Was an invasion of India ever really possible?

[niceguy2005]

A favorite tactic of Japanese players seems to be invading India and trying to knock the UK essentially out of the war. Lots of us have had it happen in games. My question though is one for the historians. Was the invasion of India ever really possible for Japan? I know some diplomacy occurred in which Japan tried to convince India to revolt against English government.

If Japan did invade, how would it most likely have been done? How would this have impacted the UK?

[DuckofTindalos]

Invading India was as realistic as invading Australia, i.e. not. The Japanese military wasn't big enough.

[thegreatwent]

I feel it was not a realistic goal. Although the Japanese tried to make overtures to the Indian people they didn't have a great deal of success. Even the anti-imperial Ghandi set aside his beefs with England and enjoined his countrymen to oppose Japanese expansionism. Added to this the Japanese Army was already at the end of its tether, both manpower and supplies were limited. Logistics plus a determined resistance indicate that a Japanese victory in India would have required divine intervention IMO.

[Mike Solli]

Historically, I can't see how the Japanese would have ever been able to keep a SLOC open to India.

[rockmedic109]

Would've taken far too many forces to take and more still to occupy.  For little actual gain.  It probably would've shortened the war if they had.

[Mark VII]

Unlike the game, in RL the IJN would of had sea transport issues suppling such an adventure. Would the IJA release the required Divisions to carry out the mission? Would the Navy provide CV's should they be coming by sea? But I would think the navy would of been less than interested in a long term deployment to the Indian Ocean. They probably would of come mostly overland thru Burma sorta like in 1944 but more likely in 1942.

[ChickenOfTheSea]

There was the Kohima campaign of 1944, but that was a land invasion of India from Burma. Even in WITP you can see how hard that was to supply.

[Feltan]

Oh ye of paltry imagination!

Of course it was possible, but success was unlikely.

If you change none of the starting assumptions, the historical outcome is likely. Japan tries to invade, but the planning was unrealistic and they get held in mid-Burma.

If you change starting assumptions: more troops, better logistics, different strategic goals, etc., and if you combine with some potential issues for the UK -- a full scale revolt in India against England was not entirely out of the question, and the UK commitment to the CBI theater was never as firm as the historical results would indicate.

Yeah, things could have gone the other way -- Japan could have done it; however, real success would have required different strategic planning and a string of unlikely events all falling in their favor.

Regards,
Feltan

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Invading India was as realistic as invading Australia, i.e. not. The Japanese military wasn't big enough.

And even if the Japanese actually had enough troops to garrison that much real estate, the fact remains that the supply lines were already stretched to the limit without an invasion of India. Such an invasion would likely have broken the supply lines.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Invading India was as realistic as invading Australia, i.e. not. The Japanese military wasn't big enough.

And even if the Japanese actually had enough troops to garrison that much real estate, the fact remains that the supply lines were already stretched to the limit without an invasion of India. Such an invasion would likely have broken the supply lines.

The Japanese may initially have been seen as liberators, but that feeling wore off pretty quickly in the rest of Asia under Japanese policy. The British had to have a very large garrison of British troops, not to mention the Indian Army, which would have had to be completely reconstituted under the Japanese. There is no way it could be held. Invading and holding Australia is actually more realistic given supply lines, population size, etc; but not very. I do think the Japanese could have held small coastal towns on Northern Australia, but even that would have been dicey for them.

Ideally, AE should model this impossibility, but then re-balance the VP's so that it doesn't require a conquest of Australia or India to get an Auto-Victory.

[Andy Mac]

I agree with all of this BUT to ask a different question could the Japanese have invaded Ceylon IMO yes just about with strategic unbalancing but they could have done it...
 
Could the Japanese have raided the coast of India in 42 yes.
 
Was Bengal vulnerable to a limited campaign maybe not easily not without unprecendented co operation and forces from China but maybe...
 
Capturing all of India was never on and not really a goer they didnt have the lift ultimately logistics defeats them and had they invaded the allies would have reacted.
 

[Przemcio231]

Well in game terms... it's to easy especialy in the CHS. If japanese player is given a free hand with Invasions he can have DEI and the PI by the end of January then a 2 week operational Pause and he jumps on India and overruns it before brits can do something about it...

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Oh ye of paltry imagination!

Of course it was possible, but success was very unlikely.

Half the Japanese Army was tied up in China trying to hold down a population much larger than Japan's. And the behavior of Japan's Military virtually guaranteed hostility on the part of all occupied populations (they might dislike the British---but most wound up actively hating the Japanese). So it's hard to envision a success involving conquering and holding down another few hundred million people. Australia, while another logistical nightmare, is much more "doable" just from the lack of people to subjigate. India is one of those things that "worried" the British, but was pretty much a "pipedream" for the Axis. Like Rommel meeting up with Hoth somewhere in Persia....

