Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
WW2 minus Germany ( ie Japan)
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 3rd September 2009
If the european war v germany hadnt happened - maybe europe was in peace for whatever reason
BUT
the japanese assault on Pearl Harbour and hong kong - singapore malaysia etc HAD happened - how would it all have panned out
it was a conflict - not war - half the world away - no blitz - no threat to the homeland
the whole British army could have been sent to the far east - how long could japan have dominated as they did in the real ww2
or would it still have been a brushfire war
tour thoughts
st -
Message 2
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Thursday, 3rd September 2009
stalterisok,
Ireland might have invaded !!
If supported by the IOM we'd have been a pushover. -
Message 3
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Thursday, 3rd September 2009
Although if you're just sending the Army, then the Navy, Marines, and RAF would have repulsed them.
-
Message 4
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Thursday, 3rd September 2009
The original plan for war in the Far East would see a British Pacific Fleet being formed and sent to the defence of Australia from a forward base in Singapore. Meanwhile British troops in Malaya may have violated Thai neutrality and seized defensive positions on the Kra Peninsula in case the Japanese came through Indochina into Malaya. It would have been interesting, in all honesty, to see the Japanese Imperial High Seas Fleet go up against any RN detachment sent down at full strength.
-
Message 5
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 3rd September 2009
It would have been interesting, in all honesty, to see the Japanese Imperial High Seas Fleet go up against any RN detachment sent down at full strength.Β
Like the Prince of Wales and Repulse, you mean? -
Message 6
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 4th September 2009
But if the full fleet was committed, then it would have included aircraft carriers. The Fleet Air Arm would have had more modern fighters by 1941, and the armoured decks of the carriers proved in tne Med, and again much later against suicide aircraft to be worth their while. Sea Huricanes and Fulmers although like most allied fighters could not turn in a Zero, could outgun them and by adopting the shoot and scoot tactics would be able to hold their own. So if the British Pacific fleet (At this stage in the war far bigger than the U S fleet) timed its attack with the U S Navy, could the Imperal fleet fight and win a war against the combined force. At Midway, they proved they couldn't. Or what if after Pearl, the full British fleet sailed east and added its strength to the damaged U S Fleet (Something suggested for the Repulse and P O W). So 3/4 British Aircraft Carriers. say the Repluse P O W Hood K G V Barnhem Royal Oak. A couple of dozen cruisers, both light and heavy, plus escorts. With no German threat, the U S could strip its Atlantic fleet. Would the Imperal fleet be prepared to stand and fight, or would they run for safety of their home waters. If so, would their army advance into the Pacific, or remain a land locked force.
-
Message 7
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 4th September 2009
"...how long could japan have dominated as they did in the real ww2..."
As Japan can only be said to have 'dominated' for a fairly short time, we can only speculate that this time would have been even shorter.
Japan's enemies took sime time to find their feet, as it were, including the correct tactics. Also, mobilisation and deployment problems existed. That sort of problem would still occur, but with a greater amount of force behind it, so less ground would be lost.
Even with the war in Europe, I have never seen the Japanese given any real chance of victory by a serious historian (the more 'military' amongst us can correct me here), so a stronger enemy shortens the war drastically. -
Message 8
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 4th September 2009
In addition to what's already been said, the US would have been able to give 100% attention to the Pacific war, so all that manpower and material that did end up in Europe in real life could be directed towards defeating Japan.
I wonder in that counterfactual scenario, would the Soviets have got into the action against Japan? -
Message 9
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 4th September 2009
"...I wonder in that counterfactual scenario, would the Soviets have got into the action against Japan?..."
Presuming that the Soviets felt safe against attack from Germany, they would then need to find some kind of excuse to go to war against Japan. In the actual war, by 1945 the Soviets could do what they liked, ie, attack Japan or not, and the rest of the world was not going to criticise them. In 1941, with no war involving the SU, this would have been more difficult, politically.
Of course, the SU would have the same motives in 1941 as in 1945, ie, destroying Japan as a threat and grabbing land.
Given the closeness in time to the Winter War, what would the reaction of the western allies have been ? -
Message 10
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Friday, 4th September 2009
#1
I think you've answered your own question..the Japanese were underestimated in 1941/1942. The 'brushfire' had been more like a firestorm gathering speed from 1930s China, (where the death toll may have been as high as 22 million)
So, the scenario in 1942 might have been that the region was better defended by regional forces, no longer committed outside the region to the European War, still underestimated half a world way in London, and with the US effort concentrated on the one war -
Message 11
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Friday, 4th September 2009
Would the Japanese even have risked an attack, if the European powers were not tied up by Hitler?
