Without Fighting America, what would have happened to Japan during/post ww2

If Pearl Harbor doesn't happen and Japan and Germany never align, while Japan doesn't antagonize the US, and continues stealing colonies in SE Asia and Invading China, what's the endgame?
Seems hard to believe in 1946 the British and French would be excited about heading of to fight with another power. And while the risk of invasion from the USSR is real, I feel the US would likely seek to prevent that just like they did irl.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    They already beat brits out of Asia without many difficulties, they would just had expanded to India, Australia and inner China

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Japan couldn't even subdue China, they'd never subdue India. Kick out the Brits and all they have is an independent India to deal with in their stead.
      Likewise they had no plans to actually invade Australia itself.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The British would've constructed several atomic weapons with the help of the Americans and would have dropped four on Japan, five on Germany, and one on Rome.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Wasting money trying to invade China (and failing miserably) while the Soviets prepare the imminent invasion

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The Co-Prosperity sphere could have worked propaganda wise if the Japs weren’t so psychotic and blood thirsty. Also pearl Harbour wasn’t an aberration, the US was frustrating Japan’s war effort to the point of becoming a problem. It was a failed gamble on their part, but taking refueling stations right then was better than having the gears of your military slowed by Americas belligerence.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    An imperial Japan during the Cold war would have probably be given the same treatment Spain was given.
    The allies would have probably made a deal with them to give them China but leave alone the euro colonies, and be in charge of not letting communism get a hold on any asian nation.

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Why does everyone forget that by the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that the USSR was already preparing its own, massive, invasion of the Japanese home islands - and that this was a major factor in Japan surrendering to America and accepting American occupation after the war?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      This ignores the fact that the soviets had very little experience or material to launch an amphibious invasion.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >This ignores the fact that the soviets had very little experience or material to launch an amphibious invasion
        the Soviets had already occupied a bunch of Japan's northern territories which were literally within eye-vision distance of the rest of the home island archipelago. I don't really think experience matters all that much when it's a 20-minute motorboat ride from one Japanese archipelago islands to the other in most cases.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Americans with all the planning and experience they gained would have still have suffered a lot in an invasion of the main islands, it was very fricking difficult for many reasons.
      The already worn out soviet army wouldn't have done shit unless they got american help, wich ofcourde would have never happened.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Because the USSR wasn't preparing its own "massive" invasion force of the Japanese islands. They literally didn't have the ships to do that. Do you think the Red Army was going to fricking swim across the sea?
      They took little islands like the Kurils and wilderness like Sakhalin. Actually landing and supplying multiple armies in Honshu or Kyushu would be out of the question, unless the USA actually gave them the ships to do that (which is exactly what the US was preparing)

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I thought they were having a tough time in mainland China, and it was the impetus for their risky move of invading French Indochina, a way to turn the tide after a few decisive defeats.
    Im more interested in the world where the US decided to stick with Japan and help them Conquer Asia.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The US stop selling Japan oil, their war in China grinds to a halt (it had stalled anyway even when the US was still selling them oil). Japan would then be faced with communist China supported by the Soviet Union and the UK developing the atom bomb, which it seems likely they would before Japan.

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    They actually be able to exploit indonesian oil instead of it getting sunk by american subs.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Japan doesn't antagonize the US, and continues stealing colonies in SE Asia and Invading China
    How do you think the US was antagonized by Japan? The Japanese invasion of China and French Indochina cannot be done without pissing off America

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Nope, congress would never agree to a war to defend yuro colonies.
      The only reason they were in WW2 was that Japan attacked and Germany declared war on them.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >If Pearl Harbor doesn't happen and Japan and Germany never align, while Japan doesn't antagonize the US, and continues stealing colonies in SE Asia and Invading China, what's the endgame?
        All of those things were a consequence of the other. "What if Japan stopped at Manchuria?" is a more compelling what-if.

        >Invade mainland France
        I sleep
        >Take Indochina
        THE ARSENAL OF DEMOCRACY HAS BEEN ACTIVATED.
        Doubt.jpg
        [...]
        [...]
        >Russian Invasion
        Of lands taken on the continent yes. However, without the US the Entire Japanese Fleet is still available, so idk how the frick the Russians are going to get there.

        That's actually what happened. The Hull Note was spurred on by the occupation of Indochina, not China proper. America had possessions in Asia, but not in Europe. A Japanese move on European colonies in Asia was a signal that American ones weren't safe either.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >If Pearl Harbor doesn't happen and Japan and Germany never align
          US embargoed Japan for oil when they came to an agreement with Vichy France to hand over control of Vietnam to the Japanese. At this point in time there was two French governments, one an Axis puppet, the other Allied. The cooperation of the Axis puppet with the Japanese signaled that Japan was increasingly an Axis power.

          The reason Japan was going into Vietnam was in part because they were trying to airbase hop their way down to Indonesia for the oil. The US was thus using its most powerful leverage against Japan to prevent itself from losing that leverage.

          The Japanese oil shipments however would always be threatened by the US bases in the Philippines. The US could easily cut Japan off from Indonesian oil if it went for a full war. Thus Japan wanted to take the Philippines at the same time as they took Indonesia because if the US could build up in the Philippines to be prepared for a war with Japan then the US would easily win. Japan's strategy relied on getting to the battle field quicker than their enemy and then relying on defensive advantages to beat a superior enemy force trying to retake territory when they finally arrived. They could do this because all their rivals were all a world away and anyone who was close to them was vastly inferior in capability. However their near peer rivals all had bases near them which could be used to threaten them if they ever decided to do so. This was the reasoning behind the war against Russia in 1905 where they wanted them to not have Port Arthur and it worked perfectly in that case.