[Yava]

Not really possible, not really due to Japs military power but rather due to the situation in the Pacific, supply problems, Burma/India wa rather a secondary matter for the Japs (especially later in the war). [:)]

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Feltan
Of course it was possible, but success was unlikely.

Japan couldn’t even supply its outer perimeter adequately and they only had small NLF and SNLF garrisons that needed to be fed. There is no way Japan could ever have invaded India with an army large enough to conquer the country, no matter how many historically implausible conditions you imagine first.

Had Japan given up on the China venture, sued for peace, and diverted everything to India, they still couldn’t have done it. The Brits always had an ace in the hole to play. Had Japan actually been seen to actually have a chance at conquering India, Britain would have simply promised Indian independence. That act alone would have assured little or no cooperation with Japan by the indigenous people and flooded the roles for colonial units being raised in the country.

Whether Britain honored that pledge after the war is another matter entirely. But the pledge alone would have been sufficient to raise hundreds of thousands of Indian volunteers. India had huge potential for a home defense force, but it was never needed, so there is no OOB for one to draw upon from history.

Everyone hampers the allies in game with historical equipment pools but they forget India never needed to raise emergency home defense units. Had they needed too, there would have easily been a half million more men drafted into units and heavy equipment would have been diverted from the European invasion buildups and flooded into India to flesh out these units.

The fact it was never needed historically does not mean India could not have easily raised one of the largest land armies of the war. After all they had one of the largest populations of any country to draw upon.

Jim

[Mynok]

One wonders then how Britain, a nation much smaller than Japan, ever conquered India. [8|][:'(]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Oh ye of paltry imagination!

Of course it was possible, but success was very unlikely.

Half the Japanese Army was tied up in China trying to hold down a population much larger than Japan's. And the behavior of Japan's Military virtually guaranteed hostility on the part of all occupied populations (they might dislike the British---but most wound up actively hating the Japanese). So it's hard to envision a success involving conquering and holding down another few hundred million people. Australia, while another logistical nightmare, is much more "doable" just from the lack of people to subjigate. India is one of those things that "worried" the British, but was pretty much a "pipedream" for the Axis. Like Rommel meeting up with Hoth somewhere in Persia....

Well the amount of welcome Japan received as occupier seemed to vary greatly by region...of course prior to the start of hostilities with the US/CW, Japan had essentially occupied indochina and was relatively welcome. From what I have read the Indonesians certainly weren't universally thrilled with Japan's occupation, but they seemed to generally find it preferable to the Dutch. From what I have read of the Philipines however, they bitterly disliked the Japanese occupation. Burma seemed divided.

Likewise, India, from what very little I have read, was a divided landscape politically. There were those that were quite content with British rule and then there were the anti-imperialists. Among the latter group there was Ghandi's movement, but also those that wanted independence for India and would not be at all opposed to armed conflict to achieve it...I believe I read that this was more prevalent in what later became Pakistan. Would that group have been able to stir up enough trouble to destabilize India?

[engineer]

Given the body of opinion, above, one is tempted to disagree just on contrarian principle.  What might have happened that doesn't offend reality too much?

1)  The Conquest of Ceylon:  I agree with Andy Mac on this one.  The logistics of going overland from Burma to Assam are well known.  The KB operated at will in the Bay of Bengal in early 1942.  Occupying Ceylon as an unsinkable aircraft carrier was feasible and would have postponed any British offensive at Burma or relief of China for at least a year.  Ultimately, the Allies would have won any sort of attrition campaign, but the whole coast of India from Bengal to Bombay would have been within range of Japanese bombers.

2)  The Liberation of India:  In Burma, Baw Maw organized a puppet regime that was an ally of the Japanese. He was sponsored by the Japanese, but it relieved some of the garrison responsibilities. If the Japanese had recognized the need to subvert the Indian Empire instead of just opportunistically recruiting among PoW's, then the thin Anglo veneer might have been ripped away with Japanese troops arriving to legitimize a nationalist regime instead of exchanging imperial overlords.  Think of an Easter Rising ala 1916 in Ireland but with the British garrison needing to deal with a simultaneous Japanese landing and arming of the rebels.  This would have required careful diplomacy and spy work ahead of time.  But that's a political question beyond the scope of WitP. 

3)  The Conquest of India:  Most of the responses in this thread address this scenario, and the weight of opinion is that this would not have worked.  In that, I concur.  EDIT - The flaw in the game mechanics that let's it happen is the absence of any sort of garrison requirement as in China. If there was similar garrison requirement for the Japanese, they would be hard pressed to get far into China. I think the imperfect English administration would have rallied enough of the Indians against a Japanese occupation to have required some garrison - END EDIT.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


One wonders then how Britain, a nation much smaller than Japan, ever conquered India. [8|][:'(]

Bigger guns. Oh, and divide and conquer.

[Mynok]

I suppose that could never have crossed the mind of a Japanese.........nah, that's just beyond imagination. [:'(]