1939: The Anglo-Japanese War

[Gridley]

IOTL, it took a heroic diplomatic performance by the British Ambassador to Japan (Sir Rorbert Craigie) defuse a potentially explosive incident.

On 14 June the Japanese blockaded the British concession in Tientsin, demanding that the concession cease the use of fapi, turn over the silver reserves, and suppress all anti-Japanese activities. A Japanese military spokesman declared that "The arrow is already off the bow and therefore the question cannot be settled by the mere transfer of the four suspect assassins." The Japanese were not expecting a strong British response.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/T/i/Tientsin.htm

Let's say that on the 15th fire is exchanged between the blockaders and the blockaded. The spilling of Japanese blood prevents Craigie from getting any concessions from the Japanese, and he has no authority to make any concession himself.

The Japanese are surprised, but can not back down from their demands or they will lose face. Both sides string the negotiations along, unwilling to back down and not desiring war. Officially the talks continue for over two months, though in reality even meetings between Craigie and Japanese officials are rare.

Everything changes on September 1st, as Germany invades Poland. The British respond by declaring war on Germany. Events in Europe unfold as OTL and give the Japanese an increasing perception, as the French withdraw from their limited offensive, and as the U-Boats begin to take their tole, that the Western Allies are even weaker than they had thought.

On September 12th (three days earlier than OTL) Japan signs a cease-fire with the USSR, ending their border conflict in the East. Preparations begin to be made for a move south, into the colonial possessions of Britain and France.

The final blow to Western prestige in Japanese eyes occurs as the USSR launches its own invasion of Poland, and fails to draw a declaration of war from the Allies. Clearly, the Allies have no stomach for another war.

On October 6th, Poland falls.

On October 7th, the Japanese invade Hong Kong. No declaration of war is made in advance. The European war becomes a global one.

Thoughts?

 

[ThomasTheviking]

IOTL, it took a heroic diplomatic performance by the British Ambassador to Japan (Sir Rorbert Craigie) defuse a potentially explosive incident.



http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/T/i/Tientsin.htm

Let's say that on the 15th fire is exchanged between the blockaders and the blockaded. The spilling of Japanese blood prevents Craigie from getting any concessions from the Japanese, and he has no authority to make any concession himself.

The Japanese are surprised, but can not back down from their demands or they will lose face. Both sides string the negotiations along, unwilling to back down and not desiring war. Officially the talks continue for over two months, though in reality even meetings between Craigie and Japanese officials are rare.

Everything changes on September 1st, as Germany invades Poland. The British respond by declaring war on Germany. Events in Europe unfold as OTL and give the Japanese an increasing perception, as the French withdraw from their limited offensive, and as the U-Boats begin to take their tole, that the Western Allies are even weaker than they had thought.

On September 12th (three days earlier than OTL) Japan signs a cease-fire with the USSR, ending their border conflict in the East. Preparations begin to be made for a move south, into the colonial possessions of Britain and France.

The final blow to Western prestige in Japanese eyes occurs as the USSR launches its own invasion of Poland, and fails to draw a declaration of war from the Allies. Clearly, the Allies have no stomach for another war.

On October 6th, Poland falls.

On October 7th, the Japanese invade Hong Kong. No declaration of war is made in advance. The European war becomes a global one.

Thoughts?

Quite interesting. This will result in Japan also being at war with France, and there for a new front opening up in Indo-China.

The main question will of course be the US response to this. As a minimum a total oil embargo towards Japan, which again would cripple Japans Armed Froces within a 6 month period....unless they also declare the Netherlands war, in order to seize their possesions in Indonesia and the oil ressources located there. US will IMHO also be forced to send massive aid to the UK.....but I do not think that the US will declare war.

 

[Gridley]

The main question will of course be the US response to this.

That is indeed the big question. I'd welcome thoughts on the subject.

 

[High Plains Drifter]

US responses: Oil Embargo. Even more funding to US Navy. Pacific Forces on permanent alert. Efforts to beef up the defenses of all Pacific Island holdings (PIs, Guam, Wake, Midway, PH, etc.) Attempts by USN and USAAF to enforce neutrality of territorial waters off the Philippines against the IJN? (probably not)

No early Lend Lease or equivalent to support UK and France.

Interesting to note IJN force structure in 1939.
- 4 carriers (Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, & Hiryu)
- fighters are A5M Claudes, not Zeros
- Dive bombers are bi-plane D1A Susies, not D3A Vals.
- Torpedo bombers are B5N Kates.

How quickly can ground troops be gathered to launch an invasion of Indo China and Malaysia?

