What if Japan invaded the Arabian Peninsula during WWII?

Except as opposed to China, Japan never had any experience fighting in desert environment. They already had incursions in Vietnam and other jungle regions way before the formation of Imperial Japan (as seen in pirate raids against parts of Asia in the 15th-16th century including Indonesia). On top of that they invaded Vietnam before they went into Malaysia and Indonesia nearly a year earlier (further than that if you count minor squads and platoons staying in French Indochina before France fell). That's not counting the jungle parts of China Japan fought in the Sino Wars (along with their colonization of Taiwan) and the fact Imperial Japan had geared their troops to fight in very Asian environments since its existence and the influence of the French and British military had on Japanese military thought (bought nations which had developed jungle warfare doctrines because of their experience in South East and Southern Asia colonies).

Unless you count battles in the Gobi desert as a baseline for Imperial Japan's performance but even that's waaaay different from fighting in the dunes of Arabia (and IOTL Japan had serious problems with Chinese armies and insurgencies in the Gobi and other desert regions-I recall one of the Chinese generals who consistently defeated the Japanese including in open pitch battles was a Muslim from an ethnicity that frequently lived or at least travelled through the Gobi).

Hell the Japanese got their asses whooped by Mongols who were backward compared to the Chinese at the time. Granted at Khalkin Gol they just received a big boost from Soviet armaments and training and they didn't exactly fight in desert conditions in the brief war with the Soviets. But there was already skirmishes before Khalkin Gol between Mongols and Japanese forces going as far as the Sino War and a problem Japanese advanced frequently had was running out of water as they tried to chase Mongol bandits and guerrillas (along with Chinese insurgents in the Gobi). Never mind the lack of oil, ammo, and other supplies which they had OTL in the Gobi.

Now when you go into the Arabian deserts which is even more taxing on the human system in terms of dehydration and lacks even more water than the Gobi........... Along with the sand dunes being a different beast on movement than the Gobi's more flat and rocky terrain..............

Never mind the fact Japan did not have experience in desert warfare in general and their performance in the Gobi leads a lot to be desired. At least in Malaysia and Burma, they already had a base to build one fro as far as the 19th century in Taiwan (even as far as feudal Japan if you want to include Japanese pirates, raiders, and mercenaries for hire abroad in other Asian wars). And isn't a part of Japan somewhat jungled? I recall the Imperial Army trained in the forest parts (some which resemble Vietnamese jungles) along with mountain training decades before the war.
Jungle is not a verb, so its impossible for Japan to be jungled and why jungled is a spelling mistake.

However, that's interesting information that is new to me and gives the British commanders no excuse for their complacency in 1941.

Though the furthest the Japanese would realistically want to go inland was the defensive perimeter of Aden. OTOH if the Japanese were serious about fighting in the Arabian desert, it would have had to be planned for some time because it's so far from Japan, which would have given them some time to study the problems of surviving in deserts and made preparations for it. For example they could ask their Italian allies, who had been in Libya for 30 years by 1941 for advice.
 
Unless Japan can rig a Gate to Saudi Arabia, just not going to happen.

As said by
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/members/remitonov.82236/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/members/remitonov.82236/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/members/remitonov.82236/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/members/remitonov.82236/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/members/remitonov.82236/


Italy would be about the only one to semi realistically chance to invade. Even then it is far fetched and precludes England being able to reinforce from India. Italy would also have to control the Suez Canal as well.
Withdraw from China, throw the IJA at India, driving Indian independence, using Indian forces to invade Arabia/Persia. LOL
 

Griffith

Banned
Jungle is not a verb, so its impossible for Japan to be jungled and why jungled is a spelling mistake.

However, that's interesting information that is new to me and gives the British commanders no excuse for their complacency in 1941.

Though the furthest the Japanese would realistically want to go inland was the defensive perimeter of Aden. OTOH if the Japanese were serious about fighting in the Arabian desert, it would have had to be planned for some time because it's so far from Japan, which would have given them some time to study the problems of surviving in deserts and made preparations for it. For example they could ask their Italian allies, who had been in Libya for 30 years by 1941 for advice.

In the case of the British if you want to make it even more insulting, the British conquest of India in general frequently used the tactics the Japanese used both by the BRITISH and the INDIANS. Sending troops through a harsh jungle environment that a conventional mass army can't pass through? Been proven WRONG early in the Sepoy Rebellion when the Indians were conquering British towns. Hell the British themselves frequently used the exact same tactic of "improvision" to go through jungles to attack the weak points of impenetrable fortresses of Hindu and Muslim warlords (who though the British white man were too pampered and soft to endure the jungle road paths that Indian armies typically had a hard time passing through).

Granted they didn't had bikes as we know it during those centuries of invading India, but the British were quite clever in adopting "jungle commando" equivalent of either small squads passing gradually or entire armies marching in an irregular manner (rather than marching rank and file, keep scattered troops to make it easier to go through jungles). They surprised even the jungle inhabitants knew how to use the environment for tactics.

