Allied Japan in WWII (RAR!)

[Zor]

Another Japanese related WWII thread, so sue me.

What if for whatever reason the Fascist movement that took over Japan in the 1920s (Tojo/some other prominent Japanese Fascists never being born, the Emperor rejecting it, whatever) never seized power and the emerging Japanese democracy endured. The Japanese don't move inland and try to conquer china, it does not have the Americans blockading Japanese supply lines and maintains good a relationship with it's traditional ally of the British Empire. When Hitler starts his blitzkrieg across Europe in 1939, Japan pledges its support to the allies and sends men, ships and soldiers to Europe. However, because the Japanese have not pissed off the US in any major fashion and have no interest in bombing pearl harbor America remains neutral.

What happens?

Zor

[Big Phil]

Your premise ignores or change so many realities that it's hard to say. For one thing, Roosevelt really wanted to go help the Brits, and the US almost certainly would have declared war against Germany eventually. The Krauts can only torpedo so many destroyers before we'd get fed up and declare war.

Japanese troops would have been helpful, but without US lend-lease things would be bleak. The Japanese sucked balls at armored warfare, having only tankettes and light tanks. Against the German's they'd get creamed - they got creamed by the US in island fighting after all; why assume they'd be better at maneuver warfare?

Japanese ships would have helped tremendously, however, and modern flattops with large, modern air contingents would have made a difference in the Battle of the Atlantic. The German Navy goes down even harder and quicker than it did historically.

I suppose you need to clarify if the US still provides lend-lease supplies to the Allies.

[Beowulf]

Japanese Armor sucked largely because there was little reason historically for it not to. Most of it's fighting prior to the invasion of SEA was in China, against what was effectively a peasant rebellion. The army needed alot of cheap armored vehicles, because the sight of any tank, no matter how crappy, was enough to cause the Chinese to run. If Japan never conquers China, Manchuria, and Korea, there's no reason for them to have the development of tankettes to continue.

It's close to impossible to win a battle when your enemy has unlimited amounts of men and material to throw at you, and you've been cut off from resupply for several months previously.

[Big Phil]

Japanese Armor sucked largely because there was little reason historically for it not to. Most of it's fighting prior to the invasion of SEA was in China, against what was effectively a peasant rebellion. The army needed alot of cheap armored vehicles, because the sight of any tank, no matter how crappy, was enough to cause the Chinese to run. If Japan never conquers China, Manchuria, and Korea, there's no reason for them to have the development of tankettes to continue.

It's close to impossible to win a battle when your enemy has unlimited amounts of men and material to throw at you, and you've been cut off from resupply for several months previously.

Of course there's no reason for them to develop tanks either, unless they'd been planning on fighting in Europe for a decade.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Japanese troops were superb light infantry and would probably have performed admirably in the North African and Italian theaters, but they just don't have the punch to fight the main strength of the Wehrmacht in open battle. On the other hand, the non-belligerent nature of Japan in this scenario means that the Soviet Far East Army which was stationed to oppose Japan into the fall of 1941 will be available for immediate maneuvers. This will mean that the local superiority that the Germans enjoyed during Barbarossa is gone, so that invasion will probably not go nearly as well (the RKKA was divided between European Russia and Eastern Siberia, while the Germans were totally concentrated against them, meaning that the Axis enjoyed a large numerical superiority over the RKKA during Barbarossa). Japanese troops deployed via the Trans-Siberian Railroad could offer valuable flank support to the Soviets, as well.

Also, the presense of the Japanese navy would probably make the Battle of the Atlantic somewhat easier on Britain, though still worse than was historical. Britain, with no real hope of staging an invasion of France, will probably concentrate totally on its night-bombing campaign.

Since (as articulated in previous threads) lend-lease to the USSR didn't begin to really kick in until after the German army was decisively on the retreat in 1943, that won't cause the allies to lose the war. Rather, Germany will still lose, but it will lose due to the RKKA overrunning Europe in a rather longer and more difficult campaign.

