|
|
Post by griml0ck122 on Mar 5, 2021 8:13:46 GMT
So I was reading Max Hasting's Hell Let Loose, and it mentioned that (among other things) having to control China was a serious impediment to Japan's Pacific War. This was not because Chinese resistance was a problem, but because they had to have a million troops kicking around in China whilst the US tore through everything in their path.
So my question is- Say at some point prior to Pearl Harbour, China taps out. Chaing Kai-Shek is deposed and China quits. Japan still has to have troops on occupation duties, but not a million. Whatever Japan does with all these men (become shipbuilding labourers, get packed onto Islands) they are gonna loose the war. They can go and take Oahu, turn every island into an Okinawa style fortress, or push into India, but they are going inevitably loose.
With more manpower and resources to throw against the US, however, can they delay loosing until they can hammer out a better deal from the americans due to the harbinger of soviet intervention looming?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,381 
Likes: 12,001
|
Post by stevep on Mar 5, 2021 10:21:20 GMT
So I was reading Max Hasting's Hell Let Loose, and it mentioned that (among other things) having to control China was a serious impediment to Japan's Pacific War. This was not because Chinese resistance was a problem, but because they had to have a million troops kicking around in China whilst the US tore through everything in their path.
So my question is- Say at some point prior to Pearl Harbour, China taps out. Chaing Kai-Shek is deposed and China quits. Japan still has to have troops on occupation duties, but not a million. Whatever Japan does with all these men (become shipbuilding labourers, get packed onto Islands) they are gonna loose the war. They can go and take Oahu, turn every island into an Okinawa style fortress, or push into India, but they are going inevitably loose.
With more manpower and resources to throw against the US, however, can they delay loosing until they can hammer out a better deal from the americans due to the harbinger of soviet intervention looming?
Assuming that Japan can do this, which might be doubtful given how brutal and racist they were one question is would there be a FE/Pacific war? Probably because I suspect Tokyo's appetite would expand and there are rich resources available and vulnerable in SE Asia with the Netherlands occupied and Britain be-leagued. However they could find controlling even a defeated China a considerable drain on their resources and decide that's all they can afford to do. Or a victorious army - assuming this victory doesn't prompt US sanctions - could be eager to gain revenge for its earlier defeat by joining in the attack on the Soviets. [Although after their defeat in 1939 at least some of the army leadership wanted to avoid conflict with the Red Army. The big issue with that would probably be less direct damage to the USSR as the Japanese are unlikely to occupy much beyond the immediate Pacific/Amur region and that would mean some heavy fighting and more that it would prevent Vladivostok being used as a route for L-L from the US.
However assuming that the Japanese head south as OTL the big limitation was less manpower than the shortage of shipping to carry men and equipment. Its possible if they have control of virtually all China they might get a rail link through it to FIC and hence SE Asia although such a link might well be limited in capacity at least for some time. As such for the initial attacks south then probably not a lot would change. Perhaps once MacArthur retreats into the Bataan peninsula rather than shipping some units south for the conquest of DEI they keep those units in the Philippines and move other, now freed up units for the later operations. Which might mean they take MacArthur's position a bit earlier.
However agree that assuming you still get the attacks on US possessions - which seems pretty certain - Japan is almost certain to go down. It can pack more men on a lot of islands, although many are likely to end up dying of starvation and disease as their bypassed and isolated. Possibly it has the resources for a larger attack on India itself rather than just Burma but logistics would seriously restrict this and the Indian army is powerful, especially defending its own territory. If the army can be persuaded to demobilise some men then at least a few hundred thousand might be better off going into agriculture and industry but even so they will get swamped.
The only way I could see Japan 'winning' a war with the US would be if they don't attack US possessions and FDR manages to get a dow on them. This would probably mean a markedly less motivated US and also a chance that if, under political pressure the fleet is sent to relieve the Philippines - or possibly more realistically say interfer with the occupation of SE Asia - it suffers a crippling defeat which undermines US determination to fight the war. Even then that would be uncertain. Basically even with only about half their resources committed to the Pacific the US simply has too much industry for Japan at this time while such a wider conflict is likely to see China and possibly other possessions, looking for a way out from under an increasingly heavy Japanese yoke.
