what if Japan won ww2

ahmedali

Banned
The Japanese victory requires ignoring America, and this is not possible because they paid a lot of attention to the Chinese market, and Japan threatens their access to China and the Philippines. A large American presence in Asia is threatening Japan as well as Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean.


But it requires a larger number of Axis members in Europe so as to cause greater problems for Britain (Spain and Vichy France, which the Germans restored control of northern France to them and avoided the 1941 coup and marginalization of Hungary, adds Yugoslavia and Romania loyal to the Axis, which without the Balkan problems Helter focuses on the mainland

This could do a much better job causing the early collapse of the British Empire in Asia, but not avoiding the inevitable fall of the Japanese Empire.

(The fall of the British Raj in 1942 thanks to the better Japanese strategy and a more successful Bose, which leads to the explosion of the Raj internally and the independence of the princely states and some lands that call themselves India and Pakistan, and making Bose confined to Bengal is the best that the Japanese can do)

Because with the loss of the Raj a few years ago, the British war effort is effectively weakening, and if it coincides with the arrival of the Nazis and Italy to Egypt, the British Empire has basically collapsed
 

octoberman

Banned
The Japanese victory requires ignoring America, and this is not possible because they paid a lot of attention to the Chinese market, and Japan threatens their access to China and the Philippines. A large American presence in Asia is threatening Japan as well as Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean.


But it requires a larger number of Axis members in Europe so as to cause greater problems for Britain (Spain and Vichy France, which the Germans restored control of northern France to them and avoided the 1941 coup and marginalization of Hungary, adds Yugoslavia and Romania loyal to the Axis, which without the Balkan problems Helter focuses on the mainland

This could do a much better job causing the early collapse of the British Empire in Asia, but not avoiding the inevitable fall of the Japanese Empire.

(The fall of the British Raj in 1942 thanks to the better Japanese strategy and a more successful Bose, which leads to the explosion of the Raj internally and the independence of the princely states and some lands that call themselves India and Pakistan, and making Bose confined to Bengal is the best that the Japanese can do)

Because with the loss of the Raj a few years ago, the British war effort is effectively weakening, and if it coincides with the arrival of the Nazis and Italy to Egypt, the British Empire has basically collapsed
America would be neutral if hawaai was british protectorate and someoneelse took over spanish east indies
 

ahmedali

Banned
America would be neutral if hawaai was british protectorate and someoneelse took over spanish east indies
The Asian market is still attractive to Americans (remember that they themselves tried to conquer Japan and Korea by force, although they failed in the end)

British Hawaii will anger America and may lead to a British-American war in 1895 because of the Venezuela crisis, but Britain is not Japan and they can crush America

(And if they used the Germans, the Spaniards, and the French as allies, they could severely destroy America)

So the United States will still be angry with Japan, but without a strong presence, they may be weaker, but the trade lobby and the Chinese lobby will still be strong in the United States, so it will keep doing something.

Remaining Spanish and replacing the Spanish-American War with the Spanish-Japanese War in 1896 is more likely

(But this may lead to the intervention of the same tripartite intervention that occurred after the Sino-Japanese war, which ends with the Philippines, French or German, or its division between them and Britain and Japan)

This alone may change Germany's policy, and the twentieth century and the shape of the First World War have changed, which leads to the absence of a second world war

So the scenario that I said regarding the fall of the British Empire in 1942 is more realistic
 
The Asian market is still attractive to Americans (remember that they themselves tried to conquer Japan and Korea by force, although they failed in the end)

What? What history are you reading? America forced Japan to open for trade, they never tried to 'conquer' them. Once open MANY nations opened trade relations. The US went to war with Korea in the late 1860 in a punitive expedition. And forced Korea to sue for peace. They forced Korea to promise NOT to execute stranded sailors and to open their ports for trade. And then left, we had no interest in occupation or conquest.

British Hawaii will anger America and may lead to a British-American war in 1895 because of the Venezuela crisis, but Britain is not Japan and they can crush America

American trade was worth more than Hawaii to the British which is why they didn't raise a fuss when the US took over.

(And if they used the Germans, the Spaniards, and the French as allies, they could severely destroy America)

The British at the time were allied with the French, neutral to the Spanish (the feeling was mutual) and hostile towards the Germans. They were VERY friendly towards the Americans.

