Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 2041
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:17
Location: Israel

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Von Schadewald » 27 Jun 2022 10:30

Peter89 wrote:
27 Jun 2022 07:29
Japan's best strategic choice was not to be chosen from attacking the USA or the SU. If there was any cooperation between the Axis, the Japanese could attack the British and their allies together with Germany and Italy while keeping the US and the SU at bay diplomatically.
The British had no bigger allies than the Australians and New Zealanders: "kith and kin"

Japanese option 4 was: Conquer the South Pacific islands of New Caledonia, Fiji and Samoa, to cut off Australia and New Zealand's contribution to the war effort.


What effect would a 1941 blockading of all communications and transport in and out of Australasia, including the Anazc's export of men, wool, mutton and butter, have had on the British home front and on the Borneo, N. African, Middle East and Italian campaigns?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13127
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 27 Jun 2022 12:07

And why would that be good for Japan ?

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Takao » 27 Jun 2022 12:12

Von Schadewald wrote:
27 Jun 2022 10:30

The British had no bigger allies than the Australians and New Zealanders: "kith and kin"

Japanese option 4 was: Conquer the South Pacific islands of New Caledonia, Fiji and Samoa, to cut off Australia and New Zealand's contribution to the war effort.


What effect would a 1941 blockading of all communications and transport in and out of Australasia, including the Anazc's export of men, wool, mutton and butter, have had on the British home front and on the Borneo, N. African, Middle East and Italian campaigns?
Except it would not cut off Australia & New Zealand. To do that Singapore & Malaya must fall also. Or else the rear of Australia is left entirely unmolested.

Also, it cannot be done without taking the DEI. As blockading Australia & New Zealand 24/7 is going to consume a large chunk of Japan's bunker oil stocks. With a large part of the IJN on blockade duty, the will draw those stocks down quickly.

Not to mention a very potential conflict with the US around American Samoa.


What does Japan get out of this herculean effort to assist Germany? Not much. Nickel from New Caledonia, but the ore will have to be transferred back to Japan to be smelted, since the New Caledonia smelters are no longer operating due to no coal & coke coming from Australia & New Zealand.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 5013
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by OpanaPointer » 27 Jun 2022 12:22

Sidebar: There's message in the Pre-War Magic document collection in which the Japanese asked the Germans to put pressure on the French to allow the Japanese to occupy the northern part of the country in exchange for "keeping the US busy in the Pacific."
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2055
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Gooner1 » 27 Jun 2022 12:59

Any Japanese southern strategy that doesn't involve taking the Phillipines is one that effectively puts their head in a noose.

Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 2041
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:17
Location: Israel

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Von Schadewald » 27 Jun 2022 13:12

"Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia during World War II" article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_ ... rld_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_Line
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13127
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 27 Jun 2022 15:24

War propaganda is not an argument.
Driving distance from Darwin to Melbourne on non existent roads was 3700 km ,double of the distance Berlin-Moscow .

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Peter89 » 27 Jun 2022 17:33

Von Schadewald wrote:
27 Jun 2022 10:30
Peter89 wrote:
27 Jun 2022 07:29
Japan's best strategic choice was not to be chosen from attacking the USA or the SU. If there was any cooperation between the Axis, the Japanese could attack the British and their allies together with Germany and Italy while keeping the US and the SU at bay diplomatically.
The British had no bigger allies than the Australians and New Zealanders: "kith and kin"

Japanese option 4 was: Conquer the South Pacific islands of New Caledonia, Fiji and Samoa, to cut off Australia and New Zealand's contribution to the war effort.


What effect would a 1941 blockading of all communications and transport in and out of Australasia, including the Anazc's export of men, wool, mutton and butter, have had on the British home front and on the Borneo, N. African, Middle East and Italian campaigns?
The British Empire was a very strange phenomenon. The more I learn about it the more fascinated I am. It was a very complex, worldwide patchwork of strongholds at key locations, resource nodes, key military bases, manpower pools, etc. etc.

By my estimation, nothing but the loss of India (by extension the Raj) could cripple it. However, British were not military supermen and they made serious strategic errors, and also the days of their empire was counting down, and also a worldwide Axis effort might overstretch their forces. The fundamental problem from Axis viewpoint was Churchill, who was both a shrewd politician and a guy with a global perspective (even though his ideas contained no small amount of racism).
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5586
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by glenn239 » 27 Jun 2022 18:01

ljadw wrote:
27 Jun 2022 06:15
.
A war with Russia would weaken Japan while meanwhile the US would be stronger...
You're not seriously suggesting that Japan could defeat the United States?

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5586
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by glenn239 » 27 Jun 2022 18:10

Gooner1 wrote:
27 Jun 2022 12:59
Any Japanese southern strategy that doesn't involve taking the Phillipines is one that effectively puts their head in a noose.
The only viable end state for Japan in this period is to emerge in an alliance with the United States. This can be done the historical way, or it can go ahistorically, but the end state will be Japan in the US orbit. The main question on the merits of attacking the USSR is whether or not for Japan it will make the inevitable transition into the US orbit with less damage to Japan or not.

