Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
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 23:19

ljadw wrote:
27 Jun 2022 20:30
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
That doesn't matter because Japan cannot defeat the United States in any case. The only question is whether a Japanese war with the USSR would ease Japan's transition into the US orbit.

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

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 28 Jun 2022 06:03

The point is that Japan refused a transition into the US orbit ,which meant to become a US satellite .
Besides : Japan had not to defeat the US,the US had to defeat Japan .

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

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by glenn239 » 28 Jun 2022 17:35

Excluding an early Pearl Harbor scenario, Japan's best bet if entering the war was to attack the Soviet Union in the period 1941-1942. If victorious Tokyo could negotiate with the US on the basis of the US focus on Germany. If the war was a failure, Tokyo could negotiate with Washington on the basis of the Soviet Army establishing hegemony in Asia if the US did not agree to negotiations.

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

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 28 Jun 2022 17:43

The war would be a failure and Japan would be occupied by the US, not by the Soviets,because when Japan was defeated in 1939 by the Soviets,there was no Soviet hegemony in Asia ,thus the same would happen in 1941-1942 .

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 » 28 Jun 2022 18:17

glenn239 wrote:
28 Jun 2022 17:35
Excluding an early Pearl Harbor scenario, Japan's best bet if entering the war was to attack the Soviet Union in the period 1941-1942. If victorious Tokyo could negotiate with the US on the basis of the US focus on Germany. If the war was a failure, Tokyo could negotiate with Washington on the basis of the Soviet Army establishing hegemony in Asia if the US did not agree to negotiations.
And, what happens if the US, Britain, and the Dutch put a full embargo on Japan as a result of that declaration? Without rubber, oil, manganese, and other vital resources the Japanese economy collapses. Japan couldn't go a year into a war with Russia facing an embargo by those nations, their war industry would be reduced to ruins.

Would the IJN be willing to sink US shipping sending war materials to Russia in the Pacific? They certainly weren't willing to sink Russian shipping doing that in support of Germany.

If the war fails--which is the most likely scenario--then Russia is in a position to occupy some or all of Manchukuo. That too is disastrous for the Japanese.

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

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Peter89 » 28 Jun 2022 18:32

glenn239 wrote:
27 Jun 2022 23:19
ljadw wrote:
27 Jun 2022 20:30
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
That doesn't matter because Japan cannot defeat the United States in any case. The only question is whether a Japanese war with the USSR would ease Japan's transition into the US orbit.
Japan practically underwent a military coup, so it is very unlikely that without an utter defeat (one that shakes the population or at least the public psyché) they could undergo a major shift in foreign policy.

Japan and its politico-military leadership was systematically encouraged by the west in the past 70 years, so they developed an idea of invincibility. As long as they were operating in China, the world wouldn't react. But as soon as they'd compromise the Soviet war effort - practically the best if not the only chance to challenge German dominance on mainland Europe -, they'd cross the Rubicon.
“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

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

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Peter89 » 28 Jun 2022 18:47

Japan's fundamental problem was the Sino-Japanese war. They simply couldn't take or defeat China on their own. And the West didn't want China become a Japanese fief. Prominent / visionary European politicians like Kossuth saw that China, once the most magnificent powerhouse in the world will have to be restored by the West because it causes a maelstorm of power vacuum.

I tend to agree with many of glenn's notions regarding the PTO and Japan. It was either an early all-out against the US / British&co. which could keep them at bay for the time window in which Soviet defeat and an Eurasian sphere of influence was remotely imagineable.

However, that would require concerted Axis efforts against the British, then against the Soviets. And sadly we have primary sources which confirm that neither of that's gonna happen. But as a what-if, it's not bad, like the Soviets join the Axis what-if.
“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

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

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 28 Jun 2022 20:32

If Japan attacked Russia, it would be at the mercy of the US : a war with Russia would exhaust very fast Japan's oil reserves .
OTOH : if Japan attacked the US and Britain ( before or after Barbarossa ) ,Russia would remain neutral.
In April 1941 Japan made '' peace '' with the Soviets, there was no treaty, no pact with the US, because the US ''peace ''conditions were unacceptable for Japan . Russia, OTOH, had no demands for Japan : Stalin did not demand the Japanese withdrawal of China.
Last point : the What-if of the Soviets joining the Axis is totally ridiculous :there was no need for Stalin to join capitalist Germany and capitalist Italy in a war against capitalist Britain,France and USA .
About the PTO : before and after PH, Japan did not oppose to US/disguised US merchant ships sailing to Russia with supplies .
If they had stopped these merchant ships, the disadvantage for Russia would be very limited,while the disadvantages for Japan would hurt her strongly : end of the trade with Russia,or even war with Russia .