 

[ThomasTheviking]

No early Lend Lease or equivalent to support UK and France.

Why no early lend lease.....is it because that the US needs all the ressources for the build up of own armed forces?

I woukld sat that it would serve US interests better, if the UK and France could be kept in the fight, and help keeping the Japanese in check, rather than having the Japenese roam free.

 

[GBurch]

VERY interesting and, I'm ashamed to say, a POD I've never considered before. My first thought is that, yes, the US embargoes oil earlier, which forces Japan to "go South" earlier. This is a tough problem to work out, because the Japanese weren't really ready or organized for that yet -- but not being ready or well-organized didn't stop the Japanese from doing some outrageously ambitious things in OTL ...

Also agree with the comment above that this puts the USN on a near-war footing sooner, which makes Pearl Harbor unlikely. Perhaps US-Japanese hostilities begin over an exchange between the IJN and USN at or near the Phillipines, some time in 1940, due to increased activity by both in the area. For the IJN, this isn't the "decisive battle" they sought at Pearl on 7/12/41. Instead, it might result in more naval skirmishing in the eastern Indian Ocean and South China Sea, with the USN less capable than in OTL because it's got a longer supply line -- more Coral Sea type battles and not a Midway Gotterdamerung.

 

[arctic warrior]

Why no early lend lease.....is it because that the US needs all the ressources for the build up of own armed forces?

I woukld sat that it would serve US interests better, if the UK and France could be kept in the fight, and help keeping the Japanese in check, rather than having the Japenese roam free.

The US need their resources themselves but the Western Allies are still able to look after themselves in Europe; don't really need lend-lease yet.

BTW as the RN now need to send off units to the Far East operations in European waters may get a lower priority - Norway??? It might just serve to defuse some of the tension in that part of Europe.

Will France risk shipping off troops for Indochina? or rather it would have to to protect its colony. French navy building would have to get in gear.

Italy... seems like the moment for Musso to enter with the WAllies spread more thinly.

 

[ThomasTheviking]

The US need their resources themselves but the Western Allies are still able to look after themselves in Europe; don't really need lend-lease yet.

.

Well yes....but now they are fighting in the Far East also, besides in Europe...and the argument could be here that they are also indirectly defending American interests, by limiting Japans expansion.

 

[eltf177]

Japan also has the small carriers Hosho and Ryujo, I don't remember exactly when Shoho and Zuiho began their conversions but I believe it was around this time.

What happens to Yamato, Musashi and Shinano? I would think work on Zuikaku and Shokaku is sped up.

*******

Isn't much of the US Navy stationed in Europe at this time as the situation there worsened? I guess with the new crisis in the Pacific do more ships get transferred to the Pacific?

The huge USN buildup has just started, same for the USAAF expansion. This means resources will be stretched thin for awhile. Remember, France had huge orders for US aircraft at this time which IIRC we had trouble filling.

Do things like reinforcing the Philippines, Wake and Midway continue, and if so at what pace? Does Guam get built up, especially with Saipan so close?

I like this timeline a lot, please continue.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Even if the Japanese occupied Shanghai, Hong Kong and Tientsin would it really lead to war? Particularly if Japan offered to repatriate the Western residents.

It would lead to trade embargoes but full scale war is unlikely as Britain's attention is elsewhere and US will not fight to maintain a British colony.

It doesn't make Japan's resource problems any easier but I could see Pearl Harbour being launched and the SRA policy implemented a year earlier in 1940 rather than in 1941 or 1939

 

[stevep]

Gridley

The western allies have serious problems but possibly not as great as the Japanese. I would say some economic pressure from the US is more likely, although possibly not a full oil boycott yet as it took so long for the US government to move in small steps on both fronts.

However, with more western forces in the region, which are unlikely to be moved yet, at least in the same numbers, the smaller Japanese forces and lack of bases, most specifically in French Indo-China.

I would say the western allies, with everything else happening won't consider intervening in the Winter War. Doubt Mussolini would jump in yet, although if the German attack through the Ardennes went ahead and as successfully then he would leap in.

The other question is would either/both western power consider a deal with Hitler to free up forces for the Pacific. Working on the assumption that Hitler means what he says and will be attacking the Soviets. Unlikely but that would totally change the shape of the war.

Alternatively, if France still falls and then makes peace does Britain seek peace with either/both enemy after that?

