WI: End of European War in 1943, how will Pacific War follow

Two armored divisions from the UK and mostly-inexperienced US troops? Not exactly going to work for much against the IJA of 1943. A Kasserine-pass style walloping at the hands of the Japanese might see the front lines in India. The Soviets like in Europe, so in East Asia, will be doing the brunt of the bloody work in crushing Japan.

The IJA tanks were garbage. The Japanese won't be pushovers, but I don't see things going *worse* for the Allies than OTL.
 
The IJA tanks were garbage. The Japanese won't be pushovers, but I don't see things going *worse* for the Allies than OTL.

I do. The democracies have been shoved out of Europe in 1940 once and in 1941 twice, and have never actually crushed any Axis troops, save in North Africa, meaning that they have yet to fight and win a battle on European soil, and have finally gotten to Europe in 1943. They took 3 years to crush two German divisions and several hundred thousand mostly infantry Italians. Meanwhile the USSR has won the Battle of Moscow, won the Battle of Stalingrad, and completely chewed up the offensive power of the German army, all without Lend-Lease meaning anything one way or another.

This is a pure recipe for a Soviet wank, as the US Army that did crappily in Italy under Mark Clark is hardly likely to do better in jungle country against one of the best IJA formations. It will go better for all the Allies, and particularly for the Soviet Union. As far as the USA and UK, they look like idiots who can't fight very well and weak.
 
I do. The democracies have been shoved out of Europe in 1940 once and in 1941 twice, and have never actually crushed any Axis troops, save in North Africa, meaning that they have yet to fight and win a battle on European soil, and have finally gotten to Europe in 1943. They took 3 years to crush two German divisions and several hundred thousand mostly infantry Italians. Meanwhile the USSR has won the Battle of Moscow, won the Battle of Stalingrad, and completely chewed up the offensive power of the German army, all without Lend-Lease meaning anything one way or another.

This is a pure recipe for a Soviet wank, as the US Army that did crappily in Italy under Mark Clark is hardly likely to do better in jungle country against one of the best IJA formations. It will go better for all the Allies, and particularly for the Soviet Union. As far as the USA and UK, they look like idiots who can't fight very well and weak.

I'm talking about things going worse for the Allies in Southeast Asia, not worldwide.
 
I'm talking about things going worse for the Allies in Southeast Asia, not worldwide.

They won't, because just as in Europe ITTL, the Soviets will be ripping the heart out of the Axis, and democracies will be bit players in a mostly-Stalinist v. fascist war. The democracies will have limited, narrow victories and the Soviets will be seeing themselves as triumphant.
 
They won't, because just as in Europe ITTL, the Soviets will be ripping the heart out of the Axis, and democracies will be bit players in a mostly-Stalinist v. fascist war. The democracies will have limited, narrow victories and the Soviets will be seeing themselves as triumphant.

Why would the Soviets do August Storm in TTL? They're more capable than OTL, but what's the motivation?

Furthermore, the Kwangtung Army in TTL will be stronger due to not being stripped to fight the United States in the islands, so it might not be so much of a walkover.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Why would the Soviets do August Storm in TTL? They're more capable than OTL, but what's the motivation?

Furthermore, the Kwangtung Army in TTL will be stronger due to not being stripped to fight the United States in the islands, so it might not be so much of a walkover.


This is quite true. Based on the POD Stalin hasn't yet agreed to join in against Japan (Happened in December of '43 IOTL.).

The Kwangung Army was never going to be able to outfight ANY "European" army, but it would be far better equipped than IOTL late 1945 and the Red Army would be far less well equipped.

The IJA was not going to defeat any Allied forces, not in a setpiece battle. The real issue is that the Allies simply can not sent an Army Group roaring across Burma, the terrain makes that impossible (not sure it could be done TODAY), so the number of ground troops available will make only a small difference in that theater.

Overall, the POD sets up a scenario where you could see the East/West fight that Hitler always thought would happen, especially if the UK stands up for the Free Poles and the U.S. backs them. IOTL this was moot point since the Red Army was already thick on the ground across Poland; something that is far from the case here.
 
What forces did the Japanese have in the Indian Ocean? I know they attacked Ceylon, but I thought they eventually pulled back.

If a land crossing of Indochina isn't doable, couldn't increased Allied troops in Burma march south toward Singapore?
 
Why would the Soviets do August Storm in TTL? They're more capable than OTL, but what's the motivation?

Furthermore, the Kwangtung Army in TTL will be stronger due to not being stripped to fight the United States in the islands, so it might not be so much of a walkover.

Revenge for 1938 and a desire to exact the maximum amount of advantage in a postwar scenario with the USA.

This is quite true. Based on the POD Stalin hasn't yet agreed to join in against Japan (Happened in December of '43 IOTL.).

The Kwangung Army was never going to be able to outfight ANY "European" army, but it would be far better equipped than IOTL late 1945 and the Red Army would be far less well equipped.

The IJA was not going to defeat any Allied forces, not in a setpiece battle. The real issue is that the Allies simply can not sent an Army Group roaring across Burma, the terrain makes that impossible (not sure it could be done TODAY), so the number of ground troops available will make only a small difference in that theater.

Overall, the POD sets up a scenario where you could see the East/West fight that Hitler always thought would happen, especially if the UK stands up for the Free Poles and the U.S. backs them. IOTL this was moot point since the Red Army was already thick on the ground across Poland; something that is far from the case here.