If they do fight to the bitter end then Stalin is likely to gain more territory in E Asia and probably also impose some sort of communist rule on China, although if Mao and the CCP have been largely destroyed in the Japanese victory it will have a different 'head' to it.
|
|
gillan1220
Consul General
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,144
Likes: 10,786
|
Post by gillan1220 on Mar 5, 2021 13:10:22 GMT
How do the Japanese beat the Chinese? The country is too big and with support coming from Burma and the USSR, Japan found herself in a proto-Vietnam War scenario. Even if the IJA won, it would take time to recover from their losses in China.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 453
Likes: 567
|
Post by 1bigrich on Mar 6, 2021 23:22:06 GMT
The assumption has to be that the rump independent China state will remain neutral as Japan gets involved elsewhere. Even without Chang Kai-Shek, I cannot envision that happening. I think as soon as Japan diverts a substantial number of troops and aircraft from China, there will be a an attempt at revenge and reclaiming lost territory. Politically, the Roosevelt family had made a fortune off the US trade with China. I think FDR will still be pouring armaments and aid into any remaining independent China. Over on his forum, the late, great Stuart Slade (username Frances Urquhart) made a point about the Japanese Navy using army-like thinking in this thread. Note that Stuart's forum suffered from a simultaneous server/software upgrade, and some replies are hidden, but his relevant comments can be seen in quotes where the html has been disabled. Stuart's point was the idea of a defensive perimeter of islands is very much army-like thinking, in that the sea is seen as a barrier. Navy-like thinking sees the sea as a highway. The historical US practice of bypassing Japanese held islands like Truk or New Britain would suggest his thinking was correct. Once Japan starts heavily fortifying and increasing garrisons on islands, the are going to need even more supply. With the move to the Southern Resource Area, ships needed to maintain the war economy will also be needed to supply those garrisons, with even more tonnage for the latter than historical. Early on, even with defective US torpedoes, each merchant loss will have more impact. In a war with the US, the Japanese really don't need more army resources, they need more Navy resources. But the whole defensive perimeter thinking of Imperial Japan makes it easier for the US bypass heavily garrisoned islands and let those cut-off units 'whither on the vine'. As the US industrial base grows and the fleet expansion takes hold, along with solving the US torpedo problems, ti will only get worse. If the US STILL feels a need to take more heavily garrisoned islands, it could just divert some of it's naval and submarine resources in to blockading a little longer before an amphibious operation to let attrition by starvation take its toll. The only place I could see more army helping would be if Operation Downfall happens, but the Manhattan Project made that unnecessary. Even with US mining of Japan's ports, near-total sea-control and US Submarines operating in the Sea of Japan, the Japanese still moved a million troops from continental Asia to Japan in 1945. But no matter how many they move, it is not going to alter the outcome of war with the US, Enola Gay and Box's Car and/or Downfall, either or all. My thoughts.
--edit for typos
|
|
|
|
Post by griml0ck122 on Mar 9, 2021 5:51:39 GMT
I agree with everyone compleatly that Japan cannot win the War, and stacking Islands full of troops would simply exacibate Japan's supply issues.
However I disagree about the Chinese role if they had to surrender. Without Chaing, China would be shattered. The country is already facing a civil war. With the republic going down, China fragments more. I doubt China would be able to push japan out of the country, once they surrender. China's army was far from competent, down to the fact officers were selling everything that wasn't bolted down, there was rampant embezzlement and proper shoes were non-existant. Without any solid leadership, we get a warlord era continued.
With having to bypass/blockade Islands, that would inevitably slow down the War, which may lead to better terms once the US and Japan have to worry about Stalin.
