Japan Victorious?

That depends on what those strategic goals were. If it's control over China, well, the subjugation of all of China was never going to succeed, but if the Japanese would have been content with ruling Manchuria, annexing a few strategic port cities and having a decisive influence over Chinese politics, then yes, that could have been done. This is basically what they had achieved by 1938, before the Imperial Army escalated the war.

If those strategic goals also encompass some sort of dominion over South East Asia, well... I don't think the US could be kept out of the war once the Japanese tried to take Malaysia or the Dutch East Indies by force.

In hindsight, Japan's best move would have been to limit the war in China to what they had achieved in 1937/1938, wait out the deteriorating situation in Europe, and perhaps try to get the colonial population of the DEI to revolt against the Dutch once the Netherlands were defeated and occupied by Germany. Same with the other colonies. This might have allowed Japan to dominate the politics of the majority of the nations of South East Asia. Though I guess that the British and/or the Americans might have intervened in any such colonial uprising.

If Japan would joined Germany and Italy in the summer of 1940 and declare war on UK, France and rest of allies would put huge pressure on Britain government to accept peace with the Axis Powers soon after the French surrender, even with some Colonial concessions like Southeast Asia, Egypt and some former German colonies. USA wouldn't have the possibility to react in 1940, if wouldn't be attacked.

1. declare war on Germany
2. send expeditionary force to Europe/North-Africa
3. receive oil in return
4. profit

If Japan could have managed to end the embargo without actually giving up on its ambitions - perhaps a favorable trade cessation and promises for exclusive influence to the USA and denunciation of the Axis - it's hard to argue that they couldn't have at least MAYBE met their goals and formed their co-prosperity sphere in an American-free pacific.

Other possibility could be they formally declare war on the USSR when Germany supports them vs the USA, that war actually ends in a German victory, and Japan sits at a peace table where the Axis are able to dictate favorable terms on the defeated allies. Ruling all of China was probably never going to happen, but having just influence over China while taking over some smaller former colonies and Vladivostok aren't unreasonable expectations.

Imperial Japan is THE example when it comes to the downsides of Mission Creep. There is no way for them to stop without some major restructuring of the army power structure.

I doubt Japan could have ever sustained its full extent colonial Empire. Korea and Manchuria for sure, but it's just impossible that they could have controlled China directly or indirectly for a sustained amount of time.

If you add to that their conquests in southeast Asia, you got a colonial power that just can't sustain itself. As said in 1937 borders it could have worked but with all their successes there is little reason to assume Japan wouldn't have eventually gone overboard with its ambitions, as they did, and then collapse under their own weight.

I doubt Japan could have ever sustained its full extent colonial Empire. Korea and Manchuria for sure, but it's just impossible that they could have controlled China directly or indirectly for a sustained amount of time.

Click to expand...

Who knows. The key would have been to keep the Chinese divided and decentralized by playing of one warlord/governor against another and making the Chinese economy somehow dependend on cooperation with Japan.

Well, the major goal of the Japanese militarists was economic self-sufficiency. Meaning that the regions they needed to take were going to bring them into direct confrontation with the British Empire, US or both. The best thing the Japanese could have done was not go all "rogue state" and tick off the rest of the world. They couldn't achieve their objectives through force of arms. Not that the Japan of the 1930s was capable of rational decision making. The militarists in Tokyo couldn't even control the militarists within the Kwantung Army, and moderates had even less influence.

olm said:

1. declare war on Germany
2. send expeditionary force to Europe/North-Africa
3. receive oil in return
4. profit

Click to expand...

Aye this would be the most promising thing to do for them.

olm said:

1. declare war on Germany
2. send expeditionary force to Europe/North-Africa
3. receive oil in return
4. profit

Click to expand...

That would have been the rational thing to do........... in hindsight.

But with hindsight, everyone becomes a strategic genius.

Personally I think they should have sided with the Allies, but still sent their own troops to Indonesia and Indochina for "peacekeeping", tossing the Dutch and French out of their colonies and arming the native populations. What were they going to do about it? Kickstarting decolonization was in Japan's interest, and I am sure the Americans would not have intervened against that sort of move. They might have felt uneasy about it, but colonial liberation was just sooooo much a part of the American mindset at the time, it would have been impossible for FDR to stop the Japanese.

The only drawback of this plan is that it presupposes that the war in Europe lasts for some time. In summer 1940 the Japanese had no way of knowing that. For all they knew, Hitler could have proposed a peace in fall which would have set the Dutch and French free again to demand their colonies back. If peace broke out in Europe, and Britain backed such a demand, and helped France and the Netherlands to get their armies back in shape for a war of reconquest, Japan would have been hard pressed to resist. And to make matters worse, from their perspective it would even be a possibility that Hitler would be mad about a Japanese DOW, and remembered that he wasn't in favor of yellow races kicking white peoples' butts, supporting the Dutch and French bids to mend fences in Europe.

Whatever the final score of the game, Japan, the country, loses the war.

Threaten, under the table, to arm and instigate the native populations of the European asian colonial Empires unless favorable trade deals were made. Solidify control over Manchuria and Mengukou and cultivate distinctly non-chinese identity in those two places (Manchurian and Mongolian respectivly). I.E. make two new Koreas out of them with Japan as the leige lord.