No, but then the USSR won Nomonhan at its worst against Imperial Japan, and here you've got millions of Soviets who were dead IOTL to throw against Japan and extract everything from the USA as far as that war as possible. If the war ends in 1943, the democracies have no leg to stand on. They've *just* gotten to Sicily and for 1941 and 1942 the only Ally fighting the Nazis on European soil was the USSR.

Most people would assume the peace has more to do with Kursk than with Husky. At this phase in the war, after the defeat in France, in Greece, in Crete, and the long, tedious struggle to bag 250,000 Axis troops in North Africa, the Western Allies finally get onto real European soil again just as the war closed. Why are the Soviets or the Nazis going to take that military might seriously again? While the Red Army is not the one of 1945, the democratic armies are also not the ones of 1945. They've been curbstomped by the Nazis, struggled to defeat two divisions while the Soviets have been the driving force behind this peace at Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk. They've managed after several months to finally invade European soil while the Stalinists have completely ground Blitzkrieg to a halt. The democracies have proven able to defeat two divisions, the Soviets are the ones who've wrecked the German army.

Would the Soviets really care what the democracies, unable to withstand as yet the shock of fighting more than 2 Axis divisions successfully all that seriously without the nukes? Would the forces which went into trench warfare in Italy do better in Burma? If not, why's the USSR any more likely to take the democracies seriously? At the point of Operation Husky democratic armies have finally re-appeared in Europe. In the ATL they do so right as the war closes.
 
What forces did the Japanese have in the Indian Ocean? I know they attacked Ceylon, but I thought they eventually pulled back.

If a land crossing of Indochina isn't doable, couldn't increased Allied troops in Burma march south toward Singapore?

At this phase, the Soviets have pretty much been the only Ally waging war in Europe, and democratic lend-lease does not yet have any actual relevance to the Soviet war. The Germans throw in the towel just as democratic armies eke out a toehold for what, let's remember, was the WWII trench war. IATL the USSR has won the war in Europe, and the USA and UK now have equally vast logistical difficulties in the Pacific, where they are months away from Leyte Gulf at this point IATL.

This is why it's a Soviet wank, as the USSR, whose victories would be the real driving force behind the coup is not going to credit North Africa or Burma as representing the ability of democracies. And the Imperial Japanese Army at this point is holding the democracies to the Solomon Islands and the Gilberts and Marshalls, despite the already-growing imbalance of power. The Soviets again are going to look at the stalemate in Burma and the degree to which Japan at this phase seems much stronger than the democracies (it's not, but it doesn't have to actually be to look like it is) and think "So, we were able to make major gains with a similar preponderance of force, and beat these guys before this war broke out, why are the democracies unable to actually *fight*?".
 
While the Pacific part of the war is tied into the production of US ships, the SE Asia and China part isnt...
The British alone coudl pour as many troops into Burma as the logistics can support (and with naval/air superiority to allow coastal transport, thats more than in OTL).
The British shipyards that were producing landing ships in 43/44 still do so, but this time they head east.
Its rather a dead end; yes, they can retake Burma and Malaya, but the DEI oil is already being sunk by the US sub force, so no huge difference except to Imperial prestigue

However the route to China will be open a lot earlier, and US forces as well as supplies cen get through it. We could see US divisions fighting in China, and B-29 (and posibly B-17?) striked against Japan earlier and more effective.
 
Jiang would see his bread is buttered better with a Soviet alliance than one with the democracies, and the NKVD killing Mao would in all likelihood not be noticed very much. If WWII ends before the North Africa campaign is complete, you've just wanked the USSR to an epic proportion.
Indeed. KMT fluidity when it came to alliances shouldn't be underestimated. In the late 30s, when Nazi Germany ended its alliance with China in favour of one with Japan, the Chinese consulate actively started backing the anti-Nazi faction of the German military (mainly the Abwehr clique). That's another interesting angle by itself.
 
While the Pacific part of the war is tied into the production of US ships, the SE Asia and China part isnt...
The British alone coudl pour as many troops into Burma as the logistics can support (and with naval/air superiority to allow coastal transport, thats more than in OTL).
The British shipyards that were producing landing ships in 43/44 still do so, but this time they head east.
Its rather a dead end; yes, they can retake Burma and Malaya, but the DEI oil is already being sunk by the US sub force, so no huge difference except to Imperial prestigue

However the route to China will be open a lot earlier, and US forces as well as supplies cen get through it. We could see US divisions fighting in China, and B-29 (and posibly B-17?) striked against Japan earlier and more effective.

What US armies? That requires the US Navy to get to the Philippines and other places first.
 
What US armies? That requires the US Navy to get to the Philippines and other places first.

There were American soldiers in India in OTL (apparently they treated Indians poorly).

In TTL, American soldiers could be shipped to India and from there to Burma (to reopen to the Burma Road) or to Malaya (to ultimately liberate Singapore).

No need for the Phillippines. This is attacking the Japanese from the opposite direction.
 
What US armies? That requires the US Navy to get to the Philippines and other places first.

Oh, maybe some of the American and Imperal Divisions THAT AREN'T FIGHTING IN EUROPE now.....

And precisely why do Imperial troops need the Phillipines to advance through Burma, or US troops need it go go from Burma into China????
I mean, you have looked at a map of the area we are talking about, right??

The PI are the lumpy bits in the middle of all that blue crinkly stuff well to the EAST of where I am talking about.
 
Why would the Soviets do August Storm in TTL? They're more capable than OTL, but what's the motivation?

Manchurian industry (the USSR's still wrecked if not as much as OTL), retaking the losses of the Russo-Japanese War, and helping set up communist regimes in Korea, China and possibly north Japan for very little loss (relatively) against an army which is essentially a pushover.
 
Top