Was Japan really in an "unwinnable" war?

[LestWeForget]

In OTL yes, clearly.

However if you look at some of the main reasons noted for Japan losing the war (disparity in economies, population etc.), on paper some of those disparities don't seem as massive.

Industrial capacity yes, but I believe the US population in the early 1940's was around 150 million, while Japan's was around 100 million. A disparity yes, but not an insurmountable one. If you also look at the sheer amount of territory and resources Imperial Japan controlled, it was immense. They just didn't have the time and/or ambition to maximize it in time.

Japan was supposedly being starved of oil, but they controlled vast oil resources (not sure about this one).

If they had delayed the war by say 2-3 years and given themselves time to build-up more industry and consolidation of resources, and eventually attacked US military positions in East Asia instead of Pearl Harbor(and thereby galvanizing the US into righteous fury), could their objective of starting a costly war that would grind down the US public's will to fight have been realistic?

Granted, this may not fix the military's sheer incompetence in logistics or senior leadership's outmoded way of thinking in many respects.

 

[Pax_Nihil]

Probably not so bad for them but they will not be victorious though that depends on how the alternate war would go and what choices are made in battle locations.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

Their chances would have been much better if they warred solely with the British and the Dutch and made it a point not to involve America at all.

 

[Jiraiyathegallant]

The economic discrepancy between the US and Japan is like 14-1. Japan can’t really change that.

For Japan to win we will need something crazy like the US having five presidents in three years because they keep dying or getting impeached, Japan inflicting higher losses in the early stage of the war when things are fluid and Japan can still attack, the Soviet Union signing a separate peace in Europe with America and Britain launching several failed invasions of Europe, Japan pulling off some kind of one in a hundred decisive win in a major battle on the defensive in 1943 that humiliates a US president into a stroke, Japan consistently inflicting higher losses when badly outmatched, and each successive president redefining war goals.

If this happens, America might just start to feel embarrassed, more concerned about its own internal dysfunction, and consider the war too costly to continue. If Japan is then willing to offer all occupied territory (outside China and Indochina) back in exchange for ending sanctions, avoiding any coups that try to prevent the “surrender of war gains”, they might be able to win.

Like, Japan might be able to pull this off once in a thousand scenarios. Once they attack a country in such a brutal way without warning, who can outproduce them more than ten to one, and do this while Japan has its hands full already, it is basically over.

 

[sarge]

Japan was already bogged down in China. That was an unwinnable struggle as it was. While the Japanese Empire was able to seize large territories in Asia none of them were properly industrialized. Even if they had been, the logistics of being so far apart and on different islands doesn't help. The US really can't lose in the Pacific. End of the day the disparity of power is too great. Japan can seize Pacific islands but cannot land, seize and hold North American territory for long.

 

[Citycat]

The only way for Japan to win is for the US to be involved in the conflict half heartedly or for it to be unpopular domestically. But this is almost impossible to achieve if the war involves Japan directly attacking the US or its possessions, as well as this being a total war, and not some local guerrilla war or a small war with limited objectives.

Even Japan attacking the European powers and leaving the US alone probably wouldn't work, since this was all linked and would be viewed as a geopolitical threat in Washington, that would eventually see the US involved in the conflict.

 

[InvaderX]

Essentially the only way for ANY country to defeat the United States is to make them get tired of fighting. Invading the continental US, hell even raiding it to try and disrupt industry, is effectively impossible. Even if Japan somehow managed to gain control of every Pacific island including Hawaii, they have no base near enough to the American West Coast to make any kind of effective strikes on industry or drydocks or ports. Even if Japan sinks the entire US Navy (which will not happen), they can't really do much but pray the Americans aren't pissed off enough to just... build a new one and send it at them. Even if they sink that too, the US has more than enough resources and personnel to build another. And another. And another. The only limiting factor is whether or not the American public wants to continue the war, and once you've slaughtered thousands of naval personnel and tortured and murdered thousands of American soldiers (in other words, standard operating procedure for Imperial Japan), then even without Pearl Harbor I'd bet that the American people will be just angry enough to not stop until Japan is defeated.
Britain was an unsinkable aircraft carrier. The United States is an untouchable everything carrier.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

I believe the US population in the early 1940's was around 150 million, while Japan's was around 100 million. A disparity yes, but not an insurmountable one.

Counting colonies, yes.

Looking at just their metropolitan populations (generally a better measure of comparative strength in a total war), 72 million for Japan vs 131 million for America. Ratio-wise it's basically German vs the USSR.

Industrial capacity yes, but

No buts. The Pacific War was predominantly a naval and air conflict, and industry, not farmers, is what you need to produce ships and planes.

Japan was supposedly being starved of oil, but they controlled vast oil resources (not sure about this one).

They certainly did not before the war. Only after Pearl Harbour and the subsequent conquest of the Dutch East Indies did they get "their own" oil. Additionally they lacked the shipping capacity (especially after the US subs went to work) to make full use of their conquered oil fields.

 

[BlackDragon98]

In OTL yes, clearly.