From Wikipedia

In September 1858 Rae Ahmed Nawaz Khan Kharal, head of the Khurrul tribe, led an insurrection in the Neeli Bar district, between the Sutlej,Ravi and Chenab rivers. The rebels held the jungles of Gogaira and had some initial successes against the British forces in the area, besieging Major Crawford Chamberlain at Chichawatni. A squadron of Punjabi cavalry sent by Sir John Lawrence raised the siege. Ahmed Khan was killed but the insurgents found a new leader in Mahr Bahawal Fatyana, who maintained the uprising for three months until Government forces penetrated the jungle and scattered the rebel tribesmen.[122]

FUCK British commandos were doing the exact same thing (some of them even passing through the same road in Malaysia Yamashita's army's did) when they were doing special ops later in the war.

So yeah when you read about how Britain handled jungle civilizations such as parts of India and ironically Malaysia and Burma, it absolutely makes no sense that they thought the jungles was impenetrable.
 
So yeah when you read about how Britain handled jungle civilizations such as parts of India and ironically Malaysia and Burma, it absolutely makes no sense that they thought the jungles was impenetrable.

I think some context is useful. Is it fair to say that, in Malaya in 1941-2, they thought that the jungle (well, plantations...) was impenetrable for their forces because their forces were motorised and hence were confined to the roads. I remember reading about IJA forces repeatedly infiltrating behind them and setting up roadblocks, for example. As if they were expecting to defend against a peer enemy, rather than mobile light infantry forces. But abandoning their transport and trying to improvise similar tactics probably wouldn't have worked in the short time available, and stripped of motor transport they would be vulnerable to being cut off, particularly given the threat of naval landings.
 
I've always thought Japan could have bolstered Italian East Africa (they had prior commercial interest in Ethiopia) AND my understanding they wanted Germany to conduct u-boat operations in Indian Ocean? (Germany preferred to concentrate on Atlantic at the time)
 
In the case of the British if you want to make it even more insulting, the British conquest of India in general frequently used the tactics the Japanese used both by the BRITISH and the INDIANS. Sending troops through a harsh jungle environment that a conventional mass army can't pass through? Been proven WRONG early in the Sepoy Rebellion when the Indians were conquering British towns. Hell the British themselves frequently used the exact same tactic of "improvision" to go through jungles to attack the weak points of impenetrable fortresses of Hindu and Muslim warlords (who though the British white man were too pampered and soft to endure the jungle road paths that Indian armies typically had a hard time passing through).

Granted they didn't had bikes as we know it during those centuries of invading India, but the British were quite clever in adopting "jungle commando" equivalent of either small squads passing gradually or entire armies marching in an irregular manner (rather than marching rank and file, keep scattered troops to make it easier to go through jungles). They surprised even the jungle inhabitants knew how to use the environment for tactics.

From Wikipedia



FUCK British commandos were doing the exact same thing (some of them even passing through the same road in Malaysia Yamashita's army's did) when they were doing special ops later in the war.

So yeah when you read about how Britain handled jungle civilizations such as parts of India and ironically Malaysia and Burma, it absolutely makes no sense that they thought the jungles was impenetrable.
More interesting information.

British commandos could never do the exact same thing because exact same is a tautology. I have been shouting at the Trivago Lady in the television advertisements that it's, "Exactly the same room," not, "The exact same room," for months, but she never pays any attention and it feels as if I'm talking to a brick wall.
 
Ok, let me try to make a TL to add some plausibility to this

Have central powers to win WWI
After that, let make a rebellion to explode in India, and have the Indian national congress side with them after the british use force to fight the rebellion
Then india enters in a civil war, the british later accept a peace treaty, they give up india but keep Burma
have a nationalist government to rise in India, and have them to align with Japan in the 30s
Keep the japanese expansion as OTL, and the chinese campaigns too, and have India to join the co prosperity sphere in 1940
Then the pacific war starts as OTL, while japan makes it's invasions of indonesia, phillipines, hong kong and malasya, India launches his won invasion of Burma
Then have Japan to capture Ceylon and invade arabia with indian help
 
Unless Japan had assistance from super-Italy, British presence in the region would be too strong (Britain controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula at that time anyway) for Japan to mount a successful invasion. Even if there weren't enough Brits to give much resistance, it would open yet another front for already-overstretched Japanese supplies and resources, and the only strategic advantage an invasion of the Arabian peninsula would give the Japanese is the opportunity to invade British India from the west - although Japan wouldn't be able to send enough troops to Arabia without diverting them from their other fronts anyway, so it kinda defeats the purpose.
 
Ok, let me try to make a TL to add some plausibility to this

Have central powers to win WWI
After that, let make a rebellion to explode in India, and have the Indian national congress side with them after the british use force to fight the rebellion
Then india enters in a civil war, the british later accept a peace treaty, they give up india but keep Burma
have a nationalist government to rise in India, and have them to align with Japan in the 30s
Keep the japanese expansion as OTL, and the chinese campaigns too, and have India to join the co prosperity sphere in 1940
Then the pacific war starts as OTL, while japan makes it's invasions of indonesia, phillipines, hong kong and malasya, India launches his won invasion of Burma
Then have Japan to capture Ceylon and invade arabia with indian help

With Indian resources and British weakness after losing them, than Japan would be able to invade the Arabian peninsula no problem. But would there even be a World War II in this scenario?
 
Top