Settle into the role of keeper of the balance among the warlords in China and on the Asian Mainland, like UK did in Europe.

Work on getting north Sakhalin as a long term goal, work on making Taiwain into the southernmost "Home Island" of Japan.

NO wars. Soft power only.

olm said:

1. declare war on Germany
2. send expeditionary force to Europe/North-Africa
3. receive oil in return
4. profit

Click to expand...

except that plan does nothing to advance Japan's colonial expansion in East and SE Asia... which was the overriding objective of the militarist government. so... yeah.

Britain, France, and Holland are not going to hand over their colonial possessions in Asia in exchange for a few thousand Japanese soldiers in Persia and Egypt.

Moreover, the USA was already committed to stopping Japanese colonial aggression. Japan's insane leaders were going to put them in a collision course with the Yankee Colossus at some point, and they were going to lose that war ten times out of ten, with pretty much zero hope for success - unlike Hitler, the Japanese were guaranteed defeat.

f1nalstand17 said:

Does everyone really think that the Japanese were always going to lose against the U.S.? It seems very likely that they could have won. In a total war between the two, it seems that the United States would always win, but what about say a "skirmish" over something small like the East Indies which would then escalate? And maybe if the IJN knocked out the USN wouldn't that mean victory for Japan?

Click to expand...

Whatever the final score of the game, Japan, the country, loses the war. This is what happens when you face an industrial power that outbuilds you by a factor of eleven to two in capital ships.

Everyone loses to the USA fighting 1v1. Japan needs to either not take on the USA alone, or not take on the USA in a total war. What if they had taken the east Indies without attacking the USA? What if they had voluntarily withdrew from mainland China but remained in Manchuria, Korea, and the southeast? Would the USA have been just as willing to endure the brutal casualty rate of the island hopping campaign if instead of a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor starting the war, it was American military intervention out of the Philippines against Japan?

f1nalstand17 said:

Does everyone really think that the Japanese were always going to lose against the U.S.? It seems very likely that they could have won. In a total war between the two, it seems that the United States would always win, but what about say a "skirmish" over something small like the East Indies which would then escalate? And maybe if the IJN knocked out the USN wouldn't that mean victory for Japan?

Click to expand...

under what circumstances can you see "GO BIGGEST AND BADDEST AND DROP A F---ING A-BOMB ON 'EM" FDR having a "limited skirmish" with Japan? Under what circumstances can you see Japan's militarist warlords who launched a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor and conquered a quarter of a continent in a year consent to a limited war?

How can the IJN "knock out" the USN? Now, let's say they destroy the aircraft carriers and the battleships at Pearl. This is not outside the realm of possibility. It ultimately doesn't matter, b/c they don't have the capacity to deploy the manpower to take Hawaii.

by the end of the war, the US is rolling out ships every couple of hours. the usa in 1940 has 16 times the GDP of Japan, and twice the population. Japan had a lot of nice toys, but they had to fight a war against 300 million chinese, occupy SE Asia, keep sufficient garrisons in Manchuria and Korea to deter the USSR AND fight the most powerful nation in the history of earth. Who created atomic bombs from scratch in 4 years w/o much of an impact on the war effort.

Yakman said:

under what circumstances can you see "GO BIGGEST AND BADDEST AND DROP A F---ING A-BOMB ON 'EM" FDR having a "limited skirmish" with Japan? Under what circumstances can you see Japan's militarist warlords who launched a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor and conquered a quarter of a continent in a year consent to a limited war?

How can the IJN "knock out" the USN? Now, let's say they destroy the aircraft carriers and the battleships at Pearl. This is not outside the realm of possibility. It ultimately doesn't matter, b/c they don't have the capacity to deploy the manpower to take Hawaii.

by the end of the war, the US is rolling out ships every couple of hours. the usa in 1940 has 16 times the GDP of Japan, and twice the population. Japan had a lot of nice toys, but they had to fight a war against 300 million chinese, occupy SE Asia, keep sufficient garrisons in Manchuria and Korea to deter the USSR AND fight the most powerful nation in the history of earth. Who created atomic bombs from scratch in 4 years w/o much of an impact on the war effort.

Click to expand...

Did you just post that the USA built the A-Bomb from scratch and FDR dropped it on Japan?

Yakman said:

except that plan does nothing to advance Japan's colonial expansion in East and SE Asia... which was the overriding objective of the militarist government. so... yeah.

Britain, France, and Holland are not going to hand over their colonial possessions in Asia in exchange for a few thousand Japanese soldiers in Persia and Egypt.

Moreover, the USA was already committed to stopping Japanese colonial aggression. Japan's insane leaders were going to put them in a collision course with the Yankee Colossus at some point, and they were going to lose that war ten times out of ten, with pretty much zero hope for success - unlike Hitler, the Japanese were guaranteed defeat.

Click to expand...

Japanese priority was domination of China. Whole southward campaign started because they needed raw materials (most importantly oil) to continue war in China. If they are part of Allies then they don't need to invade Dutch East Indies for oil as they can get it peacefully. Taking over French Indochina from Vichy could be also potentially achievable.