From that there are two cases, the first where a German-Japanese attack on the USSR is so successful that D-Day does not occur until at least 1945. The second case is that, whatever the results in Europe, that the Soviets defeat the Japanese and start rolling forward into Korea and China. I submit that both of these scenarios would leave Japan with more opportunities to transition into the US orbit more smoothly than did the historical case. The first for American fear of Germany, the second for American fear of Russian hegemony in Asia.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by T. A. Gardner » 27 Jun 2022 18:23

glenn239 wrote:
27 Jun 2022 18:10
Gooner1 wrote:
27 Jun 2022 12:59
Any Japanese southern strategy that doesn't involve taking the Phillipines is one that effectively puts their head in a noose.
The only viable end state for Japan in this period is to emerge in an alliance with the United States. This can be done the historical way, or it can go ahistorically, but the end state will be Japan in the US orbit. The main question on the merits of attacking the USSR is whether or not for Japan it will make the inevitable transition into the US orbit with less damage to Japan or not.

From that there are two cases, the first where a German-Japanese attack on the USSR is so successful that D-Day does not occur until at least 1945. The second case is that, whatever the results in Europe, that the Soviets defeat the Japanese and start rolling forward into Korea and China. I submit that both of these scenarios would leave Japan with more opportunities to transition into the US orbit more smoothly than did the historical case. The first for American fear of Germany, the second for American fear of Russian hegemony in Asia.
Not true. Japan, by avoiding war--

Avoiding war could have occurred if the nation's leadership had put more of a smackdown on the army. The whole problem that got Japan where they ended up was the army's leadership had a mindset that they could do no wrong, could win any battle. That meant that no matter how well they did in China if they didn't entirely defeat that nation, they hadn't won and couldn't stop.

Let's assume for a moment that somehow Japan's leadership in a moment of clarity moderates itself. It backs off in China holding what was taken, maybe even ceding some land back. Instead, the focus becomes increasing control over the areas Japan already has. That is, they expand and intensify their "Japanification" efforts in Korea, Manchukuo, etc., to make them thoroughly part of Japan itself.
Sure, this is racist as hell but at the time nobody would have blinked an eye at Japan doing it.

They gain considerable natural resources from the part of China they hold. They have a much larger nation with a much larger population. In the long run, they become enough of an economic powerhouse that they can stand as a business rival of the US and gain equal footing on the world stage.

In such a setting, a postwar Japan becomes a broker between Asia and the Soviet Union. They can play both sides to their advantage. They also loom as a counterweight to China becoming Communist.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13127
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 27 Jun 2022 20:30

glenn239 wrote:
27 Jun 2022 18:01
ljadw wrote:
27 Jun 2022 06:15
.
A war with Russia would weaken Japan while meanwhile the US would be stronger...
You're not seriously suggesting that Japan could defeat the United States?
Where did I suggest this ?
I said ,and I repeat ,that a war with Russia ( even a victorious one ) would weaken Japan and that meanwhile the US would be stronger : without PH US strength in the Pacific would be much stronger in 1942 than in 1941, in 1943 than in 1942,etc ...
The USSR was no threat for Japan but the threat from the US was increasing every day and war with Russia would not help Japan but would weaken its position opposite the US .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13127
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 27 Jun 2022 20:32

glenn239 wrote:
27 Jun 2022 18:10
Gooner1 wrote:
27 Jun 2022 12:59
Any Japanese southern strategy that doesn't involve taking the Phillipines is one that effectively puts their head in a noose.
The only viable end state for Japan in this period is to emerge in an alliance with the United States. This can be done the historical way, or it can go ahistorically, but the end state will be Japan in the US orbit. The main question on the merits of attacking the USSR is whether or not for Japan it will make the inevitable transition into the US orbit with less damage to Japan or not.

From that there are two cases, the first where a German-Japanese attack on the USSR is so successful that D-Day does not occur until at least 1945. The second case is that, whatever the results in Europe, that the Soviets defeat the Japanese and start rolling forward into Korea and China. I submit that both of these scenarios would leave Japan with more opportunities to transition into the US orbit more smoothly than did the historical case. The first for American fear of Germany, the second for American fear of Russian hegemony in Asia.
In an alliance with the US Japan would be only a satellite .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13127
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 27 Jun 2022 20:36

Peter89 wrote:
27 Jun 2022 17:33


The fundamental problem from Axis viewpoint was Churchill.
This is not correct : if Churchill had died during the war, nothing would have changed .

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Peter89 » 27 Jun 2022 20:59

ljadw wrote:
27 Jun 2022 20:36
Peter89 wrote:
27 Jun 2022 17:33


The fundamental problem from Axis viewpoint was Churchill.
This is not correct : if Churchill had died during the war, nothing would have changed .
His diplomatic skills and statecraft would be sorely missed.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

Return to “What if”