ruins, people would be dying of starvation in huge numbers and they would eventually devolve into something like North Korea; but the Japanese Government in 1945 would consider that a Victory.
 
If we must start with a PoD no earlier than the actual start of the Pacific War, "victory" for Japan needs to be defined very minimilistically. As others have so well pointed out, there are no realistic series of military victories Japan can acheive that would counterbalance the massively disproportionate economic and military balance between the US and Japan. Japan is eventually going to lose, militarily. "Victory" can only be considered as a result that somehow lessened the impact of total military defeat - to sort of make Japan an "Asian Italy" in the eyes of the USA, UK, and (eventually the USSR). To do this several things have to happen, none of them likely:

Politically and diplomatically, Japan must:
(1) pursue a policy toward its conquered territories that is neither harsh or exploitative,
(2) strictly adhere to the Geneva accords regarding treatment of alliwed POWs
(3) win a few more battles such as as Midway
(4) Once it becomes obvious the US and UK are pursuing a "Germany first" strategy, find ways to implicitly or explicitly break with Nazi Germany, such as by offering asylum to Jews and others (something Japanese occupation authorities in Shanghai silently did).
(5) When still in a position of apparent strength, begin offering to negotiate a "land for peace" armistice with the aim of ending the war with the original Japanese Empire still intact and with some of the conquered territories perhaps up for discussion - including an offer to become a co-belligerent in the war against Germany.
(6) Remove the core clique of militarists who started the war from power

Although this is a stretch, it might be possible for Japan to end WW2 in a situation somewhat akin to Italy or Finland. Stripped of all of its wartime conquests on mainland asia, but unoccupied, independent, not completely disarmed, and still with some original possessions in hand. Depending upon what happens in China and with the Wallie/Commie split, Japan may be soon ready for an alliance with the USA as a more equal partner. This is about the closest Japan could hope to come to "victory" and it would take an amazing change of heart, both among the Japanese ruling elite and the UK and USA.

Excellent analysis, I fully agree.

ONe point to consider also is the question what Japan could actually go out with "on top" if what they had pre-war. I agree that they will loose all war conquests on mainland Asia - something which will be hard to swallow for the Japanese. The Philippines are out of question as well, as are the British/Dominion colonies. This leaves the island of Hainan - doubtfull gain. Something in Indonesia - I don't think the Americans would accept Japanese presence in the Islands south of the Philippines. I think the best we could expect for the Japanese are some parts of Indochina the French are forced to cede. Or, alternatively, the Japanese manage to bring Mantschukuo into the Allied camp as well.
 
That's the funny thing about Alternate History. 990 out of 1000 times the Japanese will probably fail at making biological weapons, but 10 out of 1000 times they could perhaps get one made...and then it's not unrealistic to say they could get it delivered to the USA. Add this to the aforementioned scenario of Japan defeating the first two waves of American carriers, and the USA might seek terms. Or develop ICBMs to go along with those Atomic Bombs--if the USA is still left standing, we may see a fanatical USA genocide the interned Japanese and go on to erase Japan from the Earth.:eek:

Ouch ... using my own argument from the ICBM thread against me. You win.
 
Victory for Japan?

The Japanese had several plans on how to conduct the war in the Pacific. Had they stuck with a more limited plan in which they confined their attacks to the British, Dutch and French colonies in south east Asia they would've won the war because there was no way in hell that Roosevelt would've been able to convince the Americans to go to war in order to defend foreign colonial possessions.

The Japanese already had a sizeable chunk of the west Pacific that was awarded to them under the 1919 Treaty of Versailles and French Indo-China so they didn't need to go through the Philippines to get to southeast Asia. Indeed, the Japanese launched their attacks on Malaya and Indonesia from China and French Indo-China.

Also, the Japanese would've kept a firm grip on these captured territories because the British would not have had the manpower or resources to retake them without a long and bloody conflict.

It's also worth noting that in April 1939 the Americans had agreed that in the event of a war involving the British breaking out in Asia and Europe that they would take over the responsibility of defending Australia and New Zealand. If either of these countries were attacked the Americans would've been morally obligated to defend them. As it was, though Australia faced air attacks, the Japanese had no plans to invade either country as victory in the Pacific War would've made both countries heavily dependent on Japan to survive.

Considering that much of the Pacific Fleet had already been diverted to providing escorts across the Atlantic for the British the Pacific Fleet would not have been in much of a position to launch any offensives against the Japanese.

In short, if the Japanese had confined their 1941 military operations to south east Asia the Pacific War would've had a very different outcome. Maybe not an outright Japanese victory but definately a situation where the Allies would've been unable to win.
 
The Japanese had several plans on how to conduct the war in the Pacific. Had they stuck with a more limited plan in which they confined their attacks to the British, Dutch and French colonies in south east Asia they would've won the war because there was no way in hell that Roosevelt would've been able to convince the Americans to go to war in order to defend foreign colonial possessions.

Sorry but no, the main body of the isolationists were pro german, and didnt care about the Japanese. A war against the British and Dutch would mean a war with the US yes or yes ( and with the Philippines in the middle it was even more of an a suicide than OTL, and thats something ). In fact the massive sanctions against Japan ( the real cause of the war ) were a direct consequence of the "steal" of Indochina to the French ...
 
Sorry but no, the main body of the isolationists were pro german, and didnt care about the Japanese. A war against the British and Dutch would mean a war with the US yes or yes ( and with the Philippines in the middle it was even more of an a suicide than OTL, and thats something ). In fact the massive sanctions against Japan ( the real cause of the war ) were a direct consequence of the "steal" of Indochina to the French ...

Actually the majority of Americans were isolationists. Indeed F.D. Roosevelt won the 1940 election on the promise that he would not go to war which most people saw as a "European problem". Though there was a lot of sympathy towards the British and the French the Americans were not prepared to go to war to defend them. It was partly to get around that which led to the signing of the Lend Lease Agreement with the British.

If the Americans weren't prepared to fight for the British or French homelands I doubt very much they would've gone to war to defend their colonies. Americans on the whole were strongly opposed to colonialism and it was a key reason why the Americans imposed an oil embargo on the Japanese rather than go to war when the Japanese took control of French Indo-China.

If the Japanese had not attacked the Philippines and Pearl Harbour and had confined their operations to south east Asia it is certain that Americans would've fought unofficially alongside the British and Dutch in southeast Asia in much the same way as they were fighting unofficially in China and the UK but that would've been as far as things would've gone.
 
Top