The object of their war was to gain the Dutch East Indian Oil, etc. Pearl Harbour was just to keep the Yanks out of the way untill they could grab what they needed from the (relatively) undefended Empires, and dig in well enough to hold on to it. -
Message 12
Posted by WarsawPact (U1831709) on Friday, 4th September 2009
Presumably, the French fleet would have been available too?
-
Message 13
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Friday, 4th September 2009
2 Battleships and a few destroyers is not what the Admiralty planned to send.
Wollemi, if there hadn't been a European War "regional forces" probably wouldn't have even been needed and would simply be a gesture. -
Message 14
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Saturday, 5th September 2009
#13
'Regional forces' as in forces of the region - eg from India Australia and NZ - which would have been available in the Pacific rather than committed to the European War
I think the US would have still led the war but London would have defended India - the prize colony was not to get any strange ideas of tea parties
The Pacific War was complicated by being enmeshed in anticolonial struggles -
Message 15
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 6th September 2009
The Pacific War was complicated by being enmeshed in anticolonial strugglesΒ
Such as? The Japanese presented their expansion as anticolonialism but like the Germans were far more brutal to the native peoples they conquered than the European colonialists they replaced and resistance movements which cooperated with the Allies were swiftly formed in the Philippines, Burma, Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. Mihir Bose's effort to build a volunteer army to assist the Japanese as well as take control of the independence movement proved a failure as did Gandhi's campaign of non-cooperation. Even the Chinese Civil War was suspended as Mao Tse-Tung turned his underground army into a guerilla force against the Japanese.
Millions volunteered to join the Indian Army and served throughout South-East Asia and suffered even more than those of white European stock when taken prisoner. It is true that the Philippines, Indonesia (formerly Dutch East Indies) and Burma gained their independence after the end of the war but this was more of a reward for their cooperation with the Allies during the war (as well as the impracticality of the former colonial powers offering security) than a genuine anti-colonial struggle. -
Message 16
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Sunday, 6th September 2009
The Japanese presented their expansion as anticolonialism but like the Germans were far more brutal to the native peoples they conquered...Β
They were indeed. Their anticolonialism was to expel the European powers and place the region under their own, often more cruel, hegemony
It was a patchy picture across the region. The Dutch East Indies welcomed the Japanese initially but by the end of the war had lost an estimated 4 million slave labourers. Their postwar independence did not come as a 'reward' but after a bitter fight with the Dutch.
Portuguese Timor was officially neutral but their creados fought with the allies. They didn't get their independence postwar, were later abandoned by Portugal and promptly recolonised
New Guinea had a mixed picture, the fuzzy wuzzy angels are renowned for their role in defeating Japanese forces but around Rabaul which had been the administrative centre for German New Guinea until WW1 there was the opposite.
It has only recently come to light that some of the "New Guinea Martyrs', Anglican missionaries who were thought to have been beheaded by the Japanese, were in fact killed by local tribesmen. PNG had a peaceful transition to independence
Then there was Ho in Vietnam who with the support of the US, fought both the Japanese and the Vichy France administration and postwar....the war just never ended
And India -
Message 17
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Sunday, 6th September 2009
#15
Also, regarding POWs, race and different treatment
Most Indian POWs resulted from the fall of Singapore and subsequently about 80% were recruited for the INA ie they ceased being POWs. They subsequently fought against British forces in Burma
Most of those few thousand who remained POWs ended up in New Guinea. They were treated poorly but were liberated in 1944 as US and Australian forces defeated Japan there. Elsewhere in Asia, POWs were not liberated until the end of the war, an extra year of starvation and mistreatment -
Message 18
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 6th September 2009
Most Indian POWs resulted from the fall of Singapore and subsequently about 80% were recruited for the INA ie they ceased being POWs.Β
What is the source for this statement? Many Indian PoWs worked on the Railway of Death in Thailand where they had a higher death rate than the prisoners of European origin. -
Message 19
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 6th September 2009
-
Message 20
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Sunday, 6th September 2009
This is Peter Stanley's original article on the AWM site which includes the figure for recruits to the INA. Not sure why it is not included in the article you posted but it is elsewhere in literature on Singapore, though it was rather concealed at the time, for obvious reasons
I agree not much should be made of the INA, millions in India volunteered to fight with the allies and did so throughout the war
I think, though, in a war like the Pacific War, where much of the region consisted of European colonies and with far away Europe occupied by/preoccupied with Nazi Germany, an option is to arm and militarise the local civilian population to resist Japan. If there is a subtext of anticolonial struggle, that's not an option
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.