Thanks for the insights into Japanese thinking, it's something my knowlege is limited on compared to the Americans. What sources did you guys use for this info? I should probably read more into this.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 453
Likes: 567
|
Post by 1bigrich on Mar 10, 2021 0:24:48 GMT
However I disagree about the Chinese role if they had to surrender. Without Chaing, China would be shattered. The country is already facing a civil war. With the republic going down, China fragments more. I doubt China would be able to push japan out of the country, once they surrender. China's army was far from competent, down to the fact officers were selling everything that wasn't bolted down, there was rampant embezzlement and proper shoes were non-existant. Without any solid leadership, we get a warlord era continued.
Do not underestimate Nationalist China's Army. Warlords were a fact of life, but some, like Yan Hsishan were loyal to the KMT government. Yan also won some battles against the Japanese.
Xue Yue was probably Chang's best general. Claire Chennault called him 'The Patton of Asia'. He was the reason Mao and the communists went on the fabled 'Long March', and he defeated the Japanese as well. He nearly destroyed the 106th Division of the Imperial Army in the mountains north of Wuhan.
Wei Lihuang waged a successful offensive against the Japanese in Burma that re-opened the Burma Road.
Chen Cheng was another general who beat the Japanese at the battle of Yichang and later commanded Chinese forces in Burma.
While China had little industrial base behind its armies during World War Two, it did have men who knew how to fight and defeat the Japanese.
My thoughts,
|
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Mar 10, 2021 2:34:25 GMT
Xue Yue was an excellent commander and IIRC suffered from a lack of political support that sidelined his ability, the other that I would mention is Sun Li Jen.
As others have said while being able to withdraw from China would help Japanese manpower, the issues around sea lift and logistics would still remain.
It is an interesting question and one that came close to happening IIRC '38 or 39, but the senior IJA officer that started pushing for it was politically sidelined.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,799
|
Post by James G on Mar 17, 2021 19:34:23 GMT
Just a thought... but with China defeated and men at hand / logistics somewhat less hamstrung, does Japan make the (fatal) mistake of going south, really south like to Australia?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,381
Likes: 12,001
|
Post by stevep on Mar 18, 2021 9:16:14 GMT
Just a thought... but with China defeated and men at hand / logistics somewhat less hamstrung, does Japan make the (fatal) mistake of going south, really south like to Australia?
Its a possibility but as you say it would be a really bad mistake for them. Very long supply lines, very hostile environment and the locals, including the humans  won't be welcoming. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,799
|
Post by James G on Mar 18, 2021 18:21:35 GMT
Just a thought... but with China defeated and men at hand / logistics somewhat less hamstrung, does Japan make the (fatal) mistake of going south, really south like to Australia?
Its a possibility but as you say it would be a really bad mistake for them. Very long supply lines, very hostile environment and the locals, including the humans won't be welcoming. I recall that incident in Burma during WW2 of those Japanese soldiers in that mass crocodile attack. Australia had more hostile wildlife! |
|
gillan1220
Consul General
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,144
Likes: 10,786
|
Post by gillan1220 on Mar 19, 2021 3:13:45 GMT
Its a possibility but as you say it would be a really bad mistake for them. Very long supply lines, very hostile environment and the locals, including the humans won't be welcoming. I recall that incident in Burma during WW2 of those Japanese soldiers in that mass crocodile attack. Australia had more hostile wildlife! This sums it up for Australia.  |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,381
Likes: 12,001
|
Post by stevep on Mar 19, 2021 11:52:00 GMT
I recall that incident in Burma during WW2 of those Japanese soldiers in that mass crocodile attack. Australia had more hostile wildlife! This sums it up for Australia.
Which reminds me of one of my favourite bits from Terry Pratchett's Discworld series. In "The Last Continent" the action is set on the isolated continental island of XXXX which as Pratchett says 'is not at all based on Australia' - no truly,  . The character Death has a magical library where he can think of an issue and all information related to it will be presented to him. After seeing another major character Rincewind miraculously evading numerous toxic and lethal creatures on XXXX he asks the library two questions. a) How many of the creatures on XXXX are dangerous. - This results in him being buried under an avalanche of books which his staff take some time digging him out of.
b) He then asked what creatures in XXXX aren't dangerous. Nothing happens and he's turning to leave when a single sheet of paper drifts down containing the line "some of the sheep".
