WW2: Japanese options after 1940 peace in Europe?

[Vylon Disigma]

If in 1940 peace is made between the waring European powers what are Japan's strategic options?

Specifically, in a peace that left the entente's colonial empires largely intact in Asia, does Japan still strike south? Do they give up, fearing the full attention of the British and French navies?

Without information about the performance of carrier attacks, how would they go about any adventures they did decide on?

Did Japan know OTL that the US's attention would be split between Europe and Asia so soon after the start of the Pacific war? What is their best get in TTL?

Does China change its attitude to peace with Japan if the entente make peace with Germany?

A lot of questions. Appreciate any responses.

 

[CalBear]

There is actually very little reason for Japan to go to war in this scenario.

The Americans and British Commonwealth didn't really drop the Embargo hammer on the Japanese until Japan occupied French Indochina (i.e. Vietnam). That was the red line that resulted in the oil tap being closed.

If the war is over, then the Japanese don't try for Indochina. That means they also lose a good part of the basing they used for the initial push into the Malay Peninsula.

No embargo and no bases mean the Japanese Army gets its way and they just keep grinding away in China.

 

[Vylon Disigma]

There is actually very little reason for Japan to go to war in this scenario.

The Americans and British Commonwealth didn't really drop the Embargo hammer on the Japanese until Japan occupied French Indochina (i.e. Vietnam). That was the red line that resulted in the oil tap being closed.

If the war is over, then the Japanese don't try for Indochina. That means they also lose a good part of the basing they used for the initial push into the Malay Peninsula.

No embargo and no bases mean the Japanese Army gets its way and they just keep grinding away in China.

Was the embargo so decisive in Japanese war plans? I believe that Japan had decided on southern expansion before the embargo and the occupation of Southern Indochina in 1941. Wasn't that the cause of the occupation of southern Indochina in the first place? In 1940 Japanese oil imports and therefore production was already falling due to other powers making use of SEA oil in building up their own arms. Can Japan really just carry on or does peace in Europe free up enough oil for Japan to fight it's war in China?

 

[CalBear]

Japan's oil mainly came from the U.S. and the DEI. Prior to WW II the U.S. was the world's largest oil exporter. The U.S. (along with the UK and Norway) also had the overwhelming majority of oil tankers sailing under their flag, Japan was, especially for an island nation, extremely short of merchant tonnage, relying on foreign flagged vessels for most of their shipping (Japan had roughly 5.2 million tons of flagged merchant shipping in 1939, the UK, U.S and Norway had just over 30 million tons, 17+ million tons of that was British).

It was the oil embargo that took Japan from "we really should kick the damned Americans ass just to shut them up about China" to "We have less than two year's oil reserves at peacetime consumption; we HAVE to grab the Southern Resource Area or give in to the American demands about China."

The U.S. was very much at the forefront in opposing Japan's ongoing war in China, the British and Dutch were, understandably, far more concerned about Germany, That said, if Germany has been defeated the Japanese really don't have to forces necessary to fight just the three European countries, on what amounts to the their home ground. If Germany and Italy have been taken off the table, the British aren't going to send one elderly battle cruiser, a fast BB, and half a dozen destroyers to Singapore, its going to be six or seven battleships three BC, three or four carrier, six-eight cruisers and a dozen or two destroyers, with several squadrons of at least Hurricanes, probably Spitfires either in Singapore, on the Peninsula, or in Australia where they can forward deploy. The French don't have as large of a fleet, but they can be counted on to send a couple fast BB, probably three cruisers and ten-twelve destroyers, That is more than the Japanese can handle in 1940 (keep in mind that the Zero has not entered service, so the Hurricane is way more than a match from the A5M or Ki-27).

The Japanese were confident, but they weren't stupid, Half of RN and USN combine outnumbered the IJN by 40% in all categories across the board and with the Reich out of the war, the Empire can send a LOT of men and material to the East. So can the French and that assumes that the U.S. doesn't come in for the big win.

Japan was counting on two things, the Europeans being at minimum entirely occupied fighting the Reich, for years, or the Reich straight up winning the war, and the Americans being to soft to even put up a good fight if they got and early bloody nose. Take out either of those and the Lunge South simply doesn't happen.

 

[Vylon Disigma]

Very Fair. So what can they do? just keep going as they are and hope for the best?

 

[comrade cat]

Yeah, this is very interesting. What will the future of Japan if they kept grinding in China for years without end in sight? Will the Chinese eventually got defeated, or its simply just too big and Japan needs to cut it loose?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Very Fair. So what can they do? just keep going as they are and hope for the best?

