Speculation: Nazi Leadership Without Hitler

[Samuel]

I think Japan would've gone to try and conquer China, and at the same time, try massive attacks on Midway and European colonial posessions.

Lets face all the worlds navies at once! What a great idea

Hell, Britain may offer to give Germnay some colonies in the Pacific if they help crsh Japan!

You sort of need a navy to do that.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think Japan would've gone to try and conquer China, and at the same time, try massive attacks on Midway and European colonial posessions.

Why would they do that? The reason the strategy worked so well historically is that the Europeans were more or less completely unable to send reinforcements to the Indian or Pacific Ocean, and so a surprise attack that wiped out the forces already there was a smart tactic. The only reason they also acted against the U.S. was that they knew that their strikes against European colonies would inevitably drag America in, and they reasoned (quite reasonably) that a successful surprise attack was the only chance they had at winning that war. The Japanese high command were quite aware at the massive industrial/manpower base of the U.S.; if the attack at Pearl Harbor had been successful (as in knocking out the carriers), the first couple years of the war would have been very, very different.

After provoking most of Europe and the US and facing a long war with China, now probably being supplied by the US and Europe, plus the USSR, and a war with some of the biggest powers at the time.

Why the fuck would they be that stupid?

The war would probably run close to how 1943-1945 went in the Pacific theatre, only in a much shorter timeframe, given the undivided attention that would be focused at crushing them.

Well, without the war in Europe, European colonial possessions would have been better defended (everyone had been suspicious of the Japanese for years before 1941). It is unlikely that they would have been able to so thoroughly surprise and eradicate the Europeans, which means they would be less able to fortify the islands against future counterattack. Therefore, the island-hopping campaign happens in much abridged form, if at all. And to top it all off, they have the U.S.S.R. steaming into Manchukuo and threatening the Home Islands immediately.

Hell, Britain may offer to give Germnay some colonies in the Pacific if they help crsh Japan!

Why would the need to? What could the Germans offer? Even if we grant the Japanese as complete a surprise victory as they got historically in 1941 (which I must stress is incredibly unlikely without the war in Europe raging ... the British and French would have certainly sent more forces to the East if Europe was peaceful), there will immediately be large scale reinforcements of a kind that the Pacific NEVER saw (not even in 1945) during the war. The Japanese would likely be defeated even if the U.S. didn't get involved for some reason.

[Night_stalker]

Well, I was guessing and I can't say for certain what could have happened. That was just my view as to what the ultranationalists in power at the time would've done.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Japan would have never attacked the US or British without a war in Europe involving the USSR raging. Without the USSR distracted Japan cannot spare the troops to try anything outside of the China theater. Japan was not THAT out of touch with reality to think it could beat the US and British with no other distractions, and while it also had a fully armed Soviet army to look out for. If the Japanese widen the war at all, it would be to invade the USSR and hope that they can bottle up the Russians along the transiberian for years.

If I recall, didn't Japan, at the time of 1938, already Own a good chunk of China and Korea? If they end up NOT going to war with the US, and then getting smacked down, what is the possibility of them holding onto their conquered areas?

[Ziggy Stardust]

If I recall, didn't Japan, at the time of 1938, already Own a good chunk of China and Korea? If they end up NOT going to war with the US, and then getting smacked down, what is the possibility of them holding onto their conquered areas?

You mean if they go to war with Europe and Russia and not the U.S., or if they don't get involved in a war against Western powers altogether?

In the former case, most if not all of their overseas territories will still be stripped from them. The Japanese campaign in China was already pretty hugely unpopular and controversial, and it wouldn't be too long before the extent of Japanese atrocities becomes public knowledge. Depending on the timing, it is possible that Chiang Kai-Shek ends up being set up with a new Chinese government after the Japanese are forced out. Manchuria could be occupied by the Russians (I'm not sure how much interest the U.S.S.R. had in that territory; but historically Czarist Russia was always eagerly eyeing it). Hell, I could even see the Russians occupying all of Sakhalin, or even Hokkaido. In any case, the Japanese would almost certainly be stripped of most of their imperial possessions.