You probably need to know more of the series to get it but very funny and I suspect highlights the nature of Australian wildlife.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 954
Likes: 1,556
|
Post by oscssw on Mar 19, 2021 13:31:02 GMT
So I was reading Max Hasting's Hell Let Loose, and it mentioned that (among other things) having to control China was a serious impediment to Japan's Pacific War. This was not because Chinese resistance was a problem, but because they had to have a million troops kicking around in China whilst the US tore through everything in their path.
So my question is- Say at some point prior to Pearl Harbour, China taps out. Chaing Kai-Shek is deposed and China quits. Japan still has to have troops on occupation duties, but not a million. Whatever Japan does with all these men (become shipbuilding labourers, get packed onto Islands) they are gonna loose the war. They can go and take Oahu, turn every island into an Okinawa style fortress, or push into India, but they are going inevitably loose.
With more manpower and resources to throw against the US, however, can they delay loosing until they can hammer out a better deal from the americans due to the harbinger of soviet intervention looming?Never gave this idea much thought so I did a little research. I found this Youtube vid by someone called Z. Does not convince me, but he does make a case. Might be interesting for someone who knows about this subject to debunk or defend his theory?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,716
Likes: 45,793
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 19, 2021 19:00:24 GMT
So I was reading Max Hasting's Hell Let Loose, and it mentioned that (among other things) having to control China was a serious impediment to Japan's Pacific War. This was not because Chinese resistance was a problem, but because they had to have a million troops kicking around in China whilst the US tore through everything in their path.
So my question is- Say at some point prior to Pearl Harbour, China taps out. Chaing Kai-Shek is deposed and China quits. Japan still has to have troops on occupation duties, but not a million. Whatever Japan does with all these men (become shipbuilding labourers, get packed onto Islands) they are gonna loose the war. They can go and take Oahu, turn every island into an Okinawa style fortress, or push into India, but they are going inevitably loose.
With more manpower and resources to throw against the US, however, can they delay loosing until they can hammer out a better deal from the americans due to the harbinger of soviet intervention looming?Never gave this idea much thought so I did a little research. I found this Youtube vid by someone called Z. Does not convince me, but he does make a case. Might be interesting for someone who knows about this subject to debunk or defend his theory?
Well that is strange, the YouTube clip is not available to be seen in my country. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,381
Likes: 12,001
|
Post by stevep on Mar 20, 2021 11:56:03 GMT
Never gave this idea much thought so I did a little research. I found this Youtube vid by someone called Z. Does not convince me, but he does make a case. Might be interesting for someone who knows about this subject to debunk or defend his theory?
Well that is strange, the YouTube clip is not available to be seen in my country.
I'm getting the same response. If you cut and paste the link into the top level you get a little more info, that the title is about Japan conquering China and Comments are turned off, as well as the video being unavailable. Its by Monsieur Z who I have seen other videos of. Just tried and access one of his other videos OK. Checking through his list of videos at www.youtube.com/hashtag/monsieurz I can't see such a video so possibly its so controversial that its been removed? [Given how savage and bloody the Japanese occupation was and possibly also the political power of China]. Although in that case its not very accurate to have the "This content is not available on this country domain."
Can you still see it oscssw, and if so give us a quick summary of how its achieved please? I know there was a collaborationist government formed in China but the people involved are supposed to have quickly realised that Japan had no intention of giving them any influence at all on how China was to be governed or any relaxation in the brutality of the occupation. |
|
won't be welcoming.
. The character Death has a magical library where he can think of an issue and all information related to it will be presented to him. After seeing another major character Rincewind miraculously evading numerous toxic and lethal creatures on XXXX he asks the library two questions.