However if you look at some of the main reasons noted for Japan losing the war (disparity in economies, population etc.), on paper some of those disparities don't seem as massive.

Industrial capacity yes,

One does not simply conjure up tank, planes, and warships by waving ones hands around.

but I believe the US population in the early 1940's was around 150 million, while Japan's was around 100 million. A disparity yes, but not an insurmountable one. If you also look at the sheer amount of territory and resources Imperial Japan controlled, it was immense. They just didn't have the time and/or ambition to maximize it in time.

And you forgot the fact that Japan was fight against all of the Allied powers; UK and Dominions, France, Netherlands, etc.

Its allies German and Japan were halfway around the world and provided little if any assistance after the war started.

Much of the territory Japan occupied in WW2 and during it war against China was plagued with guerillas and damaged infrastructure from the war.

Japan was supposedly being starved of oil, but they controlled vast oil resources (not sure about this one).

World War II -- Japan strategic concepts oil petroleum

histclo.com

Manchurian oil was exploited after WW2.

If they had delayed the war by say 2-3 years and given themselves time to build-up more industry and consolidation of resources, and eventually attacked US military positions in East Asia instead of Pearl Harbor(and thereby galvanizing the US into righteous fury), could their objective of starting a costly war that would grind down the US public's will to fight have been realistic?

The US was preparing for war as well.
USS Panay ended any illusions they had about the Japanese.
Ultimately, they're still going to lose by a long shot.

Sure they might overrun the Philippines, Malaysia, HK, and Dutch East Indies, but Japanese atrocities will harden the resolve of the Allies.
AKA, an unconditional surrender from the Japanese.

 

[Alex1guy]

In OTL yes, clearly.

However if you look at some of the main reasons noted for Japan losing the war (disparity in economies, population etc.), on paper some of those disparities don't seem as massive.

Industrial capacity yes, but I believe the US population in the early 1940's was around 150 million, while Japan's was around 100 million. A disparity yes, but not an insurmountable one. If you also look at the sheer amount of territory and resources Imperial Japan controlled, it was immense. They just didn't have the time and/or ambition to maximize it in time.

Japan was supposedly being starved of oil, but they controlled vast oil resources (not sure about this one).

If they had delayed the war by say 2-3 years and given themselves time to build-up more industry and consolidation of resources, and eventually attacked US military positions in East Asia instead of Pearl Harbor(and thereby galvanizing the US into righteous fury), could their objective of starting a costly war that would grind down the US public's will to fight have been realistic?

Granted, this may not fix the military's sheer incompetence in logistics or senior leadership's outmoded way of thinking in many respects.

Issue that you pointed to, was oil and the forever war being waged in China. They didnt have the luxury of a longer build up.

Japan was already engaged in a death struggle on the mainland. US embargos began when Japan tried cutting off means of supporting China by taking Indochina from Vichy France. Japan imported almost 90% of it's oil and most of that was from the USA. When the embargos came into effect, Japan faced the very real possibility of running out within a year, hence needing to take Indonesia and triggering a war with the European Empires and the USA.

The pervasive attitude of the militarist government was that any issue could be overcome on the battlefield if one struck hard and fast. There was also deep misunderstanding about willingness of the Western democracies to commit to a long fight (not without some precedent at the time, democracy had fallen in Japan itself, France and the other democratic powers of Europe had collapsed with surprising speed after a long period of throwing other democratic states under Hitler's bus).

After Pearl Harbor, Japan was now facing the British Empire, China, the Dutch in exile, millions of angry locals and then the USA. It just becomes simple matter of numbers at that point, their enemies were too numerous and too willing to take the fight to Japan.

 

[Lothal]

I strongly believe Japan never had a chance to win a long war, but their moves in the beginning of the war did give the chance to at least reach the negotiating table and score a winning peace.

Japan’s plan for the war directly parallels that of the Russo-Japanese War, one where they punched up against a power perceived as stronger by a game plan of crippling their Pacific Fleet in a surprise attack that doubles as a declaration of war that forces the redeployment of their Atlantic Fleet, and then a pitched battle against the Atlantic Fleet which forces a negotiated peace. As we can see much of Japan’s moves pretty much are the exact same with the Pearl Harbor attack and then the Battle of Midway. As we know the attack on Pearl Harbor failed to sink the Pacific Fleet’s aircraft carriers as they were not present during the attack along with other critical facilities which were undamaged including the submarines which eventually crippled Japan’s warfighting capabilitied, and America rallied around the flag instead of experiencing a harsh morale hit that the Japanese expected. The Battle of Midway, using the carriers which were not present during the attack Pearl Harbor the Japanese warfighting capability was permanently crippled for the remainder of the war instead of the final defeat of the Americans that was expected.

In a perfect world for the Japanese where the entire Pacific fleet is at anchor in Pearl Harbor and the nation fails to properly unite and subsequently the Atlantic fleet is suck in a pitched battle, Japan could probably negotiate a treaty that grants control over the Phillipines and Guam.

 

[Captain Homicide]

Short of magic or unbelievable incompetence there was no plausible way for Japan to defeat the US.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

Yes.

