How Japan Should Have Won WWII

[Grady Clay]

How Japan Should Have Won WWII.
An exercise in speculation.

This stems from the single premise that the Imperial Army and Imperial Navy would have worked to a common purpose rather than at each other’s throats politically. Everything else is a strategy that that could have been pursued.

The basic strategy is to invade and occupy Hawaii as a joint Army-Navy operation. Using submarines to sink ships and damage the port infrastructure at Vancouver, Seattle, Tacoma, Portland, SF bay area, Long Beach and San Diego would have an immediate effect. Add only two small freighters of explosives at the upper gates of the Panama Canal and the canal would be out of commission for a decade.

I will speculate that the isolationist US would have abandoned SE Asia and hauled Macarthur’s army from the Philippines and the entire remaining Pacific Fleet to defend the west coast. The same would be true for the US islands in the Pacific (Midway, Truk, etc.)

If Japan had not made the slight timing error that caused this to be considered a “dastardly sneak attack” then the ire of the American people wouldn’t be so aroused. This could be further reduced by offering to repatriate anyone on the Pacific islands and pay some minor reparations. Imperial Japan could have drawn a “line of influence” between Hawaii and the US mainland.

Japan could then leisurely conquer all of resources rich SE Asia.

Well, we all know how it turned out - partially because of bickering generals and admirals.

So much for historical musings on a summer afternoon.

Best,
Grady

[aap1966]

Once the US was involved, Japan had lost.
Remember, before Pearl Harbour large portions of the US Infantry were training with broomsticks because they had insufficent rifles, by the end of the war the US was launching aircraft carriers (on average) every 2 weeks.
In "total war" the biggest, most efficent economy wins.

Of course, back then the Democrats actually wanted the US to win wars, so that helped too.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by aap1966
...Of course, back then the Democrats actually wanted the US to win wars, so that helped too.

Yes, what a strange time. Hard to imagine.

[Tobra]

because it was a "good" war, as if there were such a thing

[Dantilla]

No such thing as a good war, but there is such a thing as a justifiable war.

[pwd72s]

Gawd! If the Japanese had won? Most of the population of the USA would be driving Japanese cars, and the Japanese would own Wakiki beach!

[Dantilla]

Originally posted by pwd72s
Gawd! If the Japanese had won? Most of the population of the USA would be driving Japanese cars, and the Japanese would own Wakiki beach!

And the Japanese would tell Porsche how to build cars!

[fastpat]

Originally posted by aap1966
Once the US was involved, Japan had lost.
Remember, before Pearl Harbour large portions of the US Infantry were training with broomsticks because they had insufficent rifles, by the end of the war the US was launching aircraft carriers (on average) every 2 weeks.
In "total war" the biggest, most efficent economy wins.

Of course, back then the Democrats actually wanted the US to win wars, so that helped too.

While what you are saying is true, as far as Japan's beating America through warfare, there were plenty of rifles for the troops. The Springfield bolt actions were already well into being replaced by the Garand semi-auto's in 1940, aircraft production was already on a wartime footing, with one of the largest wargames ever held in the summer of 1941 at what is now Fort Polk, LA. The Japanese attack was not only not a "sneak attack", it was expected. All of the anti-aircraft batteries in the attacked area were in full use in considerable less than 10 minutes, they were in fact loaded with live ammo on a continuous basis for over a year leading up to the attack.

Had the US government concentrated 80% of the war effort in the Pacific against Japan, the end of warfare with Japan would have come two years earlier than it did, the actual war spending and troops in the Pacific theater were about 15% of the total, the european theater got the lion's share of the effort. A most unfortunate historical fact.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Grady Clay
How Japan Should Have Won WWII.
An exercise in speculation.

This stems from the single premise that the Imperial Army and Imperial Navy would have worked to a common purpose rather than at each other’s throats politically. Everything else is a strategy that that could have been pursued.

Japan never had the slightest chance of winning a war with America, considering that Roosevelt never concentrated more than 15% of the war effort in dealing with the Japanese.

In my opinion, the US government should have concentrated the war effort against Japan, pushing them back out of the Philipines and perhaps assisted in removing them from SE Asia, but no more. As long as Japan was in China, the communists had no chance of coming to power, thus saving the lives of those murdered by the Red Chinese government that did come to power. Yes, the Japanese weren't "nice guys", but compared to the Reds they were paragons of virtue.