[Pelranius]

The Japanese could provide bomber crews to help out bombing the Third Reich back into the stone age.

And Churchill won't have to worry about British possessions in the SE Asia and India, which would free up more manpower for the European theaters. However, the Japanese might intervene in French Indochina if Vichy establishes control there.

[Marko Dash]

What if it was a switch, Japan with the allies and America allied with Hitler?

[K. A. Pital]

That's actually interesting.

If America really stays neutral, as par the op.

Because otherwise, it's a collective "beat the shit out of Nazis".

[Sidewinder]

A Korean filmmaker beat you to this thread. Rent 2009 Lost Memories, which asks, "What if Japan was a US ally during WW2?" (I understand there are differences, e.g., Japan becoming a Fascist nation that allies with the US, with both nations kicking off WW2 in 1936, but it's close enough.)

[thejester]

Why would they send men? In WW1 they escorted some Allied convoys around, flogged some German colonies...and that was it. The language problems alone are immense. Pablo has pointed out that the Japanese were superb light infantry, and they were in a way. They had terrible equipment, though, were considered poor shots, had no concept of logistics and had no real heavy weapons. *shrug* What the Allies lacked in North Africa centred around their armour - equipment, tactics, control, co-ordination - and generalship, not a lack of infantry.

[Zor]

Japanese Armor sucked largely because there was little reason historically for it not to. Most of it's fighting prior to the invasion of SEA was in China, against what was effectively a peasant rebellion. The army needed alot of cheap armored vehicles, because the sight of any tank, no matter how crappy, was enough to cause the Chinese to run. If Japan never conquers China, Manchuria, and Korea, there's no reason for them to have the development of tankettes to continue.

It's close to impossible to win a battle when your enemy has unlimited amounts of men and material to throw at you, and you've been cut off from resupply for several months previously.

Of course there's no reason for them to develop tanks either, unless they'd been planning on fighting in Europe for a decade.

Howabout making Churchills and T-34s on lend lease?

Zor

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

Chang Zuo Lin probably won't be bombed and the Xian Incident might not happen, therefore Mao's troops might be successfully wiped out. No 8 year resistance war.

On the other hand, Chiang Kai Shek is a big fan of Hitler...lots of possiblities.

[Deathstalker]

The thing is, without Japan going fasicst, there is no reason to build a Navy bigger than it needs and no reason to have a large army. Japan only needs a Navy big enough to clobber the Russians if they try to invade, and that's it.
They don't need many carriers for power projection, they probably are content with the Washington Naval treaty and don't look for ways to work around it. There is no need for an army to invade Korea, China and the rest of SEA. The good things about no Japan invovlement means British ships and troops aren't tied down protecing Singapore and much more importantly, Australia. Ther would be a lot more men saying "g'day" in North Africa, and along with other Commonwealth troops, Sicily and Italy would be invaded but would bog down as happened historically. A Normandy landing would fail barring some miracle, like Hitler dropping dead in Berlin when the first boat hit the beach. The Battle of the Atlantic goes better, as ships that would have gone to the Pacific are available. As for the commies, without having to really worry to much about the back door, they throw everything west. If the US stays out of it, the Russians may suffer from hunger, but it won't slow them down, and they sure as hell won't stop after they take Berlin. Uncle Joe will drive them across Europe and tell Churchill, and the rest of the world, to kiss his ass. Things go way downhill after that.

[Deathstalker]

Just an insomniatic thought. I would even dare to say that without the need for the US to wage war a 1/3 to half way around the planet, that the dominance of the the modern aircraft carrier would not appear until much later, if at all. With no threat from Japan, the need to build carriers to compete with Japan is gone, there is no Coral Sea or Midway, no need for aircraft to support Marines and soldiers in the island hopping campaigns or to provide air cover for Navy ships. Carriers would be useful in the North Atlantinc for hunting subs and the occasionaly German raider, but the German navy doesn't have the ships to contest the Royal navy in a Jutland redux. The shining moments of carriers are reduced to, assuming historical events, the Bismark having her rudder damaged which sealed her fate, and the Battle of Taranto. Without further carrier actions such as Pearl Harbor and the Pacific fleet battles, the Battleship admirals could still say Taranto was just a lucky fight, catching ships at anchor which could have been protected better if the Italians had radar available. I know it is a stretch, but the possibility exsists.

