AMERICANLESS WAR IN THE PACIFIC!!

[heenanc]

There is a fierce debate going on on another site I sometime browse and there seems to be some knowledgeble people amonge this site aswell and I thought you might be interested or have a point to add.

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryfor ... 94934.aspx

What do you guys think?

[Mike Scholl]

Entertaining..., but rediculous. The "assumptions" of the scenario are extremely questionable, and entirely overlook the "racist" fears of all the Western Powers. He doesn't include France, which would definately have been drawn in by the threat to Indo-China...., or the Soviets who, without Hitler to contend with, would have definately had something to say in Manchuria. Most of all, he assumes that America would stay out while Japan opver-ran the Western Pacific..., and I find that contention hard to swallow. The Japanese certainly didn't think America would "stay out" --- which is why there was a Pearl Harbor.

[heenanc]

OK point proven but I think the question is basically down to who would win without the american's regardless of how the war was started...

[SireChaos]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Entertaining..., but rediculous. The "assumptions" of the scenario are extremely questionable, and entirely overlook the "racist" fears of all the Western Powers. He doesn't include France, which would definately have been drawn in by the threat to Indo-China...., or the Soviets who, without Hitler to contend with, would have definately had something to say in Manchuria. Most of all, he assumes that America would stay out while Japan opver-ran the Western Pacific..., and I find that contention hard to swallow. The Japanese certainly didn't think America would "stay out" --- which is why there was a Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese also thought that the Americans would sue for peace after a six month string of defeats. This should teach us something about relying on the accuracy of Japanese political assumptions, right?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: heenanc

OK point proven but I think the question is basically down to who would win without the american's regardless of how the war was started...

who would win? Japan against only the Aussies, Kiwis, Dutch and British? I think that would be a clear bet... but it´s just hypothetical as the United States never would have stayed out of the war.

[Canoerebel]

Hmmm, I wouldn't bet against the Brits (and therefore their cousins the Aussies and Kiwis) - who would have wagered the li'l ol' island nation could have stood by itself against Hitler for two years (or more than one year if you take into account Hitler taking on Russia)?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Hmmm, I wouldn't bet against the Brits (and therefore their cousins the Aussies and Kiwis) - who would have wagered the li'l ol' island nation could have stood by itself against Hitler for two years (or more than one year if you take into account Hitler taking on Russia)?

Hmmm... Brits were very very very voulnerable in WWII.... luckily (for UK and humanity) Hitler was rather stupid regarding anything connected with Air/naval warfare (and Goring wasn't of much help either)...

Germans had capability to seriously "strangle" UK in WWII if they had proper leadership and strategy/tactics (again luckily they didn't have those)!

Please note that I used word "strangle" and not defeat - the landing in UK was mission impossible but proper blockade/pacifization was quite possible.


Just two obvious examples:

#1
The RAF was quite easily defeatable if only Germans concentrated on proper targets.

Every child in Britain knew where RR engines (used in British fighters) were made - but Germans simply overlooked that.

German bombers had numbers and all of them had good navigational instruments and were all capable of flying at night. Massive strikes against UK aircraft industry at night lead by German pathfinders (and they did have them - they had even more sophisticated navigational instruments than ordinary bombers) would surely lead to rapid RAF fighter strength depletion (coupled with fighter combat during day).

#2
Mediterranean was Achilles heel for Britain - luckily Hitler was "land animal" and he never truly understood the potential of seriously harming Britain's interests by taking Mediterranean.


Leo "Apolo11"

[docpaul]

The argument leaves out much.Did Japan attack any US possessions in the Pacific?  If so, why would US remain neutral?  I don't Britain would have been able to deal with the Japanese carrier fleet.  They would have devastated any British carriers....and nothing Britain has on the board would have dealt with this in the next couple years.  With no Pearl Harbor I would imagine SIngapore would have gotten the big one right away, plus they would have gone after all the British capital ships and the Pacific fleet would have been been gone.  While all the Atlantic side fleet could go there..without carriers it would have been syonara...

[DSwain]

If this was purely a conflict between the Empire of Japan and the Western powers sans the US (ergo, no European Axis either), then it would come down to the choice of venue. If the 'Allies' met the IJN in the Pacific proper, then the IJN would come off better as RN/MN CV's weren't configured to operate for long without land based air support. If the conflict were centred around the South China Sea/eastern end of the Indian Ocean, then a far closer run thing - IMO, Imperial Japan would have been unable to overcome the combined strength of Britain, France, the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand were those countries free of commitments against Germany and Italy.

