Another What If - the Pacific Theatre

[kobayashi]

What if Japan left Hawaii, the Philippines and whatever minor US islands (Wake, Dutch Harbour etc.) alone and only attacked those parts of Asia controlled by European powers? If the U.S. did not intervene in Europe without Hitler declaring war on them, its very likely they would care even less about interveneing in Asia?

They'd still get half of China, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, Hong Kong and could move on to either India or Australia largely unimpeded.

This would make an interesting 1950s scenario with the U.S., Germany, Russia and Japan as the only Major powers.
Too bad Civ2 doesn't run on Windows 7.

 

[CurtSibling]

Can CIV2 not run on Win7 at all?

I had heard it can be coaxed to run by certain emulation programs...

 

[Ingvar VII]

I've never had any problems running Civ 2 on Windows 7.

Does your compatability function not change anything?

 

[Tanelorn]

I'd say that the Japanese perceived of the US as their main threat/adversary in the event of a war, and rightly so. Would the Japanese just leave the US held Philippines behind their lines? Besides, the Americans were supplying all of Japan's adversaries with weapons, and -indirectly- took part in the Sino-Japanese war, supporting the nationalists with military advisors and pilots.

Some would say that Japan's hand was forced, as their economy was strapped for resources and energy but I think it was as much their feudal warrior ethos working against them as anything.

On the other hand, in the 30s America was in the great depression, their industrial superiority was not a foregone conclusion, perhaps.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=189266

There are a hundred more discussions if you search long enough.

 

[techumseh]

Ok, I'll bite. Japan would have run far too great a risk leaving the US Pacific fleet intact, and the American controlled Phillipenes directly across it's line of communications with its new conquests. The chances of the US staying neutral for long would have been minimal, and Japan would have been vulnerable.

Another possibility that has been suggested is the Japanese not hitting Pearl Harbour, but waiting for the US fleet in mid-Pacific. In that case, the superior Japanese fleet, including a larger and far more powerful carrier strike force, would have enabled them to sink the entire American fleet, including the carriers. This perhaps could have lengthend the war by up to a year.

 

[clightning]

That's an interesting topic.
To point a best strategy for Imperial Japan, take a look at its rivals:
1, US, never touch US. Prevent a war against US at any cost. If have to fight US, let it attack first, don't anger it, so Japan may hold something in a limited war.
2, UK, even though don't have enough resource nor resolte to defend its assets in Asia, it has one thing: always on the same side with US, vice versa. So, better don't touch it as well.
3, USSR, the two limited pre-war conflict proved IJA not able to fight Red Army on large scale, not even the poor trained Sov-Fin War style Red Army. So don't touch USSR, at least don't before Babarossa.
4, China, seems a much easier target, but besides the take over of Manchuria, the invasion to China is quite "unecnomical". So it is best to stop after took Manchuria in 1931 and don't go to an all out war in China. Manchuria is quite a rich and big place for Japan to chew for a while. And US will not be happy if Japan go into China too much.
But it's not that simple. As the civil war in China goes on, the Nathonalist are proved incureable corrupted and don't stand much chance against Communists. And when Communist take power it will begin industrialization like 1950s in history and prepare to take back Manchuria. And Nathonalist on the other hand, did almost none prepare for a Japan invasion after Manchuria lost, although this period is considered the most stable rule it had.
So the best strategy for Japan is: don't attack the Nathonalist government, but to assist it. The best of Japan is China being kept in civil war, second best is a (somewhat) stable Nathonalist rule, and the Communist rule is worst for Japan.
But still there is a problem: after lost Manchuria in 1931, any alliance with Japan will be political suicide for any Chinese faction. Chinese attitude to Japan was not bad, you can say almost good, in 1910s and 20s before a series of Japan aggressions. Just look at Dr. Sun Yetsun.
5, other minor westen powers: easy targets, as long as don't triger a US interven.