[Lord Woodlouse]

There is no need for an army to invade Korea,

Because they already own it at this point.

[Lonestar]

The thing is, without Japan going fasicst, there is no reason to build a Navy bigger than it needs

Say what? The reason why Japan was taken in the "top three" of the Washington Naval Treaty was precisely because it was building a bigger navy than it needs.

[Mlenk]

On the other hand, Chiang Kai Shek is a big fan of Hitler...lots of possiblities.

So... what happens if a fascist China allies with Germany and Italy and Japan remains allied with England? There's a thought.

[Pelranius]

Chiang Kai Shek went to military school in Japan, and he had an obsession with Communism in general that would probably turn into Soviet menace mentality if he didn't have Mao to worry about.

And no matter which way one cuts it, there's really no way that the KMT could actually launch a decent invasion of Korea, Siberia, Indochina et al and also maintain order at home. CKS would probably just pretty much sit out the war like Turkey did.

[Coyote]

The Japanese would have been excellent to deploy to the Alpine highlands, where conditions would be more favorable to them due to their experience in Korea-- more so than the arid, flat North African desert.

Japanese troops moving through Crete, Yugoslavia, and the Italian Alps? Yeah, I could see that. They'd chew the hell out of the Italians. Out on the open plains or any other "tank country" they'd have to adapt quickly or be ground up by the Wehrmacht. It would be interesting-- Japanese guys in north Franch tearing around in US lend-lease M3 Stuarts...

The Japanese Navy would have owned the German navy in blue-water territory, where their torpedo planes and portable air cover would make short work of the Kriegsmarine. Once under German land-based air cover, the tables turn: A6M Zeroes would probably not fare well against Me109s, although they might get by on maneuverability. Once under the guns of a Fock-Wulf 109, though, it's Goering's Guys for the win. Maneuverable and a 20mm cannon? Bye-bye, bamboo birdie.

[Sidewinder]

And no matter which way one cuts it, there's really no way that the KMT could actually launch a decent invasion of Korea, Siberia, Indochina et al and also maintain order at home. CKS would probably just pretty much sit out the war like Turkey did.

I agree. Without a Japanese invasion to worry about, Chiang Kai-Shek would likely be able to focus on destroying the Communists and bringing the other warlords under his control. Without a Communist China supporting Communist regimes in Korea and Vietnam, there's no Communist invasion of South Korea, no Korean War, and likely no US involvement in the Vietnam War-- assuming the US sees no reason to end isolationism and send soldiers to support the Allies.

[Deathstalker]

Say what? The reason why Japan was taken in the "top three" of the Washington Naval Treaty was precisely because it was building a bigger navy than it needs.

Japan was a naval power, and had chosen the right side in WWI. The treaty was meant to forestall a naval arms race. If Japan doesn't go fascist, then it abides by the treaty past the historical time the treaty is abandoned. It logically follows that Japan doesn't build excess carriers or 18" armed BBs ftw. Additionally, Japan most likely renews the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, which could lead to Japan sending a naval task force to the Atlantic or the Med to help its' round eye friends.

[Thunderfire]

When Hitler starts his blitzkrieg across Europe in 1939, Japan pledges its support to the allies and sends men, ships and soldiers to Europe. However, because the Japanese have not pissed off the US in any major fashion and have no interest in bombing pearl harbor America remains neutral.

What happens?

We might get a 3 way WW2 Fascist vs Commies vs Democrats. Japan still has to fight in China in this case. Chiang Wei-kuo a son of Chiang Kai-shek fought with the Legion Condor. Nationalist Chinese Bf-109 , Japanese Zeroes and Communist Chinese I-16 fighting each other over China.