Japan's Actions if France *Doesn't* Fall in 1940 or Later

[Futurist]

If France doesn't fall in 1940 or later (such as if France has more competent military leadership in 1940 which keeps France's strategic reserve at Rheims instead of sending this strategic reserve to the Low Countries), what exactly would Japan do afterwards?

Would Japan still go on an extremely massive conquering spree in Asia and the Pacific?

Indeed, any thoughts on this?

[maltesefalcon]

Japan formulated a plan to absorb Dutch French and British colonies followng their defeat in 1940. If France and Netherlands were still in the war, it would likely be seen as too difficult.

[OpanaPointer]

The issues would be "can France spread out enough to cover Indochina?" Would the British help? Is the US going to back their play?

[Futurist]

Japan formulated a plan to absorb Dutch French and British colonies followng their defeat in 1940. If France and Netherlands were still in the war, it would likely be seen as too difficult.

If so, then what exactly would Japan have done instead of this?

[Futurist]

The issues would be "can France spread out enough to cover Indochina?"

Probably Yes. Indeed, why exactly wouldn't it?

Would the British help?

Probably Yes--if France actually asks for British help, that is.

Is the US going to back their play?

Whose play? Japan's?

[OpanaPointer]

Is the US going to back the Allies in S.E.A.?

I think the French would be a bit nervous about sending troops to Indochina when they would be still concerned about the Germans. If France doesn't fall Barbarossa would have been delayed for perhaps a year.

[Futurist]

Is the US going to back the Allies in S.E.A.?

With money and supplies? Probably Yes. With troops? Probably not--unless France and Britain get very desperate, that is.

I think the French would be a bit nervous about sending troops to Indochina when they would be still concerned about the Germans.

What about sending the French Navy to Indochina, though?

If France doesn't fall Barbarossa would have been delayed for perhaps a year.

Actually, wouldn't Operation Barbarossa have been completely butterflied away if France would have never fallen in World War II? After all, how exactly is Nazi Germany going to have enough troops to simultaneously fight both France (and whatever troops Britain sends to help France, obviously) and the Soviet Union?

[maltesefalcon]

Lot of domino effects but to follow up some questions.
Britain does not need to back France's play. Neither nation has a play to make.
It is not likely either would attack the Japanese whilst still engaged with Hitler. What purpose would be served?

So the play is entirely Japanese. And no they would not attack under these circumstances? Why? Because if Western Europe has not fallen into Axis hands, there is no way the Germans could launch Barbarossa. And Japan was already fighting in China. They would not risk another major campaign until the bulk of Russian troops were tied up in the west.

[Futurist]

Lot of domino effects but to follow up some questions.
Britain does not need to back France's play. Neither nation has a play to make.
It is not likely either would attack the Japanese whilst still engaged with Hitler. What purpose would be served?

So the play is entirely Japanese. And no they would not attack under these circumstances? Why? Because if Western Europe has not fallen into Axis hands, there is no way the Germans could launch Barbarossa. And Japan was already fighting in China. They would not risk another major campaign until the bulk of Russian troops were tied up in the west.

Did the Japanese actually believe that Stalin wanted to fight Japan, though?

[T. A. Gardner]

Here's how I see this playing out:

Italy doesn't enter the war at the end of June 1940 so there is no Mediterranean campaign. Italy may still try to invade Greece in a separate war. Depending on how the war in France is going, the British or French may intervene on the Greek side, but if things are not going well or there is a bloody stalemate that is unlikely as neither wants to widen the war. More likely, they both supply Greece with weapons and materials as the Italian campaign stalls.
The French navy being intact, the British and French rule the Med and the KM is left with a much weaker ability to project into the Atlantic. The U-boat war goes worse for the Germans as they lack French ports to operate from. This in turn puts the Germans antagonizing the US on a lower tempo and the Atlantic Fleet is kept smaller meaning more of the US Navy is deployed into the Pacific.
With no campaign in Russia by Germany, the Japanese are more wary of going to war using a Southern option when there is a potential for the Russians to get involved in Manchukuo. Instead, the Japanese moderate their actions in China and decide to consolidate their gains. They intensify "Japanization" of Korea, Manchukuo, and seek to play Chinese factions off against each other. They also seek to mollify the US to keep them out of a war.

If the Japanese were to take a southern option, French Indochina would fall rapidly as the French would have pulled most of their colonial troops out for the war in Europe leaving a rump force of untrained draftees with mediocre leadership. The air forces would have been second rate at best. Basically, they'd be much like the British forces in Malaya were only not nearly so strong.

The US profits greatly from the war supplying the French and British masses of equipment and such for fighting it. With Japan less belligerent a Pacific War is avoided in the early to mid 40's and Japan's position in Asia grows far more powerful. A fractured China remains near powerless and manipulation by the various powers continues. Japan encourages revolution in the various colonial holdings.