However, as some have already said, it's a bit of a pointless exercise discussing this too much as the United States would not have stood by should Japan have driven south.

[niceguy2005]

It is almost an impossible scenario to imagine. However, if one tries hard enough...

1. The early part of the war is a little bit like the US was actually in the war anyway. MOst of the US territory taken, PI excepted wasn't that strongly held. The first six months of the war would have gone down much the same way it did in real life.

2. Real life events give us some glimpse of what the Japanese might have done after that. Having scored great success against the Brittish Empire early Japan would still have ambandoned its 6 month offensive and hold policy. It would contracted victory disease and pushed further, diluting its strength. In the meantime the Brittish Empire would finally be mobilized and prepared to go on the counter offensive. I

3. As to the Navies I would never bet against the RN in the long run. As to the airpower, the US would be selling planes and designs to the Brittish and Japan ultimately would still be facing B-24 and 29s and P-38s, P-47s and Corsairs.

4. India is a bit of a lynch pin. Should Japan be able to sway India to rebel it would make things much harder on the UK. Not sure the Empire could survive that.

5. However, I don't think there is a chance in heck the USSR would have stayed out of the war between Japan and China had mother Russia not been fighting the Germans.

6. All that said, I am not sure Japan would ever have been invaded. I think the Soviet involvement in the war would have stopped short of invading and occupying Japan. I don't know that the UK would have had the strength to do it. I see Japan losing a very long war and negotiating for peace but not on terribly unfavorable terms.

[Nikademus]

I would want to read the forum article first and do some background checking before commenting in the specific. Part of my initial hesitation is caused by dates. Are we talking 1939 or 1941? Japan's edge is substantially increased if one is talking 1941. Either date though Japan holds one key edge. Distance to home base. Britain has India but the caveat there is that organizationally/logistically, India was not prepared as a base of operations to support a major war till late-war in RL and while a Europe at peace might allow this to be accelerated it still would take some time. (Then one has to deal with the "headache" of internal strife which without a major war in Europe being on might be worse for the Raj)

[niceguy2005]

The England also has Australia, NZ and most likely DEI (in the early days) as a base. Also the west coast of Canada.

One also would have to ask is this a surprise attack or did things get politically worse as time went on. Does the UK have time to reinforce India, Malaya and Hong Kong?

[docpaul]

Plus...what if Germany were *edgy* requiring England to keep an eye on the backdoor....as well as Japan keeping an eye on the US.  Not to mention many war *items* creation was stimulated by Germany's war plans etc.....What would England have been doing and why or would they have been ready without a war with germany anyhow?  Too many possibilities but would make a fun scenario...lol

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

The England also has Australia, NZ and most likely DEI (in the early days) as a base. Also the west coast of Canada.

One also would have to ask is this a surprise attack or did things get politically worse as time went on. Does the UK have time to reinforce India, Malaya and Hong Kong?

The DEI only if the Dutch are at war too and I think they'd be neutral unless forced. Britain would try and maybe succeed diplomatically but i have a hard time accepting that given that the Dutch's position is even weaker than Britain's.

So assuming for the moment that the Dutch are neutral, that reduces Britain primarily to Burma and Malaya for substantial base of operations in the immediate area. Oz and NZ are too far away to really impact events unless Japan drives in their direction. The availability of Oz troops would depend largely on whether or not Japan makes any aggressive moves in that direction. If they do, The Oz PM would probably insist the raised divisions be kept at home for defense.

Hong Kong is most likely a lost cause from day one. Too close to Japan's center of power to be kept supplied.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: docpaul

Plus...what if Germany were *edgy* requiring England to keep an eye on the backdoor....as well as Japan keeping an eye on the US. Not to mention many war *items* creation was stimulated by Germany's war plans etc.....What would England have been doing and why or would they have been ready without a war with germany anyhow? Too many possibilities but would make a fun scenario...lol

well the peacetime UK army is small but at least decently equipped. (one has to remember that the UK army was crippled by having to leave something like 90-95% of their equipment (including all the vehicles) at Dunkirk which forced a serious re-tooling period.) With no war in Europe they'd be free to move a substantial portion of their army to Malaya but that doesn't gurantee success if Japan controls the air and sea. (Burma would be a safer place to deploy) Since they didn't consider Malaya "Tank country" most likely the armor would be kept at home or sent to Burma. I think the IJA would hold the edge initially if they employ the infiltration tactics they used to cause the British conniptions in the first half of the real war and their greater flexibility to consider ideas outside the box (like using tanks in Malaya)