[Starglider]

if the attack at Pearl Harbor had been successful (as in knocking out the carriers), the first couple years of the war would have been very, very different.

Admiral Nimitz (CiC Pacific Fleet) claimed after the war that such an attack "would have prolonged the war another two years." However I've seen that estimate disupted on HPCA, as prewar carriers just weren't that central to the war effort. Specifically, even if the prewar carriers hadn't been there the Japanese couldn't have advanced much further than they did, and the speed of the counterattack was constrained almost entirely by the ramp-up of US shipbuilding (which if anything would have been faster if the fleet had been harder hit). Care to comment on this Stuart?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Admiral Nimitz (CiC Pacific Fleet) claimed after the war that such an attack "would have prolonged the war another two years." However I've seen that estimate disupted on HPCA, as prewar carriers just weren't that central to the war effort. Specifically, even if the prewar carriers hadn't been there the Japanese couldn't have advanced much further than they did, and the speed of the counterattack was constrained almost entirely by the ramp-up of US shipbuilding (which if anything would have been faster if the fleet had been harder hit).

Destroying the carriers certainly wouldn't have won the war for the Japanese, it's true. American shipbuilding capabilities were just too good. However, without those carriers, we'd have no Coral Sea, Santa Cruise, or Midway (and no Doolittle raid ... which though of little strategic importance was a huge moral booster). Midway was a real broken nose for the IJN, and one of the reasons they became more timid and more conservative for the rest of the war - without that, they would likely have been more aggressive. Would land-based aircraft in Australia and New Zealand have been capable of adequately supporting, say, Guadalcanal?

[Sea Skimmer]

Remember the US had 7 fleet carriers in 1941, of which no more then three would have been at Pearl Harbor. Discounting Ranger which had almost no armor and was needed as a training ship, that still leaves three fleet carriers to carry on the fight. The early battles could go differently and Guadalcanal would almost certainly not be invaded, but that hardly matters. Guadalcanal was a target of opportunity totally divorced from prewar US war plans, and basically led to nothing. The fighting in the upper Solomans was bloody, protracted and Rabaul could have been isolated from operations launched out of New Guinea or the central Pacific front.

So instead of Guadalcanal you'd see the US move into the Santa Cruz islands (and get driven off them by super malaria all the same) as a blocking position, while committing more forces to New Guinea until US naval strength recovers. By the end of 1943 the US has naval superiority no matter what is lost at Pearl Harbor, and the central Pacific drive to Saipan can begin more or less as historical. The Japanese will just be better placed to offer naval opposition, this changes little.

[Cecelia5578]

Admiral Nimitz (CiC Pacific Fleet) claimed after the war that such an attack "would have prolonged the war another two years." However I've seen that estimate disupted on HPCA, as prewar carriers just weren't that central to the war effort. Specifically, even if the prewar carriers hadn't been there the Japanese couldn't have advanced much further than they did, and the speed of the counterattack was constrained almost entirely by the ramp-up of US shipbuilding (which if anything would have been faster if the fleet had been harder hit).

Destroying the carriers certainly wouldn't have won the war for the Japanese, it's true. American shipbuilding capabilities were just too good. However, without those carriers, we'd have no Coral Sea, Santa Cruise, or Midway (and no Doolittle raid ... which though of little strategic importance was a huge moral booster). Midway was a real broken nose for the IJN, and one of the reasons they became more timid and more conservative for the rest of the war - without that, they would likely have been more aggressive. Would land-based aircraft in Australia and New Zealand have been capable of adequately supporting, say, Guadalcanal?

Saratoga would still be around, and the USN would quickly transfer Wasp and Hornet from the Atlantic (sorry Malta, no resupply for you). With those three, I don't see why comparable Coral Sea/Midways couldn't occur in this timeline. It'd be 1943 anyways until Essex and Independence class carriers could arrive anyways, and as Skimmer has pointed out, a large chunk of the fighting in 1942 (Guadalcanal) is irrelevant to driving across the central Pacific and defeating Japan.

Didn't the USN get by with just one carrier often in the Solomons?