Steve

 

[High Plains Drifter]

At best the IJN is going to have just 4 large carriers until late 1940 or very early 1941. And that might be unrealistically pushing their capabilities or leaving the new carriers with serious quality assurance issues.
- IOTL Shokaku was launched in July 1939, commissioned in August 1941.
- IOTL Zuikaku was launched in November 1939, commissioned in September 1941.

On the economy carrier front, the IJN in 1939 had Ryujo and Ryuho. Zuiho and Shoho had not started their conversions yets.

In your mid sized carrier, Junyo was barely laid in March 1939 and Hiyo was not laid until November of 1939.


My basis on no Lend Lease is articulated by Arctic Warrior, US needs the resources and nothing bad has yet to happen to UK and France. Though I suspect things like "Destroyers for Bases" and "Arsenal for Democracy" still happen.

While the US might assign further dollars to the navy and the defense of the Philippines, actually converting that to improved performance over the original time buildups could be hard to do.


Other questions:
- Does the US push the Pacific Fleet move from San Diego to Pearl Harbor any sooner than IOTL of May, 1940?
- Would the Brewster Buffalo lord it over IJN air assets until the advent of the Zero?
- Would Japan slow down the introduction of new technology (like the Zero) in order to build more of what they are currently producing?

 

[hzn5pk]

Even if the Japanese occupied Shanghai, Hong Kong and Tientsin would it really lead to war? Particularly if Japan offered to repatriate the Western residents.

It would lead to trade embargoes but full scale war is unlikely as Britain's attention is elsewhere and US will not fight to maintain a British colony.

It doesn't make Japan's resource problems any easier but I could see Pearl Harbour being launched and the SRA policy implemented a year earlier in 1940 rather than in 1941 or 1939

There could be a slightly different outcome

October 1939 - Japan seizes western territory in China

Naval war with Britain ensues
Trade embargo by USA begins

May 1940 - As France and Netherlands fall, Japan seizes colonies of Indochina and Indonesia

August 1940 - After Japan solidifies position in SE Asia, it attacks and knocks out Malaysia and Singapore.

Now what next
Can Japan quickly exploit resources from conquered territory to support its economy without US resources?

Japan is still at war with Britain, Australia, and New Zealand? Does Japan offer peace to the Ausies to isolate Britain? Or do they move South to isolate Australia.

It would be interesting to see how this plays out with the one given that Japan does not attack the USA.

Japan is also unaware that every advance spreads it resources thinner.

So what next for the fall of 1940? They can go towards India or Australia?

 

[Derek Pullem]

There could be a slightly different outcome

October 1939 - Japan seizes western territory in China

Naval war with Britain ensues
Trade embargo by USA begins

May 1940 - As France and Netherlands fall, Japan seizes colonies of Indochina and Indonesia

August 1940 - After Japan solidifies position in SE Asia, it attacks and knocks out Malaysia and Singapore.

Now what next
Can Japan quickly exploit resources from conquered territory to support its economy without US resources?

Japan is still at war with Britain, Australia, and New Zealand? Does Japan offer peace to the Ausies to isolate Britain? Or do they move South to isolate Australia.

It would be interesting to see how this plays out with the one given that Japan does not attack the USA.

Japan is also unaware that every advance spreads it resources thinner.

So what next for the fall of 1940? They can go towards India or Australia?

Something like that.

October 1939 - Japan seizes western territory in China

Naval war with Britain ensues
Trade embargo by USA begins

May 1940 - As France and Netherlands fall, Japan seizes colonies of Indochina and Indonesia

August 1940 - After Japan solidifies position in SE Asia, it attacks and knocks out Malaysia and Singapore.

Up to there I agree with you. US response I suspect would be to move fleet to Pearl and up forces in Guam and Philippines

Problem for Britain right now is that its fighting for its life in the Battle of Britain and due to Japanese advances there will be no ANZACs or Indian troops to protect Egypt which would probably lead to stalemate in the Western Desert and a surviving Italian colony in Ethiopia / Eritrea / Somalia

Australian and New Zealand troops would be on alert back home.

So no intervention in Greece (good) but no way to reinforce the far east in the short term until mid 1941. I'm not at all sure O'Connor could work his magic for that long in the Western Desert and any Japaenese attack on Burma / India would be hard to stop short of Impahl / Kohima

It all hinges on Roosevelt and weather he can persuade America to go to war to stop the Japanese. Without Pearl Harbour this would be a tough call. I could see him guaranteeing Australia / New Zealand but fighting to protect British colonies against a rival empire would be a hard sell. certainly it is unlikely Roosevelt would go to war before the election in November 1940.

