Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

What if Japan Attacks British and Dutch Interests But Avoids War With the US?

Discussion in 'What If - Pacific and CBI' started by ozjohn39, Dec 22, 2015.

  1. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Location:
    Michigan
    The big problem for Japan here is that the US naval production plans were common knowledge (i.e. published in open works). By the end of 43 the USN would be capable of completely overpowering the IJN even if half or more of it were busy in other waters. If Japan isn't going to go to war with the US by the end of 42 they need to make sure that they don't go to war with the US. Continuing their campaign in China as well as attacking the Dutch and the Soviets looks to me like a very questionable way to do so. Given that the Dutch are already allied with the British attacking the Dutch is almost guaranteed to result in the British declaring war but it will give them some time to negate opening day surprises.
     
  2. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    37
    Its amazing to think that just our Pacific fleet was bigger than the combined Navies of all the other combatants.
     
  3. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,416
    Likes Received:
    2,208
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    I am not exactly sure how the ABC article from 2000 and the BBC article from 2016 have any bearing on Japanese immigration to China and possibly conquered parts of the Soviet Union in 1920-1941?

    You would have done much better by delving into Japanese immigration to Manchukuo/Manchuria and Korea during the 1920-1941 time period.

    Or are you purposely avoiding the subject because it would be detrimental to your position...Given that the Japanese were looking to emmigrate 5 million Japanese citizens to Manchukuo by 1956 - However, they were falling far short of that goal - only some 320,000 had gone to Manchukuo.

    Given the failure of the Japanese government to meet their target immigration numbers for Manchukuo...Where are these supposed immigrants for captured Soviet Union territory coming from? Especially considering that the Japanese are also trying to "repopulate" China with Japanese.

    Really, this issue is a non-starter.


    Unfortunately, you run into the same problem the Germans had in the Soviet Union and the Japanese had in China...You might control the major cities, but the Partisans control the rest, thus shipment of goods between two hubs becomes an "iffy" proposition at best.


    Why would Japanese immigration have been accelerated? And, to where?

    The majority of the Japanese immigration, at the time, was to Korea, Taiwan, and the United States(until 1924).

    If the Japanese military has taken control of Japan in the early 20's(far earlier than historically, as they did in the years prior to 1941). Then, whatever "immigration" that takes place will be because of the military intervention - not despite it. As had happened historically with Korea, Manchukuo, & China.


    Where did you read that???

    Japan was going bankrupt fighting the Russians in a war the Japanese economy could not long sustain. Russian troop reinforcements were arriving on a regular basis(IIRC, the Japanese were outnumbered on the ground 3 to 1). The Russians were also in a rather unenviable position, after a series of stinging defeats, and the civilian population turning against the Russian government and the war.

    Both sides saw ending the war as being mutually beneficial as opposed to continuing to fight.

    As such, neither side was "forced" to yield anything...the did it because it was necessary and immediately beneficial.


    Project Hola??? Never heard of it.

    Do you mean Project Hula - the transfer of US built naval vessels to the Soviet Union in 1945?

    Was Project Hula a meaningful operation? In the grand scope of the Pacific War, it was less than a drop in the bucket. The largest ships handed over to the Soviet Union were Tacoma class frigates(basically less capable destroyer escorts). While the greatest number of ships transferred were submarine chasers(56 total). All told, some 180 vessels USN vessels were transferred to the USSR.

    It was meaningful, to a point, for the Soviets, in that it gave them a small amphibious assault capability that they did not have before. But, when compared to the massive Soviet invasion of Manchukuo, the transfer of 180 small naval vessels to the USSR for small scale amphibious operations was no big deal.
     
  4. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,416
    Likes Received:
    2,208
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Well, the US sent 4 destroyers to act as escorts for the newly arrived Prince of Wales and Repulse. The US light cruiser Marblehead and several US destroyers and a destroyer tender were in Dutch Borneo waters. So, whatever Japanese "Dutch only" invasion force went to the DEI, they would be encountering, and likely firing upon, American naval vessels. As such, you need not bother waiting for convoys to be attacked.
     
  5. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    13,860
    Likes Received:
    3,648
    Project Hula was enough to allow Marshall Vaselivsky(sp?) to tell The Great Stalin that he could fling a division onto Hokkaido on 18 Aug. This plan was officially canceled until 22 Aug.
     
  6. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    37
    There were specific instances in the Atlantic where the Destroyers Greer and Kierney were in a battle with U-boats, FDR spoke of it, and he started to ramp up war fervor. If that happened in the Pacific as well, I could see us taking the next step as we had a superior view over the Japanese in those days, the perception was different of people from that part of the world back then.
     
  7. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    13,860
    Likes Received:
    3,648
    It was referred to as the "short of war" doctrine. However, if you look at the records you might note that FDR was generally behind public opinion.
     
  8. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,416
    Likes Received:
    2,208
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    And after the Greer and Kearny, it was no longer "short of war", but "Shoot on sight".
     
  9. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    13,860
    Likes Received:
    3,648
    Yep, baby steps while we reared and trained.
     
  10. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    37
    Whatever the wording or ideas behind it, I can see a similar strategy in the Pacific. During the destroyer episodes FDR said something along the lines of "History has recorded who has fired the first shot, but all that will matter is who fires the last shot." That's paraphrased.
     
  11. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,416
    Likes Received:
    2,208
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Well, in the Pacific, it was more overt than in the Atlantic, and the ships to be used, USS Isabel(PY-10), USS Lanikai(schooner/yacht), and the schooner Molly Moore(chartered, but never commissioned into the USN) were of negligible combat value. These three little ships were to recon Japanese activity around Cam Ranh Bay and to shadow any Japanese convoys found there. USS Isabel did get to do some snooping on the Japanese, but was never fired upon, although Japanese aircraft did shadow her several times before she was recalled. The USS Lanikai was getting ready to leave Manila Bay when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, thus making her sailing moot. The schooner Molly Moore was chartered, but with the opening of the war, her mission evaporated, and she would eventually be scuttled to avoid Japanese capture.
     
  12. knightdepaix

    knightdepaix Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    6
    Do you mean the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-1905? I meant the international intervention of the Russian Revolution. Japan ended up holding northern part of Sakhalin that was designated to Russia after that war.

    I agree with a-58; Thailand since middle 19th century had yielded vast lands to France and some to Britain. Joining Japan was a way to realize the attempt to take lands back from France.
    Japan per se would be better consolidating areas near the home islands. That means calculated venture into land1 and land2 that are now called Russian Far East and Manchuria, respectively. Residents in the land1 were related in agriculture: low literacy, higher literacy of man over woman. Controlling the few cities would help Japan in the goal of hold onto the choke points of transportation; then go ahead with pacification of the rural residents. Vladivostok was likely be the most populous city of just more than 1 million residents.
    As I typed, taking the cities and influencing the rural areas along the Amur estuary would have been much easier than holding onto to them facing the Red Army and getting international recognition of their gains.
     

Share This Page