Japans problem here is the China Incident is sucking away the profits of its empire. Japan had long been a client of the US banking system, which had become toe equal of the London banks circa 1900. 1938-1941 Japan had been bridging the gap with credit from the US. But that could not last forever. OTL the US shut the tap off when the Embargo Acts froze Japans financial assets in the US. In this alternative the US banks are going to be sensitive from 1942 about Japans ability to continue servicing its loans. The US government may also take a look at using this debt & credit as leverage.

A second problem is the KMT were slowing recovering strength, and the Communists seperately were figuring out a winning strategy. At the end of 1942 Japan has been in a costly 'border incident' for over five years and its economy is increasingly suffering. Its opponents is starting to recover, and has allies who are tired of the situation. China has enormous economic potential, but that can't be realized as long as the Japanese army is trying to rule it. Some thing has to change in 1943, or maybe earlier.

 

[naraic]

Was the embargo so decisive in Japanese war plans?

To quote an editorial in a Japanese newspaper in response to the Embargo.

Japan is at war with America. A conflict declared by America. The Japanese government need to find their warrior spirit and defend Japan through force of arms.

Note that translation was done a few years ago by a friend of mine studying Japanese ans not by a professional.

Can Japan really just carry on or does peace in Europe free up enough oil for Japan to fight it's war in China?

Eventually Japan will probably run short of foreign reserves. I doubt Japan will see no credit differently to an embargo. However if the British and French are unengaged and have their fleets available I really doubt the Jppanese would be willing to take on all 3.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Well a sane Japanese state would have worked out what it wanted from China. And would have agreed an unequal treaty

 

[Vylon Disigma]

Well a sane Japanese state would have worked out what it wanted from China. And would have agreed an unequal treaty

The Japanese would have been extremely happy with a status quo peace, or even any peace that substantially recognized their military victories. Its Chiang Kai-Shek who doesn't want to make peace, and who expands the war when he can, believing that Japan can't win a total war but that China can. Chiang is also banking on Japan's gigantic enemies intervening sooner or later.

 

[McPherson]

If in 1940 peace is made between the waring European powers what are Japan's strategic options?

Specifically, in a peace that left the entente's colonial empires largely intact in Asia, does Japan still strike south? Do they give up, fearing the full attention of the British and French navies?

Without information about the performance of carrier attacks, how would they go about any adventures they did decide on?

Did Japan know OTL that the US's attention would be split between Europe and Asia so soon after the start of the Pacific war? What is their best get in TTL?

Does China change its attitude to peace with Japan if the entente make peace with Germany?

A lot of questions. Appreciate any responses.

Just as a reminder...

Japan Strikes North: How the Battle of Khalkhin Gol ...

There is option A and option B. The Tokyo regime was insane enough to test option A. They were burned badly, so they temporized with Russia and tried option B, when they thought the Germans had the Wallies on the ropes.

They were always going to grind on China, so that was going to be the centerpiece of their (crazy) foreign policy.

The question properly is... would they try "the northern road" again for round 2, if they were assured of Wally non-interference in China?

 

[Dilvish]

Just as a reminder...

Japan Strikes North: How the Battle of Khalkhin Gol ...

There is option A and option B. The Tokyo regime was insane enough to test option A. They were burned badly, so they temporized with Russia and tried option B, when they thought the Germans had the Wallies on the ropes.

They were always going to grind on China, so that was going to be the centerpiece of their (crazy) foreign policy.

The question properly is... would they try "the northern road" again for round 2, if they were assured of Wally non-interference in China?

A good question. I've been asking myself that. Japan might go north. Would they be going it alone against the USSR though? What is the nature of the European peace? Are Germany and the USSR raring to go against each other? Will Britain and/or France be eager to deal with Stalin after dealing with Hitler? Even if not actually fighting the Soviets, Britain/France/Germany/Italy, etc, may be wanting to support the Japanese war against the Soviets.

 

[McPherson]

A good question. I've been asking myself that. Japan might go north. Would they be going it alone against the USSR though? What is the nature of the European peace? Are Germany and the USSR raring to go against each other? Will Britain and/or France be eager to deal with Stalin after dealing with Hitler? Even if not actually fighting the Soviets, Britain/France/Germany/Italy, etc, may be wanting to support the Japanese war against the Soviets.

There are two possible answers; the "quanker" answer and the "realistic" answer.

Most likely, I will give the "realistic" answer.

a. Japan would be without its major partner, Germany, as the Berlin Maniac is awaiting a noose, by the OP and the country is being de-nazified.
b. Russia is not worried about the Germans. (OP again.). It may be worried about the Wallies and Poland.
c. Because of a. , I doubt the Wallies are eager for Napoleon marches on Moscow, 2.0. .
d. Britain and France and Italy may support Japan against Russia. This is the likeliest scenario.
e. Where that leaves the US is a huge question mark for me. I do not think the Americans will be too happy with option d. , at all. That could be an interesting PoD with FDR's anti-colonialist policy in play.

