WI: US with Pacific War only?

How would the Australians be handled this time round? Hopefully Doug's other worst moment doesn't kick in, bossing Blamey around and getting good men killed.

Thing was, for every guy like Blamey or Sutherland, Mac also had a “Uncle Dan, the Amphibious Man” Barbey and George Kenny, who were the best of anyone on the Planet at what they did

Oz troops really liked how Barbey treated them, BTW
 
Last edited:
So, if Japan is put in Potsdam-like situation in say september 1944, and with Manhattan fruits coming in about 9 months, what would the US do? Invasion? Bombing/blockade and then invasion? Bombing and blockade until they surrender?

Blockade. That was the original first objective in War Plan ORANGE, & in its RAINBOW Plan iterations. In those plans invasion was only vague;y referred to & possibly as just close in islands as blockade support stations IIRC.

The fanatical resistance of Japan was not anticipated in the prewar planning, and in fact was not clearly understood until 1943 or even later. It was assumed that when the naval defeat was evident Japans leaders would change & a new government would negotiate a peace treaty. That means that in the likely course for this war the US won't be well prepared for a large scale invasion. WP ORANGE & RAINBOW Plans did not contemplate the mobilization of a eight million man army. As late as 1939 WP ORANGE proposed only 100,000 US Army combat & combat support personnel deployed to the Pacific after 12 months mobilization. It was estimated only about 200,000 ground combat forces would be needed, including perhaps 30,000 Marines, for the entire war. Thus were Japan to take OTLs course of peace only on its terms, the US would have a Army of well under one million men. Mobilizing the necessary additional 500,000 to 1,000,000 men to make a invasion stick would be intimidating circa 1944. The US public in general would have to be convinced blockade and bombardment would not work.
 
The US public in general would have to be convinced blockade and bombardment would not work.

Think on how many guys volunteered after Pearl Harbor, because of Pearl Harbor.

Would a Draft even be needed for a Pacific only War?

Year....Army.........Navy.........Marines....Coast Guard....Total
1939 -189,839 -- 125,202 --- 19,432 -------------- 334,473
1940 -269,023 -- 160,997 --- 28,345 -------------- 458,365
1941 1,462,315 - 284,427 --- 54,359 ------------- 1,801,101
1942 3,075,608 - 640,570 --- 142,613 ---56,716- 3,915,507
1943 6,994,472 - 1,741,750 - 308,523 - 151,167 - 9,195,912
1944 7,994,750 - 2,981,365 - 475,604 - 171,749 - 11,623,468
1945 8,267,958 - 3,380,817 - 474,680 - 85,783 - 12,209,238

CG not counted til 1942, not that there was no CG

6,332,000 were volunteers. That's enough for OTL staffing of all but the Army
 
Last edited:
ke a invasion stick would be intimidating circa 1944. The US public in general would have to be convinced blockade and bombardment would not work.

Operation_Downfall_-_Map.jpg


More like five million men if done the MacArthur way, complete with the associated war crimes just to get ashore. Blockade and starvation is the only way, short of aerial bombardment, and that still includes the aerial bombardment as a key coercion component.

Or other chemicals, Sulphur Mustard, Nitrogen Mustard, Lewisite and Phosgene.

US had a lot of 4.2" and 105mm shells that were dumped after the War

You mean war crimes?
 
Thing was, for every guy like Blamey or Sutherland, Mac also had a “Uncle Dan, the Amphibious Man” Barbey and George Kenny, who were the best of anyone on the Planet at what they did...

Add Eichelberger & Kruger to that list. Both who fought Macs worst decisions concerning the soldiers welfare, who could be considered superior leaders.

However I can see a coulple likely courses where Mac is sidelined & plays a much smaller role. Perhaps none. We have to remember Mac was a relative nonentity in 1941. A large memory of him was the eviction of the Bonus Army from Washington's streets. While he was regarded as a useful tool among some conservatives most of the adulation as a hero came during WWII. A slight misstep at the start, or a more hostile leadership in DC could have regulated him to a supporting command or retirement.

A second factor is that with only a Pacific war contemplated then resources for the S Pac offensives in 1943-44 would be far thinner. Op CARTWHEEL & subsequent ops would be far smaller/less ambitious. Diversions until the main event takes off in mid 1943.
 
Think on how many guys volunteered after Pearl Harbor, because of Pearl Harbor.

Would a Draft even be needed for a Pacific only War?

Year....Army.........Navy.........Marines....Coast Guard....Total
1939 -189,839 -- 125,202 --- 19,432 -------------- 334,473
1940 -269,023 -- 160,997 --- 28,345 -------------- 458,365
1941 1,462,315 - 284,427 --- 54,359 ------------- 1,801,101
1942 3,075,608 - 640,570 --- 142,613 ---56,716- 3,915,507
1943 6,994,472 - 1,741,750 - 308,523 - 151,167 - 9,195,912
1944 7,994,750 - 2,981,365 - 475,604 - 171,749 - 11,623,468
1945 8,267,958 - 3,380,817 - 474,680 - 85,783 - 12,209,238

CG not counted til 1942, not that there was no CG

6,332,000 were volunteers. That's enough for OTL staffing of all but the Army

The 1942 total would be more than enough for the Pacific War as contemplated by WP ORANGE. With the majority in the Navy. Say three million in the Navy/Marines/Coast Guard and the balance in the Army and Army Air Forces.
 