Remaining Spanish and replacing the Spanish-American War with the Spanish-Japanese War in 1896 is more likely

The Japanese were not interested in the Spanish possessions at that time they were still busy modernizing and reforming their own nation. They had good relations with European nations, (Britain and Germany in the main) and with the United States.

(But this may lead to the intervention of the same tripartite intervention that occurred after the Sino-Japanese war, which ends with the Philippines, French or German, or its division between them and Britain and Japan)

No one wanted Germany to collect any more colonial possessions, the French over-stretched and the British disinterested hence why everyone supported the US taking them over.

This alone may change Germany's policy, and the twentieth century and the shape of the First World War have changed, which leads to the absence of a second world war

So the scenario that I said regarding the fall of the British Empire in 1942 is more realistic

it requires everyone to have fundamentally different political and social goals which in-and-of-itself requires even earlier changes to all the nations mentioned.

Randy
 

ahmedali

Banned
What? What history are you reading? America forced Japan to open for trade, they never tried to 'conquer' them. Once open MANY nations opened trade relations. The US went to war with Korea in the late 1860 in a punitive expedition. And forced Korea to sue for peace. They forced Korea to promise NOT to execute stranded sailors and to open their ports for trade. And then left, we had no interest in occupation or conquest.



American trade was worth more than Hawaii to the British which is why they didn't raise a fuss when the US took over.



The British at the time were allied with the French, neutral to the Spanish (the feeling was mutual) and hostile towards the Germans. They were VERY friendly towards the Americans.



The Japanese were not interested in the Spanish possessions at that time they were still busy modernizing and reforming their own nation. They had good relations with European nations, (Britain and Germany in the main) and with the United States.



No one wanted Germany to collect any more colonial possessions, the French over-stretched and the British disinterested hence why everyone supported the US taking them over.



it requires everyone to have fundamentally different political and social goals which in-and-of-itself requires even earlier changes to all the nations mentioned.

Randy
We are talking about the 1930s and 1940s, not the 1860s. Read the title


At the same time, they strongly resented Japan's attempts to dominate China, and this happened in OTL


In fact the Americans wanted Hawaii so badly that even an anti-imperialist like William Jennings Bryan strongly supported the annexation of Hawaii as a part of North America (he did not support the annexation of the Philippines because it is for him Asian)


The Germans only hated the British because of Wilhelm II being an idiot with a foot in the mouth and his father, Friedrich III, could have done what Wilhelm II wanted better without angering the British, so I'm sick of your argument about the inevitable British hatred of Germans.


In fact, if you did not know, the Japanese armored ship Kongo was in Manila when the Philippine rebellion against the Spanish began in 1896, and the rebels tried to buy weapons from the Japanese without success. and this happen in OTL


If the rebels succeeded in buying weapons from Japan and Japan started to support them, it would easily end in a Spanish-Japanese war.


So stop trying to annoy me
 
We are talking about the 1930s and 1940s, not the 1860s. Read the title

The US had no interest in conquering Japan until Japan attacked the US. The US had no interest in conquering Korea and only went after North Korea (along with other Western nations and South Korea) after the North attacked them. Neither of these were some 'plot' for the US to conquer either nation.

At the same time, they strongly resented Japan's attempts to dominate China, and this happened in OTL

EVERYONE (including Germany) 'resented' Japan's attempts to dominate China. Nobody was happy about it and most nations supported the Chinese against Japan.

In fact the Americans wanted Hawaii so badly that even an anti-imperialist like William Jennings Bryan strongly supported the annexation of Hawaii as a part of North America (he did not support the annexation of the Philippines because it is for him Asian)

And the British did were not that interested in Hawaii and saw American possession as preferable to other possible nations in control. So they ignored the annexation and supported it. Hawaii's distance from the US put it in the US sphere of influence and Britain accepted that outcome.

The Germans only hated the British because of Wilhelm II being an idiot with a foot in the mouth and his father, Friedrich III, could have done what Wilhelm II wanted better without angering the British, so I'm sick of your argument about the inevitable British hatred of Germans.