So the scenario I would envision would be for Japan to take most of the SRA targets excluding the Phillipines prior to US entry into the war (which I'd guess at early 1942 excluding a Pearl Harbour). If the Japanese had been lucky so far then to give them a similar strike against the US in late 1941 as in our time line would not be unreasonable. Hence the Japanese would be able to mobilise most of their mobile forces to the East facing the USA instead of splitting them across numerous objectives. They'd lose in the end but it would be very nasty for the Americans in the medium term particularly with the experience the Japaense would have gained fighting the British and French

 

[Gridley]

First off, thanks everyone for your feedback. I'm still trying to decide the most likely way for the US to jump, and what the next moves by the already involved parties will be, so I would greatly appreciate your continued thoughts on these points.

Even if the Japanese occupied Shanghai, Hong Kong and Tientsin would it really lead to war? Particularly if Japan offered to repatriate the Western residents.

It would lead to trade embargoes but full scale war is unlikely as Britain's attention is elsewhere and US will not fight to maintain a British colony.

I would have thought the Japanese invading Hong Kong alone would cause a DoW, especially after Poland.

Gridley

The western allies have serious problems but possibly not as great as the Japanese. I would say some economic pressure from the US is more likely, although possibly not a full oil boycott yet as it took so long for the US government to move in small steps on both fronts.

However, with more western forces in the region, which are unlikely to be moved yet, at least in the same numbers, the smaller Japanese forces and lack of bases, most specifically in French Indo-China.

I would say the western allies, with everything else happening won't consider intervening in the Winter War. Doubt Mussolini would jump in yet, although if the German attack through the Ardennes went ahead and as successfully then he would leap in.

The other question is would either/both western power consider a deal with Hitler to free up forces for the Pacific. Working on the assumption that Hitler means what he says and will be attacking the Soviets. Unlikely but that would totally change the shape of the war.

Alternatively, if France still falls and then makes peace does Britain seek peace with either/both enemy after that?

Steve

I can't really see Britain making peace with Germany; thanks for your thoughts. It seems likely to me that the Japanese won't get as bad a case of Victory Disease as OTL.

At best the IJN is going to have just 4 large carriers until late 1940 or very early 1941. And that might be unrealistically pushing their capabilities or leaving the new carriers with serious quality assurance issues.

Really, until mid-1941 at the earliest. They weren't dawdling around with Shokaku and Zuikaku, and even once the ship commissions the air group still needs to be worked up.

[/QUOTE] Other questions:
- Does the US push the Pacific Fleet move from San Diego to Pearl Harbor any sooner than IOTL of May, 1940?
- Would the Brewster Buffalo lord it over IJN air assets until the advent of the Zero?
- Would Japan slow down the introduction of new technology (like the Zero) in order to build more of what they are currently producing?[/QUOTE]

I'd think war in the Pacific would force the US to deploy some forces west and forward, doubly so since FDR would now expect that a war with Germany (which he wants) will result in a war with Japan as well.

I'd expect the Zero to be rushed into service - according to the PWOE, production started in March of 1939 even though the IJN didn't complete acceptance trials until sixteen months later. With an actual war on their hands, I'd expect that process to be greatly shortened. Of course, that could cause some problems...

The third is a very good question that I don't have an answer to.

Oh, and Japan is going to lose. The Axis is going to lose. The questions are "when" and "how."

 

[stevep]

I can't really see Britain making peace with Germany; thanks for your thoughts.

If France falls as OTL, which probably means the surrender of their Indo China colonies to the Japanese, putting them in range of Malaya and the now largely undefended Dutch Indies, plus Italy probably jumping on the bandwagon I can see a lot of people thinking about a deal, even if only a temporary one. Don't forget it could well be someone other than Churchill entering No. 10.

Not saying it will happen and if they made a deal with Germany I would expect it to be temporary. However I think far from impossible.

It seems likely to me that the Japanese won't get as bad a case of Victory Disease as OTL.

Quite probably as their highly unlikely to have the same success rate. Also if the US starts deploying forces forward and defending Wake, Guam and the Philippines more heavily earlier that will tie up at least some Japanese forces and give them a lot of nervous looking over the shoulder.

They will lack the big 'success' of Pearl and the rapid southern conquests, although a fairly dramatic victory over an allied naval squad is quite likely and possibly a rapid conquest of French Indo-China.

Really, until mid-1941 at the earliest. They weren't dawdling around with Shokaku and Zuikaku, and even once the ship commissions the air group still needs to be worked up.