While we removed the Japanese from the "American Sphere", the Philipines could have been made self sufficient in government much earlier than what occured, and most of our forces withdrawn from that country.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Russians would have moved into Poland and to the German border. The Germans would have had to withdraw from all or most of France to stop the Soviets at their eastern border, and even then it would have been difficult for them. The Russians had more aircraft, better tanks, and many more arty pieces than did the Germans, who were worn down by the warfare in western Russia and Ukraine. If the accursed Roosevelt had to do something in europe, it would have been to go to France, without the bloody invasion, in late 1944-early 1945 to merely help keep the Germans from returning. There was never a need to invade either Germany or Japan.

[tabs]

I get tired of drivel....

If Germany didn't have to tie down troops and resources in the West they would have been able to beat the USSR.

With reference to the Air War over Western Europe..."Can you imagine what 80,000 guns could have done on the Eastern Front." Albert Speer

[tabs]

Yamamoto fully knew that Japan was gong to lose the war...before they ever started.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by aap1966
by the end of the war the US was launching aircraft carriers (on average) every 2 weeks.
In "total war" the biggest, most efficent economy wins.

You might say we had a very deep bench - if war were a sport.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by pwd72s
Gawd! If the Japanese had won? Most of the population of the USA would be driving Japanese cars, and the Japanese would own Wakiki beach!

Funny.

[DavidI]

It is amazing how powerful oil is in determining the course of mankind. Japan attacked America based on our blockade of their oil supply. We are again fighting over oil in the Middle East. Japan was a superpower during WWII and had they joined forces and coorperated with Germany (not in just theory, but practice), the Allies may have lost the war.

The multiple front battlefronts cost them the war. Unfortunately, America is making the same mistakes.

David

[tabs]

Originally posted by DavidI


The multiple front battlefronts cost them the war. Unfortunately, America is making the same mistakes.

David

Traitiious Liberal Speak...

From the moment the USA entered WW2 it was an assured victory. The Industrial capacity and Manpower of the USA overwhelmed the the combined capacity of the Axis forces. Further the Axis had no way of threatening the American Heartland. Germany stopped trying to produce an Atomic weapon in 1942. In 1941 Hitler declared that it was no longer necessary for Germany to development of new fighter aircraft as the war was allready won.

The United States is making NO Strategic mistakes with regards to its military deployment nor Foreign Policy. That is PURE LIBERAL DEFEATIST GARBAGE, all designed to garner domestic political advantage at the expense of our fighting men and women.

[DavidI]

Tabs, I am surely no liberal. As a former Marine and current cop, I speak tactically not politically. It is a mistake to fight major multiple enemies concurrently. The stretched resources and lack of focus becomes a military blunder which ultimately costs human lives.

This is not a political statement in the least, unless of course that is the sole focus, David

[tabs]

No but you have bought into the perception of the Defeatist Liberals...That we are overstretched bad guy baby killers...

[fastpat]

Originally posted by tabs
I get tired of drivel....

If Germany didn't have to tie down troops and resources in the West they would have been able to beat the USSR.

No, that was never true. Over 75% of the combat in the european part of World War Two was on the eastern front, the Germans never had a chance of beating the Soviet Union. Virtually all of the war materials manufacturing in Russia was out of range of German attack aircraft. The Russians drew them in until they were virtually exhausted, and then rolled them up. What is true is that the Russians would likely not have been able to enter Germany without the Western Front.

With reference to the Air War over Western Europe..."Can you imagine what 80,000 guns could have done on the Eastern Front." Albert Speer

Those guns were moved there to reinforce the Atlantic Wall. No invasion was necessary to keep them there, and they'd not made a difference in any case. You really need to acquaint yourself with the actual logistics of the whole war, not just the opinion of one of the losers.

I've posted some of those stats before, shall I do so again?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by DavidI
It is amazing how powerful oil is in determining the course of mankind. Japan attacked America based on our blockade of their oil supply. We are again fighting over oil in the Middle East. Japan was a superpower during WWII and had they joined forces and coorperated with Germany (not in just theory, but practice), the Allies may have lost the war.

The Allies would not have lost World War Two even if America had not participated at all. It really wasn't close.

The multiple front battlefronts cost them the war. Unfortunately, America is making the same mistakes.

David

America isn't making the mistake, the US government is, and Americans aren't yet doing anything to rein in the government, yet.

[Noah930]

Grady,

Isn't there a board game (Flattop?) that recreates the war in the Pacific? Kind of like Axis and Allies, but regarding the naval and air battles of WWII between Japan and America. Perhaps you could try out a few scenarios in that and see how those campaigns turn out.