What would the Pacific War be like without the European one?

Let's say the Nazis never come to power in Germany, the Soviets remain isolationist, and there is peace in Europe.

Japan still goes about invading China and grabbing up European colonies. Now, obviously when the US gets involved, it would defeat Japan in a much shorter time, and there would probably be an invasion at the end of it rather than atomic bombs, but before the US enters the conflict, how would a war play out between Japan and the British and French Empires ITTL?
 

boredatwork

Banned
Let's say the Nazis never come to power in Germany, the Soviets remain isolationist, and there is peace in Europe.

Japan still goes about invading China and grabbing up European colonies. Now, obviously when the US gets involved, it would defeat Japan in a much shorter time, and there would probably be an invasion at the end of it rather than atomic bombs, but before the US enters the conflict, how would a war play out between Japan and the British and French Empires ITTL?

There wouldn't be a pacific war.

Why?

The Japanese would not have gotten up to the stuff they did in OTL if everyone else wasn't distracted by events in Europe. They certainly would not have picked a simultaneous fight with every significant European colonial power, the US, the USSR, and China.

The Japanese military leadership had a high opinion of their nation's capabilities, but they weren't lava-bathing insane.
 
Onbviously the Japanese are in a cpital sticky. They don't have French Indochina as a launch pad, so they have more ground to cover (and with less resources, since China will very likley have received more aid) against more prepared foes who can concentrate their full financial and military resources. We'd therefore have to be even more stupid and unfortunate than we were to lose Singapore, which is saying something.

So even if the Japanese dodge the Phillipines and the Americans somehow refrain from involvement, Britain and France, I reckon, will not take overly long to wear Japan down in the South China sea, chase them out of Malaysia and Indonesia, and launch a counterattack against Indochina from Burma.

After that... with America, it's possible to systematically crush Japan's naval force and strangulate the warmaking capacity behind it. But without America, Britain and France will be pretty badly out of breath and think twice about moving on against Taiwan. We'd probably continue to support China and marshall our strength.

The question is how "isolationist" the Soviets are. If Japan's endeavour really goes arse-end up, it seems to me very likely that the Soviets will attack Manchuria and Korea, in which case Japan's war in China is over.

Hopefully the lack of confidence-building victories, comprehensive defeat on land by the Soviets (which does appear to have influence the surrender decision in a big way), and absense of a doctrine of unconditional surrender will make the Japanese leadership see reason. Having a bitter, humiliated military dictatorship on the home islands probably being propped up by Britain to contain communism is hardly ideal, but it beats the obliteration of Japanese civilisation.

but they weren't lava-bathing insane.

They weren't?

What else can they do? They presumably still face an embargo and aid to China. Are they really going to call it quits?
 

boredatwork

Banned
Onbviously the Japanese are in a cpital sticky. They don't have French Indochina as a launch pad, so they have more ground to cover (and with less resources, since China will very likley have received more aid) against more prepared foes who can concentrate their full financial and military resources. We'd therefore have to be even more stupid and unfortunate than we were to lose Singapore, which is saying something.

So even if the Japanese dodge the Phillipines and the Americans somehow refrain from involvement, Britain and France, I reckon, will not take overly long to wear Japan down in the South China sea, chase them out of Malaysia and Indonesia, and launch a counterattack against Indochina from Burma.

After that... with America, it's possible to systematically crush Japan's naval force and strangulate the warmaking capacity behind it. But without America, Britain and France will be pretty badly out of breath and think twice about moving on against Taiwan. We'd probably continue to support China and marshall our strength.

The question is how "isolationist" the Soviets are. If Japan's endeavour really goes arse-end up, it seems to me very likely that the Soviets will attack Manchuria and Korea, in which case Japan's war in China is over.

Hopefully the lack of confidence-building victories, comprehensive defeat on land by the Soviets (which does appear to have influence the surrender decision in a big way), and absense of a doctrine of unconditional surrender will make the Japanese leadership see reason. Having a bitter, humiliated military dictatorship on the home islands probably being propped up by Britain to contain communism is hardly ideal, but it beats the obliteration of Japanese civilisation.



They weren't?

What else can they do? They presumably still face an embargo and aid to China. Are they really going to call it quits?

But they wouldn't have gone as far as they did, to get themselves into a situation which would call for an embargo, without Europe going haywire. The OP posits a Europe essentially at peace from 1933 or so onward - no distractions, no imperial decapitation, no easy openings. The Japanese aren't going to push their luck as far, because someone will get around to saying "No, I don't think so" far sooner than in OTL.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I can see them taking on China, but they would not attack the European Colonies if there was no war in Europe. They wouldn't win a war against UK and France if they are fighting in China at the same time, not to mention very possible US and Soviet interventions.
 
One big thing to consider, there were a large number of groups in the US in the late 1930's that were opposed to the US getting involved in Europe ("America First").