Ultimately though it again, comes down to sea and air control. Packing troops into an area that can't be properly supported can be like voluntarily placing your troops in a big POW camp. Players regularly do that in the game! [:D]

[captskillet]

Leo you can put ur strategy to the 'test' when Eagle Day hits the street...[;)]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: captskillet

Leo you can put ur strategy to the 'test' when Eagle Day hits the street...[;)]

Eagle Day?

Is that new and upcoming unified Matrix conversion of old BoB and BtR?


Leo "Apollo11"

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
The DEI only if the Dutch are at war too and I think they'd be neutral unless forced. Britain would try and maybe succeed diplomatically but i have a hard time accepting that given that the Dutch's position is even weaker than Britain's. So assuming for the moment that the Dutch are neutral, that reduces Britain primarily to Burma and Malaya for substantial base of operations in the immediate area. Oz and NZ are too far away to really impact events unless Japan drives in their direction.

If the Japanese don't attack the Dutch, they don't get the oil. And the US and the Dutch embargoed them well before they war. True, it was over taking French Indochina..., but if the Japanese don't take Indochina, they have no place to attack Malaya from... Wait, that means they have to attack France as well. The whole set of assumptions are idiotic.

[ChezDaJez]

If the Japanese don't attack the Dutch, they don't get the oil. And the US and the Dutch embargoed them well before they war. True, it was over taking French Indochina..., but if the Japanese don't take Indochina, they have no place to attack Malaya from... Wait, that means they have to attack France as well. The whole set of assumptions are idiotic.

The only way I can see this as making sense is if history played out as it did in real life until 7 Dec 41 when Japan attacks everything it historically did except for US territory. This would force the US to make the decision to declare war on Japan without a direct attack upon itself and that may not be politically viable for weeks or months given the relatively pacifist stance of Congress.

Should it have happened that way, I think that British and Dutch forces in the Pacific would have found themselves quickly overwhelmed with the full weight of the IJN and IJA available for the job. In other words, the war would have proceeded against their colonial interests and forces in the same manner in which it historically did only quicker as Japan would not have suffered the diversion of its forces that fought the US. India and Australia would surely have become viable targets. US bases in the PI and central Pacific would remain a potential thorn in the Japanese sides but without substantial reinforcement they would constitute but a relatively minor threat.

A key point is that if and when the US did decide to enter the war, it would be at a time and place of their choosing and we could possibly have effected a reverse Pearl Harbor so to speak. Of course, that is assuming that Japan did not respond to the military buildup in the Pacific that the US was sure to begin with a later preemptive attack. Substantial US reinforcement of the Philippines would be sure to raise some eyebrows and possible lead to a direct attack on US forces early in 1942. And of course, the effectiveness of the thinly veiled AVG would likely have contributed to increasing Japanese resentment of the US. By then, the Japanese would probably have accomplished most of their objectives with the exception of India and Australia.

Any other scenario just doesn't make sense IMO.

Chez

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: SireChaos

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Entertaining..., but rediculous. The "assumptions" of the scenario are extremely questionable, and entirely overlook the "racist" fears of all the Western Powers. He doesn't include France, which would definately have been drawn in by the threat to Indo-China...., or the Soviets who, without Hitler to contend with, would have definately had something to say in Manchuria. Most of all, he assumes that America would stay out while Japan over-ran the Western Pacific..., and I find that contention hard to swallow. The Japanese certainly didn't think America would "stay out" --- which is why there was a Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese also thought that the Americans would sue for peace after a six month string of defeats. This should teach us something about relying on the accuracy of Japanese political assumptions, right?

Actually, the Japanese were fairly certain that the US would get involved in a war in the Far East based on the embargoes and assets frozen and other measures that could be considered "causus belli" the Americans had already taken in response to Japanese aggression. They hoped that the willingness of their troops to "die to the last man" in defense of their ill-gotten gains would discourage the Americans to the point of negotiation. One is political calculation..., the other wishfull thinking.