WI: Japanese Victory After 1944?

Is there any possibility of a Japanese victory after 1944? If you want a specific date, let's say June 8,1944.

I think I remember seeing a book where Japan simply won out of attrition, duking it out for the home islands and making the American public so sick of the war that they crowed for peace. I believe its called '1945' (Could be wrong)
 
Last edited:
Is there any possibility of a Japanese victory after 1944? If you want a specific date, let's say June 8,1944.

I think I remember seeing a book where Japan simply won out of attrition, duking it out for the home islands and making the American public so sick of the war that they crowed for peace. I believe its called '1945' (Could be wrong)

For the most part post-1944 Japanese victory is speculative fiction.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
For the most part post-1944 Japanese victory is speculative fiction.

More like fantasy on the scale of Lord of the Rings.

Even with ASB assistance; by 1944 the Japanese were already dead, they just hadn't fallen over yet.
 
What constitutes victory?

It's unlikely but it's possible to have the American fleet horribly mangled at leyte, the Trinity test fails due to some errors assembling the bomb, the war in europe goes years longer (Or it ends quickly and the allies/soviets go to war).
 
depends on what you mean by victory, beatter peace terms for the japs than what they got otl, yes, total victory in the pacific, no. Leyte as said could work, maby okinawa.... The japanes needs to inflict enough losses on the american to:
A: Delay the time table
B: make the american public cry uncel
C: Give the impression that the war will be going on longer

of course not being an ekspert i might just be talking as a mother her
 
The Japanese were suck in China in a war they found out they could not win so the Japanese could not have won. If they had not been involved in China then they have a better chance.
 
But if they werent in china, you would not have the oile embargo proving the ekspansionist "right", thus its fare less likely too have a pacific war as we know it
 
The Japanese were suck in China in a war they found out they could not win so the Japanese could not have won. If they had not been involved in China then they have a better chance.

Best chance for Japan to win a Pacific War would have been to keep Army at bay and sticking to her substantial conquests Japan had already conquered (Formosa, Korea, Manchuria). Series of decisions to invade China in 1937 were a complete disaster ultimately resulting in situation of August 1945. By playing anti-communist card and supporting the war against Germany (maybe even participating in it) would have gained Japan a tremendous economic boost.

Of course, if Japanese leadership knew all the things available now she could have waged more effective war against the West. But that's more in region of speculative fiction as CalBear said. IMHO, the best course, in hindsight, might have included following elements, many of which border on ASB.

1.) No raid on Pearl Harbor. If the US battle line decides to go charge towards Philippines the IJN is more than capable of making much more destruction. IJN was fighting the last war, 1904-1905, when the surprise attack on Port Arthur was a success and Tsushima even greater success.

2.) After conquest of Philippines and Singapore an immediate repatriation of prisoners who would have been treated well. Offer of "Finlandized" Philippines to Philippine leadership, eg. basing rights. This is utterly unfeasible for Japanese mind.

3.) No Solomons campaign. Total waste of effort.

These are for starters, but Japan either was or might have been inflicted a decisive damage in so many areas that a Japanese success is mostly infeasible. For example, in hindsight Japan could have been well defeated by sub campaign alone. Japan was already outstretched by 1941, before start of the war.
 
To follow up some thoughts, here's a very short list on what Japan needs to do if it even dreams about a victory. In no particular order:

1.) She needs to develop better electronic industry to develop and produce radars for air defense, surface combat and sub hunting (to make USN submarine surface attacks costly)

2.) She needs to develop as good mass production techniques as USA did to mass produce at least:

a) Aircraft engines, good ones of them

b) Surface combatants. In this area the Japanese had some good ideas but they were far too late. Mass production of Unruy class CV's, Akizuki class DD's and Matsu-class DD's would be a good start, and it should start in 1940.

c) Merchant ships

d) Good enough submarines for commerce raiding. Take Kaidai-class as a standpoint, improve it as necessary. Massive commerce raiding in 1942 would be very troublesome for RN and USN as they had to combat German submarine offensive as well. More succesfull Axis sub campaign MAY delay Allied offensive towards Western Europe until 1945 or even 1946, when of course the mushroom factor comes into play. Delayed European campaign will diminish the Soviet threat as well.