You may be 'sick' of it but the actual problem the British had with Germany was it upset the balance of power in Europe and was a clear and present danger to European peace. And the Germans MEANT that outcome from the start of the Empire. Bismarck TRIED to regenerate a new Congress of Europe but the mere fact that Germany was now an Empire in name and truth was the major problem being an industrial and military power-house in the middle or Europe it could not help but be a danger to the rest of Europe. Had the majority of government been in the hands of anyone BUT the Prussians it would have relieved a lot of the stress' involved but that simply wasn't the way the Empire was designed.

In fact, if you did not know, the Japanese armored ship Kongo was in Manila when the Philippine rebellion against the Spanish began in 1896, and the rebels tried to buy weapons from the Japanese without success. and this happen in OTL

Yes and the Japanese were not interested in selling so the rebels turned to the US and other European nations. The US was more than willing as they already had an issue with the Spanish.

If the rebels succeeded in buying weapons from Japan and Japan started to support them, it would easily end in a Spanish-Japanese war.

Other than the Japanese were not willing to get involved the rebels found more support from the US which suited the Japanese fine as they (as noted) were busy with internal affairs at the time. The Japanese weren't ready to take on a European foe, the US was. Japan had no interest or desire to support the Philippine rebels nor did they have the industrial capacity to spare to do so. They didn't have the shipping to spare and any supplies would have had to have been brought in by someone else anyway, likely the Americans.

So stop trying to annoy me

I'm not trying to 'annoy' you I'm just pointing out that Japan had other concerns at the time and no real interest in being aggressive towards Europe over colonies in the Pacific. This was a diplomatic era where they were trying to be seen as a credible and trustworthy member of the international community. Something they would achieve during the Boxer Rebellion in 1899. The Japanese were even later to the "Imperial game" than the Germans and when they decided to play went for the very low-hanging and readily available 'fruit' which was initially Korea and then China. But at the time in question they just weren't in the position to go up against any European power.

By the time they did the only options were to continue to take territory from China (and at this point the international community was no longer willing to look the other way) or take them from the Europeans. Japan tried to do the former but China was too tough for them and in the end they needed to try the latter to both pay for and support the former and ended up taking on everyone including the US by themselves. And losing.

The only way Japan can 'win' WW2 is literally to not play.

Randy
 

ahmedali

Banned
The US had no interest in conquering Japan until Japan attacked the US. The US had no interest in conquering Korea and only went after North Korea (along with other Western nations and South Korea) after the North attacked them. Neither of these were some 'plot' for the US to conquer either nation.



EVERYONE (including Germany) 'resented' Japan's attempts to dominate China. Nobody was happy about it and most nations supported the Chinese against Japan.



And the British did were not that interested in Hawaii and saw American possession as preferable to other possible nations in control. So they ignored the annexation and supported it. Hawaii's distance from the US put it in the US sphere of influence and Britain accepted that outcome.



You may be 'sick' of it but the actual problem the British had with Germany was it upset the balance of power in Europe and was a clear and present danger to European peace. And the Germans MEANT that outcome from the start of the Empire. Bismarck TRIED to regenerate a new Congress of Europe but the mere fact that Germany was now an Empire in name and truth was the major problem being an industrial and military power-house in the middle or Europe it could not help but be a danger to the rest of Europe. Had the majority of government been in the hands of anyone BUT the Prussians it would have relieved a lot of the stress' involved but that simply wasn't the way the Empire was designed.



Yes and the Japanese were not interested in selling so the rebels turned to the US and other European nations. The US was more than willing as they already had an issue with the Spanish.



Other than the Japanese were not willing to get involved the rebels found more support from the US which suited the Japanese fine as they (as noted) were busy with internal affairs at the time. The Japanese weren't ready to take on a European foe, the US was. Japan had no interest or desire to support the Philippine rebels nor did they have the industrial capacity to spare to do so. They didn't have the shipping to spare and any supplies would have had to have been brought in by someone else anyway, likely the Americans.



I'm not trying to 'annoy' you I'm just pointing out that Japan had other concerns at the time and no real interest in being aggressive towards Europe over colonies in the Pacific. This was a diplomatic era where they were trying to be seen as a credible and trustworthy member of the international community. Something they would achieve during the Boxer Rebellion in 1899. The Japanese were even later to the "Imperial game" than the Germans and when they decided to play went for the very low-hanging and readily available 'fruit' which was initially Korea and then China. But at the time in question they just weren't in the position to go up against any European power.

