What if Germany and Japan never ally? How does the Pacific War look?

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
Off the top of my head, I think that Hitler would still start his crap in Europe, and the US would still give lend lease aid, but without an alliance with Japan I don't see a scenario with Hitler declaring war on the US during the fighting with Britain, Russia, and assorted others. I'd think America would provide materiel support but not actually fight.

With Japan, however, they are probably still going to attack America. Without a war with Germany, however, all of America's military might will be focused on the Japanese. This will not end well for Japan. In fact, I can see the US reaching the home islands in '43 or early '44. At this point in time, I would doubt the existance of a working nuclear weapon in US hands. That being the case, would we invade the home islands? With no garrison in Europe and no British support (Japan certainly would have gone after British territories, but they would likely have their hands too full with Germany to do much of anything about it), and no possibility of using nuclear weapons against military formations, how does this invasion look? Sure, America wins, but how quickly and at what cost?

As a second question, with the British unable to react to Japanese attacks against their territories in the Pacific, what would the Australians and New Zealanders do? Would they focus their efforts on helping out Britain in the fight against Germany, or would they do what they could for Britain's Pacific territories in the fight against Japan, operating very closely with the Americans? Australia and New Zealand won't be directly threatened by Japan, so I could see this going either way.

What would India do? Without British support and with Japan screwing around successfully in Southeast Asia early in the war before America stood up strait and started beating their faces in, would they raise more military units so as to oppose Japan themselves? Could we see a legendary Indian effort in the Pacific War similar to the ANZAC legend of the World Wars? What would this mean for Indian politics after the war?
 
Last edited:
As a practical matter there was very little coordination/cooperation between Germany and Japan in WWII. Some limited exchange of tech data and a few U-Boats in the Indian Ocean that got some support at Singapore. The alliance they had was defensive, and since Japan attacked the USA first Germany was not obliged to declare war on the USA, this was one of Hitler's least bright decisions.

Japan will still attack British & Dutch colonies in SE Asia so they are in the war against Japan. Most folks agree that sooner or later the USA & Germany would formally go at it, the question is how much longer would it take for that to happen if Hitler does not declare war in December, 1941. This POD could mean that A-bombs are used first in Germany vice Japan (as was the original expectation).
 
It would look practically the same in the Pacific, in Europe the quasi-war between America and Germany in the Atlantic finally leads to one or the other declaring war, possibly in mid-1942.
 
Well, as Japan's war with China continued to deteriorate their relations with the Western Nations and threat of USSR loomed from the north, they had to find someone to ally to. Practically the only choice left was to have Germany as an ally. So, if we want them not to ally Germans they need to have some choice and to make a different decision in regards to China. Otherwise, they are bound to ally Germany at some point.

Besides it was two sides game. Germany also looked for an ally to tie British asets to the Far East and the only choice for this was Japan. In all actuality as long as both Japan and Germany are considered aspiring powers, their alliance is the logical course of action for both. The POD necessary here would be the one which removes this dynamics and makes Japan more satisfied or less ambitious.
 
As a practical matter there was very little coordination/cooperation between Germany and Japan in WWII. Some limited exchange of tech data and a few U-Boats in the Indian Ocean that got some support at Singapore. The alliance they had was defensive, and since Japan attacked the USA first Germany was not obliged to declare war on the USA, this was one of Hitler's least bright decisions.

Japan will still attack British & Dutch colonies in SE Asia so they are in the war against Japan. Most folks agree that sooner or later the USA & Germany would formally go at it, the question is how much longer would it take for that to happen if Hitler does not declare war in December, 1941. This POD could mean that A-bombs are used first in Germany vice Japan (as was the original expectation).

The Americans had already been fighting the Germans in the Atlantic for months the Germans decided that they might as well make it official so they could be more effective not exactly a stupid decision, it back fired but there was sound logic behind it.
 
The Americans had already been fighting the Germans in the Atlantic for months the Germans decided that they might as well make it official so they could be more effective not exactly a stupid decision, it back fired but there was sound logic behind it.