3.) Take ASW seriously. In some areas IJN was not bad at all, such as sonars. Japanese Hedgehog or Squid, combined with better surface radar would be a good start.

4.) More focus towards better infantry basic equipment, particularly light mortars and anti-tank weapons. Japanese Panzerschreck should not be infeasible. Add HE warhead and you've got pretty nice close infantry weapon. etc.

All together these are ASB, as it's not feasible that a single country would got everything right.
 
Total victory was probably impossible after 1943, but it seems like Japan could have been helped by the following:

(1) Assuming that the hagiography of Douglas Macarthur is right, then if he hadn't figured out island-hopping, the war across the Pacific would have gone much more slowly and bloodily for the U.S.. So have Macarthur fall to a sniper (apparently he made it a point to not duck sometimes) by 1942.

(2) Have the anti-British forces in India cause enough havoc that the Japanese weren't driven out of Burma.

But nothing would have saved them from the Soviets' heavy tanks, at least on the mainland, after Germany fell. So more success in the Pacific would have probably yielded a People's Republic of Japan by 1946, thus saving Detroit.
 
(2) Have the anti-British forces in India cause enough havoc that the Japanese weren't driven out of Burma.

I think India is the ultimate key for Japanese success against China and better success against Western powers. This also may - or may not - help against Soviets. With India knocked out of war, preferably by being neutral, Britain and Indian resources are also knocked out of the war. China cannot be supplied so operations there can be wind down and more resources can be used against Americans.

It's also one of the underexploited points on Pacific War WI's. Personally I don't know if India could be driven out of war? What divergences would be needed? The solution here should obviously be more of a political than military one. Indian independence in 1930's?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Total victory was probably impossible after 1943, but it seems like Japan could have been helped by the following:

(1) Assuming that the hagiography of Douglas Macarthur is right, then if he hadn't figured out island-hopping, the war across the Pacific would have gone much more slowly and bloodily for the U.S.. So have Macarthur fall to a sniper (apparently he made it a point to not duck sometimes) by 1942.

(2) Have the anti-British forces in India cause enough havoc that the Japanese weren't driven out of Burma.

But nothing would have saved them from the Soviets' heavy tanks, at least on the mainland, after Germany fell. So more success in the Pacific would have probably yielded a People's Republic of Japan by 1946, thus saving Detroit.

As to # 1, that sniper would have saved more lives than any other individual soldier in WW II. MacArthur's fixation on the Philippines, combined with his ham-handed effort in planning the invasion (Yea, let's land on Leyte to build airfieds for the attack on Luzon. :rolleyes: Only problem: The whole damned island didn't offer a good site to build a major airfiled, much less a complex of them) and his criminal misuse of Australian troops cost the allies thousands of extra dead and wounded. The entire Leyte campaign was, quite literally, a waste of time, compounded by the fact that Ol' Doug's plan didn't even trap the IJN Leyte garrison on the friggin' island.

BTW: Total Japanese victory was impossible at 7:58 AM (Honolulu time) on 12/7/41.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think India is the ultimate key for Japanese success against China and better success against Western powers. This also may - or may not - help against Soviets. With India knocked out of war, preferably by being neutral, Britain and Indian resources are also knocked out of the war. China cannot be supplied so operations there can be wind down and more resources can be used against Americans.

It's also one of the underexploited points on Pacific War WI's. Personally I don't know if India could be driven out of war? What divergences would be needed? The solution here should obviously be more of a political than military one. Indian independence in 1930's?