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 » 28 Jun 2022 21:19

Seriously people. No US merchant ships, disguised or otherwise, were carrying Lend-Lease supplies to Russia.

There were US merchant ships that were first transfered to the Soviet Union, then used to carry LL goods, but they were doing it as Soviet owned & Soviet flagged ships.

Yes, the Japanese did stop & search these ships to make sure they were not carrying war material through Japanese territorial waters. Any war material was offloaded before entering Japanese territorial waters and shipped overland to Soviet railheads.

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

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Von Schadewald » 28 Jun 2022 23:48

At 1.30 in this clip, the general tells Roosevelt: "If the Japanese invade us right now, they could penetrate as far as Chicago before we could stop them!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFhY6IaUJ40

Were these words actually said, and was this the actual paltriness of US defences at that time?

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

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by glenn239 » 29 Jun 2022 00:01

T. A. Gardner wrote:
28 Jun 2022 18:17
And, what happens if the US, Britain, and the Dutch put a full embargo on Japan as a result of that declaration? Without rubber, oil, manganese, and other vital resources the Japanese economy collapses. Japan couldn't go a year into a war with Russia facing an embargo by those nations, their war industry would be reduced to ruins.
God, what a fantastic outcome that would have been for Japan, that with its merchant fleet, cities, and industries virtually intact, that a western embargo would force the military to relinquish power back to the civilian government and make peace with the Americans in 1943.

Would the IJN be willing to sink US shipping sending war materials to Russia in the Pacific? They certainly weren't willing to sink Russian shipping doing that in support of Germany.
Why would the US send war material to Japanese forces occupying Vladivostok?
If the war fails--which is the most likely scenario--then Russia is in a position to occupy some or all of Manchukuo. That too is disastrous for the Japanese.
Not just Manchuria, all of Korea, (south Korea will not exist), Hong Kong and Taiwan will be swept up into the Communist orbit.

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

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by glenn239 » 29 Jun 2022 00:06

Peter89 wrote:
28 Jun 2022 18:47
I tend to agree with many of glenn's notions regarding the PTO and Japan. It was either an early all-out against the US / British&co. which could keep them at bay for the time window in which Soviet defeat and an Eurasian sphere of influence was remotely imagineable.
Once concept that seems difficult to convey, but is crucial for understanding the nearly hopeless situation Japan was in, was that it was far better for Japan to gamble spectacularly for all the marbles and lose the war quickly than it was to drag things out and get into a brutal war of attrition. Too many posters seem to think that the point of the war for Japan is to lose at as late a date as possible.

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 » 29 Jun 2022 00:25

Von Schadewald wrote:
28 Jun 2022 23:48
At 1.30 in this clip, the general tells Roosevelt: "If the Japanese invade us right now, they could penetrate as far as Chicago before we could stop them!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFhY6IaUJ40

Were these words actually said, and was this the actual paltriness of US defences at that time?
Please stop the stupid right now.

Tapping on the hull was from the battleship USS OKLAHOMA.
I am uncertain why the first actor says Arizona. I am even more uncertain why the actors playing the knowledgeable military advisors did not correct the first actor on his mistake.

It was at this point I stopped watching...

What Hollyweird movie. Is this?
Last edited by Takao on 29 Jun 2022 01:01, edited 1 time in total.

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 » 29 Jun 2022 00:29

glenn239 wrote:
29 Jun 2022 00:01
Why would the US send war material to Japanese forces occupying Vladivostok?
I missed the part where the Japanese Alien Space Bats took Vladivostok.

Or was it the Space Battleship Yamato with it's wave motion gun.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 9166
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 29 Jun 2022 02:13

Matches my first thoughts.
T. A. Gardner wrote:
28 Jun 2022 18:17
glenn239 wrote:
28 Jun 2022 17:35
Excluding an early Pearl Harbor scenario, Japan's best bet if entering the war was to attack the Soviet Union in the period 1941-1942. If victorious Tokyo could negotiate with the US on the basis of the US focus on Germany. If the war was a failure, Tokyo could negotiate with Washington on the basis of the Soviet Army establishing hegemony in Asia if the US did not agree to negotiations.
And, what happens if the US, Britain, and the Dutch put a full embargo on Japan as a result of that declaration? Without rubber, oil, manganese, and other vital resources the Japanese economy collapses. Japan couldn't go a year into a war with Russia facing an embargo by those nations, their war industry would be reduced to ruins.

Would the IJN be willing to sink US shipping sending war materials to Russia in the Pacific? They certainly weren't willing to sink Russian shipping doing that in support of Germany.

If the war fails--which is the most likely scenario--then Russia is in a position to occupy some or all of Manchukuo. That too is disastrous for the Japanese.

Return to “What if”