The hostillities between german U-Boote and US shipping was primarily the result of the agressive policy made by FDR, as he insisted to bring in the USA in the war in Europe. The declaration of the 200 miles zone was one such act of anti-German actions by the President (and therefore the USA as a whole) as was the active escorting of Allied convoys in the West Atlantic, which was allowed within the original territorial (3 miles zone) waters, but questionable at least in the Open Ocean. (since the USA were still strictly neutral on paper.) The only thing realy needed was a provocation to trick Germany into an official declaration of war, which was easy to do, since the incompetent leadership in the Third Reich was always one of extremes.
 
The Americans had already been fighting the Germans in the Atlantic for months the Germans decided that they might as well make it official so they could be more effective not exactly a stupid decision, it back fired but there was sound logic behind it.

The decision for the U.S. to expand Lend Lease to the Soviet Union probably played as much a role in it as Hitler's entire plan for the war at that point was based on doing well enough in the Soviet Union in the spring though fall fighting season of 1942 that he would be able to force Stalin to the table and then be able to focus his attention on reinforcing Africa and focusing German industry on building subs and other weapons to force England to the table.

The DoW on the U.S. of course worked against him as his plans for the Soviet Union led to Germany losing a whole Army Group over the next year and it forced the Africa Korps into an unwinnable two front war. In fact the decision by Rommel to lunge on Egypt when the opportunity arose was in no small part influenced by the U.S. being for many months at that point in the war and knowing the most logical place for them to land their forces was on the other side of Africa as his forces and of course Egypt having the single best port in North Africa.
 
Imperial Japan was never 'allied' to the European Axis powers in the same sense that the Europeans were 'allied' together. Both just had common enemies.

The Tripartite Pact, which might be considered 'an alliance, was signed in 1940, long after events that had been set in motion.

However more importantly one has to consider the Anti-comintern pact signed late 1936, it was this pact that solidified Nazi Germany's position with Imperial Japan and China. This is the 'real alliance' that existed between Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, over the common enemy of Russia.

We also have to consider why Imperial Japan acted in 1939 and 1940 with respect to the Wehrmachts successes in Europe. Without a successful Blitzkrieg of Europe and Poland it is unlikely Imperial Japan would have been able to/been in a position to, to occupy French Indochina.

If French Indochina isn't occupied, then you don't get the Pacific War, Pearl Harbour or any of that jazz like in our timeline.

Critically we have to look at what the Japanese government felt was happening in Europe, they felt that Hitler’s success meant that the war in Europe would be over very soon and if Japan delayed it would no longer have the smokescreen of War in Europe, or the ability to justify a take over of Indochina.

Indeed, Indochina itself was an almost unilateral decision taken and acted out by the IJA (Imperial Japanese Army) so in itself was not a forgone conclusion, nor was it 'supported' by the vast majority of the Japanese populace. It was very much a decision taken in the wake of Nazi Germany signing a peace with Vichy France and the army commanders feeling that they could pressure the new and weak Vichy regime when it faced far more danger from Hitler’s armies that were in principle 'allies'.




Without an ideological alliance (anti-comintern pact), you likely get a situation where Imperial Japan feels more threatened by Soviet Russia precluding the 'Advance South' policies from forming, nor a strong relationship with Nazi Germany forming either. In such a case by the fall of France, Imperial Japan neither has the army or navy forces in the region to press an occupation of Indochina, nor the political backing/support from Nazi Germany.

Without this occupation of Indochina, the Allies are far less outraged over Imperial Japan, and several major embargoes are not placed upon Imperial Japan. Critically this means that Imperial Japan has no need (or capacity in this TL) to declare war on the Allies including Britain and America and so will go on to prosecute the war in China from a more northern perspective.

Because the Advance South policies will have been reduced in prominence from an increased threat from Soviet Russia from not having had the ideological anti-comintern pact (or tripartie pact) signed with Germany, even the Nanking massacres may not have occurred to the extent they did in our timeline as more Japanese troops are required in Manchuria, and so less are available for the Shanghai or Hanan operations.

What all this means is that Japan in 1941 is very much in a different millitary position from our timeline.

They will still have a rather free hand given they have yet to outrage the Allies, but they also have less troops for the north China fronts and have to maintain a larger Manchurian garrison that is basically achieving nothing.