France and Britain are bled white both in casualties and wealth. The USSR refuses to engage in an offensive war as an ally of France and England. A negotiated peace follows several years of stalemated bloody warfare. The USSR and Germany divide up much of Eastern Europe between them.

[OpanaPointer]

With money and supplies? Probably Yes. With troops? Probably not--unless France and Britain get very desperate, that is.

I've read from several sources that FDR's cabinet was twice (at least) unanimous in believing that he could get a declaration of war through Congress if Japan attacked the British and/or Dutch possessions in S.E.A. without an attack on US possessions. The dates in question were in July and November of 1941. At that stage of our rearmament this would mean naval support principally, I believe.

[Futurist]

With money and supplies? Probably Yes. With troops? Probably not--unless France and Britain get very desperate, that is.

I've read from several sources that FDR's cabinet was twice (at least) unanimous in believing that he could get a declaration of war through Congress if Japan attacked the British and/or Dutch possessions in S.E.A. without an attack on US possessions. The dates in question were in July and November of 1941. At that stage of our rearmament this would mean naval support principally, I believe.

Please keep in mind, though, that this was after the Fall of France. In contrast, the Fall of France is completely butterflied away in this scenario.

Indeed, didn't you previously say (on Historum) that U.S. isolationism only began to strongly wane starting from June-July 1940?

[OpanaPointer]

With money and supplies? Probably Yes. With troops? Probably not--unless France and Britain get very desperate, that is.

I've read from several sources that FDR's cabinet was twice (at least) unanimous in believing that he could get a declaration of war through Congress if Japan attacked the British and/or Dutch possessions in S.E.A. without an attack on US possessions. The dates in question were in July and November of 1941. At that stage of our rearmament this would mean naval support principally, I believe.

Please keep in mind, though, that this was after the Fall of France. In contrast, the Fall of France is completely butterflied away in this scenario.

I'm not sure where you're going with that. Attacking the British or Dutch in our time line would equate to British-Dutch-French in this one. The French would still be 'good guys', no Petain.

Indeed, didn't you previously say (on Historum) that U.S. isolationism only began to strongly wane starting from June-July 1940?

You'll have to quote that for me, I don't recognize the phrasing.

[Futurist]

With money and supplies? Probably Yes. With troops? Probably not--unless France and Britain get very desperate, that is.

I've read from several sources that FDR's cabinet was twice (at least) unanimous in believing that he could get a declaration of war through Congress if Japan attacked the British and/or Dutch possessions in S.E.A. without an attack on US possessions. The dates in question were in July and November of 1941. At that stage of our rearmament this would mean naval support principally, I believe.

Please keep in mind, though, that this was after the Fall of France. In contrast, the Fall of France is completely butterflied away in this scenario.

I'm not sure where you're going with that. Attacking the British or Dutch in our time line would equate to British-Dutch-French in this one. The French would still be 'good guys', no Petain.

Where I'm going with this is that the U.S. might have less of a desire to fight foreign wars if France wouldn't have fallen beforehand.

Indeed, didn't you previously say (on Historum) that U.S. isolationism only began to strongly wane starting from June-July 1940?

You'll have to quote that for me, I don't recognize the phrasing.[/quote]

Here you go:

http://historum.com/speculative-history ... m-end.html

"Originally Posted by Futurist
@OpanaPointer: I just want to make sure--the Fall of France in 1940 was the decisive event which gradually helped shift U.S. public opinion away from isolationism and long-term neutrality in World War II, correct?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, a sharp shock to the US public. Despite Lindbergh's propaganda efforts for the Germans we still thought France could handle them. Some people were aware of how small the British Army was at the time, but most figured the British Empire could help the French if it came down to that. The surrender of France made a lot of people who were fence-sitting before shift into the active defense mindset."

Granted, you were talking about Germany here. However, if the U.S. was unwilling to help Britain and France fight Germany, why exactly would the U.S. be willing to help Britain and France fight Japan?

[OpanaPointer]

Ah, Ghost of Christmas Past. I have spent several months expanding my knowledge of the US attitude outside the Government.* This was compelled by the realization, pointed out to me by several authors**, that FDR almost always followed public opinion rather than lead it. So, to find the actual public attitude I needed to learn more about the groups that were attempting to influence FDR and the rest of the nation.

Now, in this scenario we have to decide if public opinion would swing enough to compel Roosevelt to call for unlimited or "all out" aid to the British, Dutch and French in S.E.A. And I think that groups like "Room 2940", Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies, Fight for Freedom, the consolidated FFFCDA (heir to the last two groups) and "focused" group that worked on "hyphenated Americans", Irish-American, etc., would have been effective in pushing the polls to the point where the President could call for war.

I hope that made sense.




*Much of it done in an oxygen tent, giving me plenty of reading time because I couldn't have a computer in there.

**Book list if requested.