 

[DougM]

Assuming Germany is out of it and France is damaged but not out. That leaves the USSR and GB. No one can completely rule out a German rebuild unless the assumption is that Germany utter lost and is occupied and for that to happen by the end of 40 is ASB. So the other three have to keep some defense against Germany. GB has the least to worry about here but needs to be able to send troops back into France if needed.
Of course the French and Royal navies are pretty much free to do whatever they want as the USSR and Germany are a joke as far as the navy goes. So i agree with the estimate of how big a naval force France and England can send into the Pacific.
As for the US the build up was already started to one degree or another by 1940. So the US navy is going to get stronger.
Thus Japan is doomed if they push it and even the criminally insane Japanese military/government of the day would realize that.
They can dunk around a bit longer in China before the embargo hits (odds on) as the US and Wallies are not as concerned about dealing with Japan if Germany is not an issue. Remember the embargo and containing Japan was made more urgent by what Germany was doing. So probably Japan gets another 6-12 months before the breaking point hits. This can change very fast if Japan pulls another stunt like Nanking. So Japan could easily shoot itself in the foot (or head) but the could have as much as a year or so to try and find a peace that they can live with. Otherwise they will be forced to a peace that they don’t want. But not even Japan is insane enough to take on England France and the US all by itself.
That being said if Japan can find sa way to get “attacked“ by the USSR and then makes a major advance against the USSR then you very well may see the US (and the Wallies) stand back and look away. The US is much happier giving Japan Oil if it is using it against those commies.
And without the Mess that was Barbarossa the the USSR probably has as bad or worse leadership then it had historically in its ininial defense against Germany as the purges still were going to happen and may have continued up to the point that Japan proves the the Steel Moron that he can’t kill every competent person in the USSR to protect his paranoid butt. As he has to have someone that actually can do the job. But being as there is little of interest in the Far East Stalin will pro take a lot longer to figure out that things are not working. So I expect that Japan probably could do a lot better in the east then Germany did in the west.
The problem is Japan is only SO big and it ultimately can’t win outright against the USSR. All it can do is force a peace on it like it did in the past. It the Steel Moron is less likely to come to terms. So that may very well not work.
But in any case the US and France and GB are probably more then happy to let them keep bashing each other to death for decades if Japan and the USSR are dumb enough to keep fighting.
The question is, will the US be willing to sacrifice China as the cost of Japan bashing the USSR? Also I Can Japan handle both the USSR and China at the same time? And can Japan convince the military to make the USSR a priority so that they keep the US and Wallies happy enough to keep the supplies coming? If Japan plays its cards right it can fight a lower level war in China (no more atrocities) with the supplies being sold to them by the US.
Of course eventually Japan will run out of men or money (or both).
But still this is about the only chance Japan has other the ultimatly being forced to accept a peace treaty they will hate.

 

[CalBear]

Yeah, this is very interesting. What will the future of Japan if they kept grinding in China for years without end in sight? Will the Chinese eventually got defeated, or its simply just too big and Japan needs to cut it loose?

Japan was never going to defeat the Chinese by pure force of arms. Too much territory, too few Japanese. As long as anything resembling a national government is able to put troops into the field the Japanese are stuck holding a sticky bomb.

Worse, in the specific scenario being discussed in this thread the Japanese will likely be faced by Chinese forces in the Northeast being supplied by Moscow (who had signed a rather poorly followed treaty with the Chinese in 1937) with American and British supported troops in the Southwest and central regions (the KMT played the Soviets vs the U.S. like violins during most of the war) not to mention the unending danger of a Soviet move against Manchunko (i.e. Japanese occupied Manchuria).

The biggest obstacle to Japanese withdrawal was the very real danger of assassination of any political leader who suggested it. The IJA had a massive discipline problem with its field grade officers (the entire China War of 1937 was started by field commanders, not some meticulous planned offensive by the General Staff), to the point that IJA Majors and colonels, would with shocking regularity, either murder or attempt to murder Prime Minister and other high government officials.

The War would have continued until the Emperor finally had enough and spoke up.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Japan was never going to defeat the Chinese by pure force of arms. Too much territory, too few Japanese. As long as anything resembling a national government is able to put troops into the field the Japanese are stuck holding a sticky bomb.

Worse, in the specific scenario being discussed in this thread the Japanese will likely be faced by Chinese forces in the Northeast being supplied by Moscow (who had signed a rather poorly followed treaty with the Chinese in 1937) with American and British supported troops in the Southwest and central regions (the KMT played the Soviets vs the U.S. like violins during most of the war) not to mention the unending danger of a Soviet move against Manchunko (i.e. Japanese occupied Manchuria).