In principle this will reduce Japans ability to fight a war with China as they have not been in a position to occupy most of the coastal Chinese regions and are limited in operations to perhaps Shanghai and Qingdao only.

Long term this means that Japan will squander far less fuel oil and metal reserves on shipbuilding and naval operations which may allow the war in China to go on for 2-3 years up to about '42 - '43 before it starts to struggle with the economics of total war. In such a case Imperial Japan may have eliminated a vast majority of the communist resistance and occupied a large region of northern China. Here the tide might turn on them if other major powers back China, or the Soviets attack the Japanese (or Japanese declare full war against the Soviets).

Without a German-Japanese Axis alliance, Chiang Kai-Shek might court the Axis instead and join the Axis powers rather than the Allies. In such a case Japan could actually become one of the Allies and instead given American support much like Russia to provide the manpower to prevent spread of fascism in Asia. However this is a far possibility.

China might court the Allies still, however without Japan starting a conflict with the Allies they will likely not give the Chinese any real help, other than the US possibly putting some sanctions on Japan, or trade embargoes against war materials, however it would be impossible to know what Americas position might be without the Anti-comintern pact.



Overall I wish to make clear that neither imperial Japan or Nazi Germany were allied in war cooperation, and were rather only ideological allies who had common enemies.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
If they decide not to ally with them Post Pearl Harbor, They might continue the Sino-German cooperation. Although I'm not exactly sure when the cut off for that project was but I sure it was in 41.

Don't know how much use China would be in the Axis or even just as some kind of belligerent, although they had some resources the Germans really needed. But if they manage to force out the Japanese, the Japanese could use those forces in the Pacific.

If Hitler had the sense not to declare war on the Americans, he is going to want to keep it that way so avoiding a U-boat war with the Americans might be a top priority. But I dunno.
 
War with the US would be a bad thing for Germany in terms of ASW activity and in terms of Lend Lease coming through, especially with the US not playing by all the rules...
 

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
So, basically I cannot plausibly cancel the German/Japanese alliance and still have Japan and America in a position to start killing each other?

Is there any way I could drastically increase Indian involvement in the war? I brought this up in the OP as a minor question, but at the moment I'm rather intrigued by the idea of India getting very deeply involved and developing a legend similar to that of the ANZACs. I want to know how this would effect Indian politics after the war ends, especially with respect to independance from Britain, the split into India and Pakistan, and, assuming the split still happens, the way India and Pakistan behave towards each other (are they more or less likely to shoot at one another?).
 
So, basically I cannot plausibly cancel the German/Japanese alliance and still have Japan and America in a position to start killing each other?

Well, the Japan/US hostility did have its own legs, even if they were weak and short. The China Lobby still had some weight in the US, and US businessmen in the 'China Trade' were finding dealing with Japanese overlords in the Chinese markets formerly open to them - sucked. Not that they did not trade with the Japanese vs the Chinese, but that they found it more difficult. So, while a Pacific war in not likely in 1941-42 it is not impossible circumstance would change later, particualry after 1944. What would keep the US & Japan from each others throats would be 1. Japanese support of the Allies in Europes war. 2. a Japanese Chinese cease fire sometime in 1942-43 as the military situation changes in China.

Is there any way I could drastically increase Indian involvement in the war?

Easily with Japan out of it. Historically a Indian Corps fought in Africa & Italy. In this TL the entire body of Indian soldiers who fought in Mayla, Burma, & India can be shifted to the Middle East & Mediterranean. Some whould take up dull garrison duties, the better ones would add their numbers to the battles in Lybia, Italy, ect...
 

Jason222

Banned
Well, as Japan's war with China continued to deteriorate their relations with the Western Nations and threat of USSR loomed from the north, they had to find someone to ally to. Practically the only choice left was to have Germany as an ally. So, if we want them not to ally Germans they need to have some choice and to make a different decision in regards to China. Otherwise, they are bound to ally Germany at some point.