If there's no European war does that mean no protesters at all or do they still emerge but now try and keep the US out of any conflict in the Pacific?
 
Let's say the Nazis never come to power in Germany, the Soviets remain isolationist, and there is peace in Europe.

Japan still goes about invading China and grabbing up European colonies. Now, obviously when the US gets involved, it would defeat Japan in a much shorter time, and there would probably be an invasion at the end of it rather than atomic bombs, but before the US enters the conflict, how would a war play out between Japan and the British and French Empires ITTL?

Sorry, jumped the gun a little with my first post. The scenario I thought you were on about at first glance was somewhat plausable, if vague. But on second look, I think it's ASB. The Japanese weren't stupid - given the choice of jumping an isolationist USSR vs jumping the European colonies in China, they'd go for Siberia absolutely.

Even more than in the scenaio from the thread two weeks ago on this topic, I think we'd see a second Russo-Japanese war.


As I already wrote, they were already suffering from the hubris brought on by victory disease. Japan's last diplomatic reverse had occurred during the aftermath of the Sino-Japanese War in the 1890s. They hadn't either lost or been seriously rebuffed in anything of substance since, so they went to war with the most populous nation on Earth thinking all they needed to do was kick in the door and watch the whole rotten structure collapse.

Does that last sentence remind you of the thinking behind another Axis invasion?

Even more than China or an aggressive USSR, an isolationist USSR would seem to be that rotten framework in this TL...
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
There wouldn't be a pacific war.

Why?

The Japanese would not have gotten up to the stuff they did in OTL if everyone else wasn't distracted by events in Europe. They certainly would not have picked a simultaneous fight with every significant European colonial power, the US, the USSR, and China.

The Japanese military leadership had a high opinion of their nation's capabilities, but they weren't lava-bathing insane.

Lava Bathing insane...

I like it!

I also agree with the statement. No way the war happens if things are as outlined by the OP.
 
The French, British and Americans would form a triad of powers in relation to Japan and keep some kind of combined fleet equal to the Japanese in Indochina, Singapore and the Phillipeans respectively. This would act as a deterent to attacking the DEI, the allies I'd imagine would finance activity against the Japanese in China and there wouldn't have been a direct conflict between the major powers
 
I too heartily enjoyed the lava-bathing insane statement...all too accurate in regards to 1930's Japan :D

As for the scenario, I think a Pacific war in TTL would look far different than OTL and essentially be a "China War" instead.

First off Japan's not going to go for the European Colonies, no way no how. Not with out a major European War as already stated. Instead they're going to keep plugging away in China attempting to bring about a decisive end to a conflict that keeps on dragging on.

However, given the fact that the Chinese are being actively supplied by the Western Powers, I think the Japanese are going to be forced into pursuing some sort of action. With supplies and volunteers flowing in through Burma and French Indochina, a decisive victory against China necessitates dealing with the Western Powers. What form this eventually takes though, is a serious question...
 
Roosevelt might loose the elections in 1940 and even if he remain in power, he would not attempt to start shit with the Japanese. IOTL he did hoping for a backdoor into the european war, arguably.
So Japan continues the war against China, instead of fighting in Indochina, Myanamar, Indonesia, Phillipines etc.
If the US start an oil blockade, it would be a number of years after IOTL and Japan will still be able to buy oil from the Dutch, which would still be neutral. The Phillipines would probably be abandonned as a drain to the USA.
For a war between Japan and the USA to occure, a new more active governement would be needed.
1948 possibly, a "right-wing" governement is elected, in the first few years of rule, this governement pulls the USA out of the depression somewhat.
It start a propaganda campaign against Japan and naval built-up, cut off oil exports, slowly becomes threatening.
Early 50s sees the US fleet moving to Pearl Harbour, then retaking the Phillipines. An incident is engineered to get the US into a war with Japan (radio-controled "Japanese" merchant ship is sent to a US harbour and explodes) or anti-japanese hysteria sweeps the country like anti-communism IOTL, congress declares war to the yellow menace.
Japan have had many years to militarise while the USA wallowed in the depression, control the whole Chinese coast, a significant bomber force to defend Taiwan and Japan against naval blockade.
Knowledge that nuclear weapons are possible would be around, the Soviet-Union was most probably the first to produce an atomic bomb, while they would remain isolationists the USA might still fear what would happen if atomic bombs where repeadetly used against Japan.
 

Markus

Banned
Lava Bathing insane...

I like it!

I also agree with the statement. No way the war happens if things are as outlined by the OP.

Nice phrase ... and I also agree that there would be no war. Even without German triggered rearmamend of the 30´s France and the UK alone could easily overmatch the Japanese. Both nations had mountains of arms left over from WW1 and as most users know the IJA was a bit "light" on heavy weapons.

Navy-wise Japan is waaaay behind in anything but carriers and words fail me when describing the weakness of their land based air power: IOTL they deployed a bit less than 200 modern fighters and a bit more than 200 older ones.
 
Top