They might try but it could cause some problems. One thing is how much success how quickly. Some longer term stuff might be cancelled/delayed if they don't think the conflict will last that long. Although after their defeated [they hope] the European powers they still have to consider the US which will be building up with some vigour.

Oh, and Japan is going to lose. The Axis is going to lose. The questions are "when" and "how."

Provided the war lasts I agree. Even if Britain makes peace I expect it to be a truce more than a lasting one.

Steve

PS The bit I'm uncertain about, as others have mentioned, is with an earlier war in the Far East, how does N Africa fare? It might be OK as Italy didn't really have the resources to threaten Egypt and Hitler only sent Rommel when it looked like the Italians might be totally driven from Libya. Also, given how things are stretched I can't see any serious aid to Greece if it's attacked. Hence it could be a fairly static sitskrieg 'front'.

 

[informationfan]

US responses: Oil Embargo. Even more funding to US Navy. Pacific Forces on permanent alert. Efforts to beef up the defenses of all Pacific Island holdings (PIs, Guam, Wake, Midway, PH, etc.) Attempts by USN and USAAF to enforce neutrality of territorial waters off the Philippines against the IJN? (probably not)

No early Lend Lease or equivalent to support UK and France.

Interesting to note IJN force structure in 1939.
- 4 carriers (Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, & Hiryu)
- fighters are A5M Claudes, not Zeros
- Dive bombers are bi-plane D1A Susies, not D3A Vals.
- Torpedo bombers are B5N Kates.

How quickly can ground troops be gathered to launch an invasion of Indo China and Malaysia?

hi,

if i follow the plot war start from british acting?
or do i misread it?

because, if great britain start this war the usa will not put an oil embargo on japan, why should they? sure, from 1937-38 the japanese behaviour make them look bad and in the usa many people dislike japan
but with uk declaring war in this event, the usa will not side with it.
i doubt the brits will be so stupid, but if they are the agressor - and france help uk, the japanes have a window of opportunity... the brits cannot do much about the japanese, but the japanese can hurt the brits. Sure, air war is lesser and japanese carrier will be weaker... but with ww2 in europe, japan has free hands... IF the usa will not side with uk...

with japan causing concern in australia and newzealand, no such troops for africa
the brits need more ships in the pacific... but cannot spent them...

interesing scenario - you need the british be the black man, but with it, you have a very interesting what-if... the netherlands are neutral and germany had not attacked it - but you also need the secret informations the german raider atlantis captured and gave to japan... without them the japanese know not too much about the british defence system in the pacific...

 

[lothaw]

There are other less obvious effects on the US.

The Oil Embargo is obvious, but this is going to pretty much be a world war in every since of the word a lot earlier.

I can see some subtle changes to the 1940 election. Someone like Taft could garner a lot of support in an anti-war campaign.

 

[stevep]

There are other less obvious effects on the US.

The Oil Embargo is obvious, but this is going to pretty much be a world war in every since of the word a lot earlier.

I can see some subtle changes to the 1940 election. Someone like Taft could garner a lot of support in an anti-war campaign.

lothaw

Possibly or given 2-3 fascist powers on the rampage it could be Willkie gaining a lot of support in a campaign for more action against them.

Steve

 

[Gridley]

PS The bit I'm uncertain about, as others have mentioned, is with an earlier war in the Far East, how does N Africa fare? It might be OK as Italy didn't really have the resources to threaten Egypt and Hitler only sent Rommel when it looked like the Italians might be totally driven from Libya. Also, given how things are stretched I can't see any serious aid to Greece if it's attacked. Hence it could be a fairly static sitskrieg 'front'.

Kinda looking at this for NA, thoughts welcome:

1. Due to active hostilities in the Far East, no Aussie/NZ troops go to N. Africa.
2. Due to 1., the British lack the troops to push the Italians too far back.
3. Since Libya isn't seriously threatened, German troops are not sent to N. Africa. This will be good for the eventual invasion of the USSR.
4. Africa will remain a stalemate until the W.Allies are able to invade from the West, or find several divisions of additional troops to reinforce Egypt and attack from there.

Not sure about Greece - have to look into that one.

FYI, while details will change, the high-level view of the ETO won't change much from OTL from Sept 1st, 1939 to late 1941. That is, Germany will still invade and conquer Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and France, threaten Britain, and in mid-1941 invade the USSR. Italy will still join in when it looks like France is on the ropes. Beyond that things are wide open.

hi,
if i follow the plot war start from british acting?
or do i misread it?

Not quite correct - the Japanese make most of the aggressive moves, the British just refuse to concede anything. Irresistible force, meet immovable object...