As has been noted in the past, Japan was utterly incapable of fighting a successful set piece battle against Western style forces, this definitely included the Indian Army. First they would have had to pushed enough troops through Burma to even confront the Indian Army on a reasonable basis, something that was mathematically impossible without making massive troop reductions in China and Manchuria. I would point out that even after the extreme likelyhood of American INVASION of Japan proper became clear, the Japanese Army kept the mass of its forces, resources and top leadership on the Asian Mainland. Obsession is something of an overused word these days, but it is very apt for the IJA's prespective regarding China.

Even assuming the IJA was able to push sufficient light infantry through Burma (no mean feat in itself) they would face fresh, far better equipped Indian troops in battle on ground of Indian Army choosing. That was yet another battle that the IJA would have found its "elan makes up for the other side having position, equipment, and a butt load of machine guns on their side" style of warfare lacking. Simply put the Indian Army would have kicked their ass.
 
Even assuming the IJA was able to push sufficient light infantry through Burma (no mean feat in itself) they would face fresh, far better equipped Indian troops in battle on ground of Indian Army choosing. That was yet another battle that the IJA would have found its "elan makes up for the other side having position, equipment, and a butt load of machine guns on their side" style of warfare lacking. Simply put the Indian Army would have kicked their ass.

The Indian army was better equipped than the Japanese?

What the frack? The Indian Army was less well equipped than the rest of the British Army in the 1930s (and I assume up until 1939, unless that changed.) How did Japan do so well?
 
Even assuming the IJA was able to push sufficient light infantry through Burma (no mean feat in itself) they would face fresh, far better equipped Indian troops in battle on ground of Indian Army choosing. That was yet another battle that the IJA would have found its "elan makes up for the other side having position, equipment, and a butt load of machine guns on their side" style of warfare lacking. Simply put the Indian Army would have kicked their ass.

As I wrote, the military solution was not possible. IJA would have no better luck with invasion of India than invasion of Australia. However, wars are fought for political goals, to keep India out of the war would require a political solution. But what kind of solution, I have no good ideas. Indian independence in 1930's continued by political chaos during which Indian leadership decides to stay neutral during Second World War?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Indian army was better equipped than the Japanese?

What the frack? The Indian Army was less well equipped than the rest of the British Army in the 1930s (and I assume up until 1939, unless that changed.) How did Japan do so well?

Japan was a light infantry force, with a very small armor and artillery tail. Even at its most tank heavy it wasn't up to the standards of a poorly equipped Indian Division. The debacle in Malaya was the result of surprise, stunningly poor leadership, and, it is oft forgotten, a spy in the British command structure (Captain Patrick S Vaughan) who provided significant information in the early decisive days of the war (he was not decisive, Percival's leadership was so inept that the Malaya Campaign was a forgone conclusion). The same can be said, to varying degrees to all of the IJA victories in the first few months of the war.

After a long trek through the Burmese jungles the IJA would have been hard pressed to reach the battlefield with 30 tanks (Type 95/97) and a couple regiments of 100 & 150mm guns. Once there it would have faced a combined Anglo American supplied force of the Indian Army which would have outnumbered the invader, been operating from a secure, if long supply line, and under better air cover. The math simply doesn't add up.
 

Markus

Banned
Total victory was probably impossible after 1943, but it seems like Japan could have been helped by the following:

(1) Assuming that the hagiography of Douglas Macarthur is right, then if he hadn't figured out island-hopping, the war across the Pacific would have gone much more slowly and bloodily for the U.S.. So have Macarthur fall to a sniper (apparently he made it a point to not duck sometimes) by 1942.

I´m sure someone else would have figured that one out.

But nothing would have saved them from the Soviets' heavy tanks, at least on the mainland, after Germany fell. So more success in the Pacific would have probably yielded a People's Republic of Japan by 1946, thus saving Detroit.

PRJ yes, but Detroit would have fallen anyway, just to the Europeans instead fo the Japanese.
 
Last edited:
Top