EDIT: My bad, Yorktown was actually in the Atlantic at the time of PH. So, worse case scenario that Saratoga, Lex and Enterprise are all sunk at PH with no chance of salvage, that's still three carriers the USN has in the spring/summer 1942, not that much different than historical.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Just a post I saw at another forum that is related to this discussion, and I thought it was interesting:

the US had a contengincy plan in place as part of War Plan Orange for rapid conversion of large merchant ships to carriers under WPL-10. These merchant ships, mostly liners, refered to as XCV, were to be taken in hand, converted, and re-commissioned as carriers from M+90 to M+360 per the above plans. Conversions included a total of 10 liners in 1941:
California, Pennslyvania, and Virginia of the Panama-Pacific line (turbo-electric, 18.5 kts 600 ft, 30,250 grt)

Manhattan and Washington of the US Lines (steam turbine, 705 ft, 21 kts, 32,000 grt)

Mahlolo, Mariposa Lurline, and Monterey of the Matson line (Steam turbine, 20 kts, 632 ft 31,000 grt)

President Hoover and President Coolidge of the President Line (Steam turbine, 654 ft, 21kts, 31,000 grt)

These are all far larger and more capable designs than the two Japanese liner conversions, Junyo and Hiyo. First, since the late 20's the US Maritime commission had some input into these ship's design such that they were from the outset designed in part for this conversion. The 1940 - 41 P4P merchant hull which was to replace these ships for conversion was actually designed with not only conversion in mind but actual military features like a split plant.

As converted it was expected these carriers would have an air wing of 55 aircraft (27 fighters, 18 dive bombers, 15 torpedo planes) and an armament of 8 5" 38 guns and up to 40 .50 machineguns. So, they were nearly the equivalent of fleet carriers except in speed.
This would mean that the first conversion, if rushed (as likely would have been the case) could have been in commission by March or April 1942 with roughly a 60 day work up before deploying in May or June of that year. The planning had an additional carrier conversion per month (roughly).
If the US was desperate for carriers, there is little doubt this plan would have been executed in short order to take up the slack until the Essex class could begin to be delivered.
Japan has absolutely no equivalent to this. They lose their air wings or carriers, it will be a full two or more years until they can put another one to sea.

[Pelranius]

Japan would have never attacked the US or British without a war in Europe involving the USSR raging. Without the USSR distracted Japan cannot spare the troops to try anything outside of the China theater. Japan was not THAT out of touch with reality to think it could beat the US and British with no other distractions, and while it also had a fully armed Soviet army to look out for. If the Japanese widen the war at all, it would be to invade the USSR and hope that they can bottle up the Russians along the transiberian for years.

So what would the Japanese do when the US imposes its embargo on them? Simply roll over and go back home? In addition to political considerations, I don't think that the US felt that having Japan controlling China was a very safe strategic option. (Granted, that's assuming they could control China and even if they did accomplish that, that they wouldn't end up like Chipan, but FDR really doesn't have any way of figuring that out).

[Sea Skimmer]

So what would the Japanese do when the US imposes its embargo on them? Simply roll over and go back home? In addition to political considerations, I don't think that the US felt that having Japan controlling China was a very safe strategic option. (Granted, that's assuming they could control China and even if they did accomplish that, that they wouldn't end up like Chipan, but FDR really doesn't have any way of figuring that out).

A major faction in the Japanese civilian government and some military leadership simply wanted to build Japans way out of the embargo. In oil particular would be solved by massive coal-oil conversion plants as the Germans made very considerable progress with. Since Japan had about a full year of war worth of oil stockpiled, and small existing synthetic oil industry. So careful rationing and restrictions on combat operations in China could have gotten them by for a while longer then that. Japan mainly needed oil for its navy and air power, not the army which had almost no trucks. So the navy would have to lay up a lot of warships (which it in fact did anyway, a lot of Jap cruisers were kept laid up at times to save manning costs), and the China war gets less air support. But the Army can keep fighting.

This plan it was argued would cost less then even a victorious war, and while it would take years it would also take years to rehabilitate and begin exploiting the resources of south Asia. Instead the war was launched with some really bullshit projections of how fast said resources would be exploited. It was expected in fact that Japan would not only restore the oil fields to full capacity within one year, but that they would exceeded prewar production! Instead they never ever got back to the prewar level, and couldn't even ship home what they could produce for lack of tankers.