The biggest obstacle to Japanese withdrawal was the very real danger of assassination of any political leader who suggested it. The IJA had a massive discipline problem with its field grade officers (the entire China War of 1937 was started by field commanders, not some meticulous planned offensive by the General Staff), to the point that IJA Majors and colonels, would with shocking regularity, either murder or attempt to murder Prime Minister and other high government officials.

The War would have continued until the Emperor finally had enough and spoke up.

Considering the tactical success of the Ichi-Go offensive and the fact they had the manpower to also attempt an invasion of India at the same time, which was after three years of fighting the US and GB, Japan seems to me to have the men and material to beat the Chinese had WW2 never happened.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Considering the tactical success of the Ichi-Go offensive and the fact they had the manpower to also attempt an invasion of India at the same time, which was after three years of fighting the US and GB, Japan seems to me to have the men and material to beat the Chinese had WW2 never happened.

With the various supply routes to the Chinese forces still in play and far more supplies via FIC and Rangoon reaching them and with no need to have sent some of their best units to fighting Burma would Ichi go still be as successful as OTL?

 

[CalBear]

Considering the tactical success of the Ichi-Go offensive and the fact they had the manpower to also attempt an invasion of India at the same time, which was after three years of fighting the US and GB, Japan seems to me to have the men and material to beat the Chinese had WW2 never happened.

Ichi-Go is actually a pretty good example of the reason the Japanese were screwed from the get go. The were victorious in that they eventually achieved the stated objective. Did it bring them an inch closer to victory? Nope. They expended 100,000 men and gained nothing of real value. They demonstrated the overall weakness of their logistical system (the IJA ended the advance primarily because their "victorious" troops were on the edge of starving). The Chinese fought where they had an advantage and bled the Japanese. The Japanese inflicted far more losses than they incurred, but the there a a LOT more Chinese troops than Japanese.

The invasion of India is another great example. The Japanese attack plan relied on Bushido and elan to make up for lack of logistics, air cover, and reasonable artillery. The IJA ground personnel managed miracles pushing through the privation of the approach to Imphal. They then proceeded to get their ass kicked by troops who were in a light green state of supply and supported by old, but still vastly superior armor that outnumbered the Japanese roughly 3-1 that had proper air support and air lift (including the movement of an entire veteran Infantry Division in eleven days the same distance that it took the Japanese almost 7 weeks to cross). The Japanese managed to besiege Imphal, except the troops being besieged had ample supply and were resupplied and reinforced by air, while the troops doing the besieging were already down to light red on food and ammo when they started the investment of Imphal.

Japanese simply didn't have the logistical tail it needed.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

Ichi-Go is actually a pretty good example of the reason the Japanese were screwed from the get go. The were victorious in that they eventually achieved the stated objective. Did it bring them an inch closer to victory? Nope. They expended 100,000 men and gained nothing of real value. They demonstrated the overall weakness of their logistical system (the IJA ended the advance primarily because their "victorious" troops were on the edge of starving). The Chinese fought where they had an advantage and bled the Japanese. The Japanese inflicted far more losses than they incurred, but the there a a LOT more Chinese troops than Japanese.

The invasion of India is another great example. The Japanese attack plan relied on Bushido and elan to make up for lack of logistics, air cover, and reasonable artillery. The IJA ground personnel managed miracles pushing through the privation of the approach to Imphal. They then proceeded to get their ass kicked by troops who were in a light green state of supply and supported by old, but still vastly superior armor that outnumbered the Japanese roughly 3-1 that had proper air support and air lift (including the movement of an entire veteran Infantry Division in eleven days the same distance that it took the Japanese almost 7 weeks to cross). The Japanese managed to besiege Imphal, except the troops being besieged had ample supply and were resupplied and reinforced by air, while the troops doing the besieging were already down to light red on food and ammo when they started the investment of Imphal.

Japanese simply didn't have the logistical tail it needed.

Did the Japanese really expect India to rise up? Without some sort of revolt I just don't see Japan managing to do much in a subcontinent.

 

[CalBear]

Did the Japanese really expect India to rise up? Without some sort of revolt I just don't see Japan managing to do much in a subcontinent.

They had the "Indian National Army" with them (PoW culled out of the forces taken prisoner primarily on the Malay Peninsula and Singapore) and the leaders of the Provisional Government of Free India (i.e. Subhas Chandra Bose & Co.) telling them a version of "all it will take is one good kick and the whole rotten structure will fall down".

Instead the Indian Army fought them to standstill and then drove them back into Burma, and didn't stop chasing them until the Japanese surrendered in August of 1945.