Oh, the insanity of Japans leaders was a good match. Pleanty of horrifying policies, decisions, and plans to go around the table.

The first thing competent teachers of the military art teach after Sun Tzu and Clauswitz is; "Don't become a psychological mirror of your enemy." That is about the only thing MacArthur got right after the Japanese-American war ended. He remembered to be an American in the peace, or at least he could pretend to be magnanimous.

Plus the irrationality caused by bushido, a quality unique to many, many Japanese government officials and military officers of the time.

See above. (^^^).
 
One "US with Pacific War only?" scenario that hasn't been mentioned yet is one where Germany's "sickle cut" invasion of France fails for one reason or another, resulting in Germany getting defeated by Britain and France by 1941-1942.

As Japan simply could not launch any major naval operation until the carriers Shōkaku and Zuikaku were completed by late September 1941, any Japanese invasion would not take place until very late in 1941 at the earliest, during which time Germany would likely already be on the ropes, hence the US would not have to bother itself with them.

As it is, regardless whether Japan attacks either only the Anglo-French colonies in SE Asia, the US possessions in the Pacific, or both as in OTL, the result is the US getting into a war with Japan, along with Britain and France. Only now with Germany on the verge of defeat, the Allies - including France - can afford to devote the majority of their naval assets against them.

This also means a neutral Italy which simplifies logistics.

Something to consider is the domestic situation. With Hitler defeated earlier, or even being merely a European problem, and the US at war solely with Jaapan... race relations may be hurt, and fascism less discredited. The Holocaust either doesn't happen or possibly faces more skepticism from the US, and Nazi apologists ("they weren't so bad" "Hitler's anti semitism was an aberration" "they just wanted to fight the communists") will be much more common. Will the US war effort see the same levels of integration? World war one saw social changes affect the US, as African Americans came back from France, where they were treated like heroes and human beings, and refused to just roll over and accept the way things were. That probably still happens, even with just a war with Japan, but on the whole, and especially if there is still a cold war we are possibly looking at a more socially conservative United States.
 
... but on the whole, and especially if there is still a cold war we are possibly looking at a more socially conservative United States.

That would contribute to social conservatism. Another factor would a lesser US economic domination post war (1945+) with a less destructive war in Europe the US has less of a advantage through the 1950s & 60s. there'd be less of a capitol flow to the US, e=less expansion and reconstruction of the US infrastructure 1940-1946. Bottom line is its less the 'American Century'.
 
That would contribute to social conservatism. Another factor would a lesser US economic domination post war (1945+) with a less destructive war in Europe the US has less of a advantage through the 1950s & 60s. there'd be less of a capitol flow to the US, e=less expansion and reconstruction of the US infrastructure 1940-1946. Bottom line is its less the 'American Century'.

Does that necessarily hold? It may be the Europeans have more money to buy more American made stuff. Possibly a US that is less out in front but richer in absolute terms.
 
I'm extrapolating from some information about just how bad the US economy still was in 1939. It seems to have been lagging behind the Recovery of the European republics/empires, and even some Facist nations. Why that would be the case, but there rare some fundamentals that seem very much off. ie: by 1939 it appears between 20% & 25% of the US railway capacity of 1910 - 1920 was no longer used. It appears the trade with Europe, still about 60% of the US overseas trade, was not fueling the US economy the same as in 1914 or 1924. There were some sectors where the US still dominated. About 70% of the global petroleum production was in the US, or US controlled in the Western Hemisphere. But in cutting edge technologies, like aircraft the US seems to have been lagging in what you would expect market share would be when compared to trends between 1900 & 1920 or 1930. Something or somethings had slowed the US economy. Im guessing here the Depression was a symptom & not a cause.
 
I'm extrapolating from some information about just how bad the US economy still was in 1939. It seems to have been lagging behind the Recovery of the European republics/empires, and even some Facist nations. Why that would be the case, but there rare some fundamentals that seem very much off. ie: by 1939 it appears between 20% & 25% of the US railway capacity of 1910 - 1920 was no longer used. It appears the trade with Europe, still about 60% of the US overseas trade, was not fueling the US economy the same as in 1914 or 1924. There were some sectors where the US still dominated. About 70% of the global petroleum production was in the US, or US controlled in the Western Hemisphere. But in cutting edge technologies, like aircraft the US seems to have been lagging in what you would expect market share would be when compared to trends between 1900 & 1920 or 1930. Something or somethings had slowed the US economy. Im guessing here the Depression was a symptom & not a cause.

That gets into political grey areas of economic management by the American government and is just as contentious as some of the China stuff we agree to leave off. I sort of shy away from that topic anyway.
 
Top