Withdrawing from China was an option in its own right though. The US explicitly did not demand a withdraw from the Manchurian puppet state which had most of the resources Japan needed, just central China. By 1939 Japans leadership already knew China was a nightmare of hopeless fighting that would take many years to win. So this idea could not have been totally off the table, just absurdly unlikely. Keep in mind too that it really wasn't until after WW2 in Europe broke out that Japan went all out to try defeat China and occupied all the coastal ports. That move is what caused the US to launch its embargo and then later total asset freeze. Without war in Europe Japan may not feel bold enough to do this, and the war may be more contained from the onset and provoke a slower US reaction. Prior to the move to seize all the ports the fighting was massive, but still only involved a fraction of Chinese soil, and did not threaten a sweep to the south the way invading Hainan and Indochina did.

As it was IJA wouldn't even commit most of its divisions to central China, it kept them in Manchuria, because it knew they'd just be decimated after a few months and leave them weak against the Soviets. Instead a lot of the fighting was sustained by creating new units of raw conscripts, who in turn suffered yet heavier losses.

As for liner conversions, they might be used but they suck for the same reason USS Ranger did. No protection at all. So they run a high chance of burning and exploding from a single good hit.

[Coyote]

Bear in mind a scenario where Hitler decides not to go into politics still leaves a Europe with some problems. Besides the Communists and Freikorps fighting, the rise of Mussolini continues unabated, and he did engage in some aggressive wars in the Horn of Africa and hold Libya.

If I interpret events correctly, the only reason Mussolini jumped into places like Crete, Greece, and the Balkans was to "keep up" with Hitler's German conquests, so with a less-aggressive (or totally nonaggressive) Germany, there's not necessarily much impetus for him to act up.

However, a lot of people feared Communism, so would a loose coalition of Nationalist parties team up for mutual support to deal with Communist threats, like in Spain?

If Europe is simmering with violence even without the Nazis, does it stand to reason that the US would keep an eye on that and allow Japan to feel that FDR was sufficiently preoccupied that they could try something daring? The US was still deeply mired in the Depression, after all...

[Simon_Jester]

In the early years of Nazi Germany, Italy was arguably the senior partner of the Rome-Berlin Axis, because Germany was so weak militarily. Mussolini would definitely have supported the Spanish Nationalists, Germany or no Germany; whether the Nationalists would still win is beyond my ability to say. He'd almost certainly still attack Ethiopia, too.

[Sea Skimmer]

In the end Italian ambition is highly contained by its poor position and general weakness in raw materials and industry. Italy wanted to take Egypt and the entire African coastline of the Red Sea to 'break out' of its isolated Mediterranean position. But as it was they couldn't manage to do that even with major German support in real life at a time when England was at its weakest point. Without German support Mussolini wouldn't be dumb enough to try to take on the British head on. The Italian Navy plans for a 'breakout fleet' could barely even match what France alone had planned. Ethiopia is likely going to be the end of his conquests, though Albania might be swallowed up at some point.

I don't know about Spain. In real life Soviet aid at least matched what Italy put into the fight so we'd have to do a more detailed examination. Without the Nazis around the British and French may be more likely to offer actual military aid for example.

[Thanas]

Bear in mind a scenario where Hitler decides not to go into politics still leaves a Europe with some problems. Besides the Communists and Freikorps fighting

The Communist threat gets crushed very easily, as it did in OTL. Hitler was not material to that, so I expect the Communists get contained within the first year as they did historically.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Bear in mind a scenario where Hitler decides not to go into politics still leaves a Europe with some problems. Besides the Communists and Freikorps fighting

The Communist threat gets crushed very easily, as it did in OTL. Hitler was not material to that, so I expect the Communists get contained within the first year as they did historically.

As an aside, what the hell was Karl Liebknecht thinking when he decided to push to revolt?

[Thanas]

As an aside, what the hell was Karl Liebknecht thinking when he decided to push to revolt?