In 1943 the United States built 2 more cruisers, 2 times the number of destroyers, 3 times the number of carriers, and 2.5 times more merchant tonnage, and seven thousand more aircraft then Japan would make for the entire war (many of these being multi-engined bombers that cost far more to build then single engine aircraft). If Japan started a war with the United States and did not do so in matter conducive to a negotiated peace, it was screwed.

 

[LestWeForget]

I forgot to mention that the Unryu's would probably close to being completed by then as well.

That's a minimum of what, 5-6 more fleet carriers?

 

[LestWeForget]

Issue that you pointed to, was oil and the forever war being waged in China. They didnt have the luxury of a longer build up.

Japan was already engaged in a death struggle on the mainland. US embargos began when Japan tried cutting off means of supporting China by taking Indochina from Vichy France. Japan imported almost 90% of it's oil and most of that was from the USA. When the embargos came into effect, Japan faced the very real possibility of running out within a year, hence needing to take Indonesia and triggering a war with the European Empires and the USA.

The pervasive attitude of the militarist government was that any issue could be overcome on the battlefield if one struck hard and fast. There was also deep misunderstanding about willingness of the Western democracies to commit to a long fight (not without some precedent at the time, democracy had fallen in Japan itself, France and the other democratic powers of Europe had collapsed with surprising speed after a long period of throwing other democratic states under Hitler's bus).

After Pearl Harbor, Japan was now facing the British Empire, China, the Dutch in exile, millions of angry locals and then the USA. It just becomes simple matter of numbers at that point, their enemies were too numerous and too willing to take the fight to Japan.

Didn't the Phillippines, Dutch East Asia etc. have large oil resources?

That's why I mentioned if they avoided attacking Pearl and just hitting East Asia they may have been able to consolidate oil resources while tempering the US response.

 

[LestWeForget]

It's pretty crazy when you realize that OTL, Japan basically prosecuted the majority of the war with just 4 fleet carriers (Shokaku, Zuikaku, Junyo, and Hiyo).

That's basically what they had after Midway until the end of the war (Not counting Taiho which participated in one battle or Shinano etc.)

Granted they had thousands and thousands of land-based aircraft, but it's shocking they lasted as long as they did.

 

[Nik]

Admiral Yamamoto called it right: If IJN did not win at outset by getting 'favourable terms', the industrial might of USA would probably crush them.
Worse, the Pearl Harbour attack --Taranto 2.0-- was supposed to follow formal declaration of war by a couple of hours. Due Japanese diplomatic bungling, declaration arrived after Pearl Harbour, utterly incensing US opinion...
Unforgivable, the attack made getting 'favourable terms' politically impossible...
And, attack did not catch the USN carriers in harbour. With IJN 'worst case' scenario being USN would find and cripple or sink the IJN carriers while later strikes were hitting Pearl's oil-storage, docks and other facilities, that plan was abandoned. Yes, Pearl got hammered, but could have been much, much worse...
In some ATL, those aircraft would have found their carriers beset, had to ditch. IJN loss of those pilots and carriers would have been a terrible blow...
--
A thought: Even now, unclear how much warning of the attack was actually available. Beyond 'Oopsies' such as the Pearl radar station mis-identifying IJN bombers as an expected ferry flight of US aircraft, there's another factor. Did the USN carriers just stay at sea for 'further exercise' ? Or was it a precaution lest the limited, extremely 'compartmentalised' intel suggesting an impending attack on Pearl be proven horribly correct ??

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Didn't the Phillippines, Dutch East Asia etc. have large oil resources?

That's why I mentioned if they avoided attacking Pearl and just hitting East Asia they may have been able to consolidate oil resources while tempering the US response.

Attacking the British and Dutch while hoping for US neutrality is a non-option imo.

 

[Samsonov]

Perhaps if you imagine a very different world. Japan is not fighting in China. The European axis have defeated Russia and are doing immense damage to Britain through bombing and submarines, with the US doing everything it can to support Britain. No pearl harbour attack. Japan somehow spinning successfully to at least some US citizens that they are just liberating people from European imperialism (which probably requires Japan taking a very different approach to conquered people). Japan then wins a couple of decisive naval battles against the US. Then I could imagine the possibility of the US negotiating. Might need a US election though with one party running on bringing our boys home.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Japan was already bogged down in China. That was an unwinnable struggle as it was.

This just isn't true at all. Even after suffering major defeats on other fronts, Japan was still able to completely rout and defacto neuter the Chinese army during Ichi-Go in 1944.

Japan's issues were purely economic. Fix those and they don't invade the Southern Resource Area and they eventually win in China (through genocide, puppetization, and tactical victories).

And as other threads have suggested, fixing many of Japan's economic woes is possible. Manchurian oilfields were almost discovered in otl during the 30s, and had they worked more with the Germans prewar, they could have developed a synthetic oil industry with Manchurian coalfields. Steel, rubber, and other resources could be extracted with proper planning and development as well.

I'm not going to argue that Japan can win the Pacific War (they can't) but they can defeat China.