Besides it was two sides game. Germany also looked for an ally to tie British asets to the Far East and the only choice for this was Japan. In all actuality as long as both Japan and Germany are considered aspiring powers, their alliance is the logical course of action for both. The POD necessary here would be the one which removes this dynamics and makes Japan more satisfied or less ambitious.
Only way I can see way this could happen if some top general of Japan were Jewish or Japanese Emperor wife Jewish either one likley making allies impossible. Maybe the Jews living Japan for half thausand years so Japan might form allies with Nazi Germany. Japan not allies with Nazi Germany likley alley with Russia. Immagine mess FDR find himself it that was case.
 
So, basically I cannot plausibly cancel the German/Japanese alliance and still have Japan and America in a position to start killing each other?

Is there any way I could drastically increase Indian involvement in the war? I...


Well it depends what you mean by 'alliance' like I said...

...there was the ideological alliance in the Anti-comintern pact, that was signed by both by Imperial Japan and China, albeit for different reasons. In Japan it was more to do with having a unified stance against the Russians and so was about security against Russian aggression. In China it was more to do with the nationalists fearing the Communists that they were fighting in the Chinese Civil War at the time.

The only 'alliance' in the formal sense, Japan had with Germany was the Tripartite Pact, which was defensive in nature, and neither powers had really any form of cooperative organised effort in their wars. They only shared a common enemy in the Allies.


Cancelling the Tripartite Pact basically has very little effect on anything, it just might delay Hitler declaring war on the US, and generally make all the axis powers feel a bit weaker on the international stage.

Cancelling the Anti-comintern pact with having the Japanese not sign it (and IIRC they didn't sign it the first time it was offered to them) may have very serious repercussions, up to and likely including no Allies-Imperial Japanese conflict, and possibly making Chiang Kai-Shek court the Axis powers for support against Japan, rather than the allies.

(We have to remember that Germany in the interbellium had been more supportive of closer ties with China than Japan because China represented great mineral and economic wealth. It just so happened that Imperial Japan acting in Manchuria in the very early 1930s and its industrial/technological superiority to China (notwithstanding the fact that Japan wasn't in a civil war in the lead up to WWII) meant that Imperial Japan was a much more useful military ally than China was at the time, and so the Germans supported the Japanese in Asia, rather than the Chinese.

Have the Japanese reject the German advances, then the situation where China as the next best ideological ally becomes much larger.





Yes. India could have really upset the British war effort had Gandhi and the Indian Nationalist movement been much stronger. We could have seen India refuse in part, to supply men, arms or economic aid to fight British war. In such a case the British don't have anywhere near the resources available to force India to support them, let alone the political will to do so.

However India on its own at the time was still so fragmented and weak 'as a nation' its not really possible in any history for them to actually be belligerents in this world war without significantly changing history.

The only real way India could have affected the war is by not having taken part/denied the British the ability to call on her Empire at the time.



This could have had serious repercussions for the Pacific, without India the Japanese may feel more able to get away with occupying parts of the Pacific, but they won't do this unless either they are forced to via a lack of US-Dutch-British trade as well as having had the Advance South policy come to prominence in the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces (which is a prerequisite in many ways for needing the trade).

The critical thing with Imperial Japan in this era is that it didn't act as a nation. Rather individual military commanders led various military 'expeditions', which the Japanese government of the time had to support or 'loose face'. Thus we are less taking about the 'warmongering Japanese who want to rule the pacific' because they didn't. Rather we must remember the context of commanders wanting to show each other up/gain prestige through martial prowess, unfortunately this all snowballed into what became the Pacific War. Which is why when we look at the Japanese position in 1941 and afterwards, Japan was so indaquitly equip to fight that war.
 
I had the same thought.
Genmotty said:
d possibly making Chiang Kai-Shek court the Axis powers for support against Japan, rather than the allies.
Very improbable IMO, since the U.S. had been looking for access to the Chinese market for decades, & had quietly been hoping for Japan to make the "first overt act" against the U.S. so a blockade could be imposed (to aid China).
Genmotty said:
it just might delay Hitler declaring war on the US, and generally make all the axis powers feel a bit weaker on the international stage.
Perhaps slightly. As a practical matter, it can't have much impact. How do the Germans separate supplies to Britain for fighting Japan from supplies for fighting Germany?:confused::rolleyes: So, while it should be a bonanza for Germany on its face, in practise, it won't be.
 
Top