Liebknecht thought the public wanted him to revolt and would back him (guess how quickly that stopped working when the average joe noticed red-flag weaving thugs chanting their communist slogans while marching to the Reichstag), the SPD would split and back him (less insane considering Liebknecht had been a very popular SPD member) and he also thought the Reichswehr would turn out to be apolitical and toothless.

The problem for him was that the former Guard regiments had just been disbanded and had returned from the front. Guess how many sympathizers of communists were among the elite of the Prussian Army which had sworn an oath of protecting the Emperor until their death? Liebknecht also though that the SPD leadership would not have the balls to shoot on former members.

In the end, they did and made a deal with the Reichswehr, thus he got crushed. Liebknecht was always someone of an idealist.

[Iosef Cross]

I think Japan would've gone to try and conquer China, and at the same time, try massive attacks on Midway and European colonial posessions. After provoking most of Europe and the US and facing a long war with China, now probably being supplied by the US and Europe, plus the USSR, and a war with some of the biggest powers at the time. The war would probably run close to how 1943-1945 went in the Pacific theatre, only in a much shorter timeframe, given the undivided attention that would be focused at crushing them. Hell, Britain may offer to give Germnay some colonies in the Pacific if they help crsh Japan!

Japan wasn't a very powerful country at that time,in terms of warmaking potential. Their strategic decision makers knew that and planned to act in coordination with Germany. Their strategic plan was to conquer the areas of the Pacific as Germany got most of the attention of the major Allied powers. They knew that if Germany lost, they would lose too.

So, without Hitler, Germany doesn't make war with all the other major world powers, and without the European war, Japan cannot start a war in the pacific against Britain and the US.

[Iosef Cross]

If I interpret events correctly, the only reason Mussolini jumped into places like Crete, Greece, and the Balkans was to "keep up" with Hitler's German conquests, so with a less-aggressive (or totally nonaggressive) Germany, there's not necessarily much impetus for him to act up.

I think that he would still try to conquer lands. That's because Italy wanted to conquer an empire since France and Britain had theirs, so they feel that they deserved a piece of colonial land too. However, they will be much less aggressive without a major partner like Germany.

[Night_stalker]

As I recall reading, Mussolini couldn't even conquer Greece without turning to Germany for assistance, so I doubt they will get to far in their dreams for a new Roman Empire before the British, French and possibly the Russians come down on them like a ton of bricks. They will conquer some bits of Africa, but will not really be able to take anything of Europe without being repelled, then probably either blockaded or invaded.

[Serafina]

As I recall reading, Mussolini couldn't even conquer Greece without turning to Germany for assistance, so I doubt they will get to far in their dreams for a new Roman Empire before the British, French and possibly the Russians come down on them like a ton of bricks. They will conquer some bits of Africa, but will not really be able to take anything of Europe without being repelled, then probably either blockaded or invaded.

Greece was pretty well defendable due to terrain and fortifications, so that's really not much a surprise.

[xerex]

the Greeks didnt just repel the Italians, they launched a counter invasion into italian occupied Albania as well. only the terrain slowed them down.

and I recall the Ethiopians also put up a stiff fight, resulting in the Italians using poison gas to make advances/

without Hitler , Mussolini isnt conquering anyone.

[Ziggy Stardust]

They will conquer some bits of Africa, but will not really be able to take anything of Europe without being repelled, then probably either blockaded or invaded.

Without Hitler, even Africa may have been outside the ability of Italy to do much in. The main reason the British and French turned a blind eye to Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia is that they still foolishly believed that Italy was a potential ally AGAINST Hitler. Without a Nazi Germany looming in the background, their response to the invasion might have been stronger. After all, both countries had colonies in the immediate region that were threatened by Italian expansion (indeed, the Italians did end up invading British Somaliland in 1940). Either Italy would have been forced to back down from their invasion of Ethiopia by the League of Nations (unlikely, it was still pretty toothless), or they would have been caught in a losing war against the British and French, with few or no allies.

[Night_stalker]

Yeah, the League of Nations would've sent a sternly worded letter to Itlay, which is "accidentally" lost in the mail.