By the time they did the only options were to continue to take territory from China (and at this point the international community was no longer willing to look the other way) or take them from the Europeans. Japan tried to do the former but China was too tough for them and in the end they needed to try the latter to both pay for and support the former and ended up taking on everyone including the US by themselves. And losing.

The only way Japan can 'win' WW2 is literally to not play.

Randy
And that's what I was trying to say that they should avoid America or as you said you should not play

It was Octoberman who said that Hawaii and the Philippines should be under the control of the Americans, not me

Stop making it like I said it please

My words about Hawaii are in response to Octoberman

On Germany, only if Friedrich III had lived could he have done a better job of Germany's ambitions while avoiding angering the British (he would have been able to do what Wilhelm II wanted, but with much better diplomacy)

On the fact that Prussian Germany is a threat to the balance of power

In fact, Britain secretly supported the unification of Germany under the leadership of Prussia, and the marriage of Victoria (the daughter of Queen Victoria) to Friedrich III was tacitly supported by Victoria and Albert and even Russia supported this

(Alexander II is the cousin of Friedrich III because his mother is the sister of Wilhelm I) So no one saw Prussian Germany as a threat except the French and Wilhelm II did them a great service by being a fool and alienating Britain

Bavarian Germany will be hostile to Britain because it is a French ally.

As for everyone’s resentment, in fact America is more than Britain and France are more preoccupied with Germany and Italy than Japan (the invasion of Abyssinia, Czechoslovakia and Poland is more important to them than China and they supported China in order to help America in Europe)
 
This is about as close the ASB as you can get without actually bending the laws of physics. Japan might somehow survive WW2 without being wholly conquered, but winning in anything even close to the OTL situation in the 1930s and 40s? Not a chance. It's not surprising the video puts forward some odd ideas about what the Japanese would do when the entire premise is so fantastical.
Yes perhaps winning by not playing?

Not occupying FIC and therefore not getting sanctioned etc

Keep the war in China going but consolidating instead of trying to grab more

Once the US weapon fez dispenser is at full pelt even the hard liners in Japan would baulk at risking war with them.
 
By 1935 the Japanese expanded the roads by 4,456 kilometers, in comparison with the 164 kilometers that existed before the Japanese occupation. The Japanese government invested a lot of money in the sanitation system of the island. These campaigns against rats and unclean water supplies contributed to a decrease of diseases such as cholera and malaria.
The British built over 2,500 km of road in India between the 1830’s and 1850’s with less technology available. They also had several major shipyards and extensive railroads built. Transport infrastructure was a common method of investment in resource colonies, as it makes the transport of both raw materials from and finished goods to your colony quicker and cheaper.
 
This thread is getting strange…. Bavaria lied to France? The US trying to take over Korea and Japan?? What in the world are you folks talking about?
 

Ramontxo

Donor
So to answer the OP question, if Japan defeated the USA and the Commonwealth and China in ww2 it wouldn't be in our reality.
 
This thread is getting strange…. Bavaria lied to France? The US trying to take over Korea and Japan?? What in the world are you folks talking about?

I'm sorry, that's classified and you don't have a need to know :)

Randy
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Japan winning World War II would require that the Emperor was LITERALLY a Living God.

The only way Japan wins after Pearl Harbor is direct Divine Intervention.
 

octoberman

Banned
It doesn't say anywhere that
What the brits did in india was forbid them from making their own cloth and slit the hands of any tailors caught doing this. They then forced the Indians to only buy British cloth. So they forced them to stop using raw materials to make finished products, only extract raw materials to be sent to industrialized/industrializing britain to proess them or make stuff out of them
and it claims the opposite of what you claim that india's manufacturing declined in first half of the 19th century while Britian's industrial revolution happened in latter half of the 18th century
When the Bagchi and Thorner evidence is combined, it suggests that most of the deindustrialization took place in the first half of the century.

When Britain was the only country going through the industrial revolution.

Can you cite a source too?
and you didn't even show that japan put more industry in manchuiria than britian did in india
 
Last edited:
Top