In conclusion, the best strategy for Japan can be altered from history back to 1920s:
1, try to take influence and benefit of Manchuria rather than take the land by brutal force. This is not a must, but would be helpful.
2, don't go to an all out war in China. This is a must.
3, don't fight US/UK/USSR. Also a must.
4, French Vietnam and some other westen colonis are OK.

So the best Japan can get, without end up being under US occupation, is Korea, part of Manchu, and huge infulence or infact control over Vietnam, Indonisia, or so. This may allow Japan to take France's political position post war.

 

[kobayashi]

This is a general reply to all the posts above posted.

I do not think the US would have entered a war with Japan under any circumstances barring being attacked first. In spite of their great military potential, the US Navy was numerically (5 vs 8 Carriers) and technologically on par or inferior to the IJN and no politician of the time was going to think, what the hell, I’ll just attack them anyway and then go all out to build new ships and planes.

As for the UK-US link, the U.K. (and the French and Dutch) was already being decimated by the Nazis and the US was happy just playing the role of an arms supplier. I don’t see any difference if the Japanese made it clear it would stay clear of U.S. territory. It is true that the Philippines is in an inconvenient location but there is really nothing material between the Philippines and Hawaii and I think the IJN could have made do with control of just the South China Sea.

China was a no-contest. If manpower was not wasted against U.S. forces, it would have been easy to control and properly administer all the important parts of China. Up to the time the atomic bomb fell, the IJA had never lost a battle against the Chinese. In this situation, the communists would be irrelevant.

Oh and one other alternative.

If the Japs had done absolutely nothing, or perhaps even join the Allies, then Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria and all the pacific islands from WWI Germany would still be part of Japan today.

 

[techumseh]

Don't agree, Koby. The US had placed an oil embargo on Japan in response to it's aggression in China. It would not have remained passive in the face of attacks on the Dutch and British oil fields. An immediate declaration of war may not have occured, but limited aggressive action leading to full hostilities was very possible. Don't forget that by this time the US Navy was in an undeclared war against German U-boats, which they attacked on sight, though the two nations were not officially at war. We must take into account Pres. Roosevelt's determination to get the US into the war despite the isolationists in the Congress. In the end, leaving the Philippines and the Pacific fleet alone was far too great a risk for the Japanese leaders.

 

[clightning]

Hi Koby,
Regarding to US, its interest in Asia is "Free Market" (b/c US didn't get any major colony in time so it wants others to share), this goes directly against Japans picture of Asia.
And also Techu is right, needless to repeat.

Regarding to the China Theater, it doesn't matter that "the IJA had never lost a battle against the Chinese"(though IJA did lost some offensive battle or eles it would not had stopped there). What does matter is IJA failed to achieve its own goal, which is: 1st to end the hostility of Nationalist Chinese central government, 2nd to eliminate resistence in its occupation area and make use of the resource there. The Communists plays more role in the 2nd while Nationalist in the 1st.

If the Japs had done absolutely nothing, yes Japan would have a much better position almost as you said. But Manchuria is in question. An unified Chinese gevernment is very likely to try whatever they get to take back it. So Japan need to prevent China's unification as long as possible. Cold War can be a help to Japan's effort.

 

[Palaiologos2]

Don't agree, Koby. The US had placed an oil embargo on Japan in response to it's aggression in China. It would not have remained passive in the face of attacks on the Dutch and British oil fields. An immediate declaration of war may not have occured, but limited aggressive action leading to full hostilities was very possible. Don't forget that by this time the US Navy was in an undeclared war against German U-boats, which they attacked on sight, though the two nations were not officially at war. We must take into account Pres. Roosevelt's determination to get the US into the war despite the isolationists in the Congress. In the end, leaving the Philippines and the Pacific fleet alone was far too great a risk for the Japanese leaders.

Exactly. After all thats what Pearl Harbor was about; A premptive attack on the Americans, prior to the invasion of the dutch oil fields. The Americans weren't about to stay neutral in such an eventuality and the japs knew it.