          Going after pearl harbour was an attempt to temporarily knock out the effective combat range of the US for long enough for them to establish a protective bubble of hard to capture unsinkable aircraft carriers on all the small islands. The Hawaii Islands are too large to be able to transform into impenetrable fortresses that are a b***h to take back.

          I'm aware that spreading into Indochina was definitely aggravating to the US, however, if no US colonies or territory was touched, I don't know if the US would have decided to go on the offensive first.

          Americans with all the planning and experience they gained would have still have suffered a lot in an invasion of the main islands, it was very fricking difficult for many reasons.
          The already worn out soviet army wouldn't have done shit unless they got american help, wich ofcourde would have never happened.

          This is more so what I'm talking about. Especially if Japan maintained it's "100 million die together" what would that look like versus a War Weary France, UK and USSR?
          I doubt the soviets could even spare enough of an army because the cold war is still starting and they'd want to maintain the majority in Europe.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Invade mainland France
      I sleep
      >Take Indochina
      THE ARSENAL OF DEMOCRACY HAS BEEN ACTIVATED.
      Doubt.jpg

      Why does everyone forget that by the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that the USSR was already preparing its own, massive, invasion of the Japanese home islands - and that this was a major factor in Japan surrendering to America and accepting American occupation after the war?

      Wasting money trying to invade China (and failing miserably) while the Soviets prepare the imminent invasion

      >Russian Invasion
      Of lands taken on the continent yes. However, without the US the Entire Japanese Fleet is still available, so idk how the frick the Russians are going to get there.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine if this image was real geography. Imagine a Japan full of Muslims inshallah

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >doesn't antagonize the US
    >continues stealing colonies in SE Asia and Invading China
    I don't think it works that way.

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    If the japs get their own oil somehow, america by that point wouldn't be able to lift a fricking finger unless they want to sacrifice their economy and 70% of their navy.
    At most they would fund insurgencies in jap colonies.

    The US military rep sheet historically is always to attack a weakened inferior enemy and somehow still maintain a high ratio of casualties as the superior force whike throwing resources at rhe problem until it went away.

    A modernized japanese pacific carrier navy with top of the line jet aircraft supporting it would mean thst the US would have to drag itself into a major war post ww2 for little payoff.
    Soviets wouldn't think of it for the same reasons as well as each side risking to show weakness and to expose their back to the other

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah then a colossal meteor hits the United States and Europe

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >At most they would fund insurgencies in jap colonies
      i raise you a far more extensive and intense support of the Republic of China. If America doesn't directly fight a conventional war against Japan, i could easily see them sending all the arms to the Chinese as they could along with a shitload of advisors. China was Japan's largest land warfare theatre by far and probably the Asian country most suited to doing damage to the Japanese military.
      i have no idea how the Maoists would react to this situation.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      They already beat brits out of Asia without many difficulties, they would just had expanded to India, Australia and inner China

      Insane weebs

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >The US military rep sheet historically is always to attack a weakened inferior enemy and somehow still maintain a high ratio of casualties as the superior force
      Except for the fact that in the Pacific War the US literally suffered less casualties than the Japanese despite being the attackers and the Japanese the defenders.
      The only battles the Japanese actually had less casualties than the US was in the Philippines and in Iwo Jima. Otherwise the USA actually tended to massacre the Japanese soldiers and completely annihilated them in the air and sea.
      Pic related: even with a home field defensive advantage and even with Kamikaze, Japan lost almost 50% more men

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        it is because there was nowhere for them to retreat and they were told they could never surrender so every enemy soldier had to become a casualty. Despite the memes about tryin to inflict as many casualties before dying rather than surrendering, "mopping up" operations are not as loss intensive for the attacker than full scale invasions. Most US casualties would have been in the beginning of the battle during the amphibious assaults.

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >If Pearl Harbor doesn't happen and Japan and Germany never align
    US embargoed Japan for oil when they came to an agreement with Vichy France to hand over control of Vietnam to the Japanese. At this point in time there was two French governments, one an Axis puppet, the other Allied. The cooperation of the Axis puppet with the Japanese signaled that Japan was increasingly an Axis power.

    The reason Japan was going into Vietnam was in part because they were trying to airbase hop their way down to Indonesia for the oil. The US was thus using its most powerful leverage against Japan to prevent itself from losing that leverage.

    The Japanese oil shipments however would always be threatened by the US bases in the Philippines. The US could easily cut Japan off from Indonesian oil if it went for a full war. Thus Japan wanted to take the Philippines at the same time as they took Indonesia because if the US could build up in the Philippines to be prepared for a war with Japan then the US would easily win. Japan's strategy relied on getting to the battle field quicker than their enemy and then relying on defensive advantages to beat a superior enemy force trying to retake territory when they finally arrived. They could do this because all their rivals were all a world away and anyone who was close to them was vastly inferior in capability. However their near peer rivals all had bases near them which could be used to threaten them if they ever decided to do so. This was the reasoning behind the war against Russia in 1905 where they wanted them to not have Port Arthur and it worked perfectly in that case.

    Going after pearl harbour was an attempt to temporarily knock out the effective combat range of the US for long enough for them to establish a protective bubble of hard to capture unsinkable aircraft carriers on all the small islands. The Hawaii Islands are too large to be able to transform into impenetrable fortresses that are a b***h to take back.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The US would probably be able to respond to an invasion of Hawaii from the west coast before Japan could fully take and fortify them so the strategy was to "ruin" the hawaii islands so they couldn't be used to defend the islands closer to japan in the time in would take to fortify them. To take Hawaii they would need to Pearl Harbour California as the reason for Pearl Habouring Hawaii was to take the Philippines. The reason they wanted to take the Philippines is because it both made it easier to take Indonesia and also made it so that the US couldn't cut them off from Indonesia by threatening their connection through Vietnam while they were using that oil to fortify the home islands.

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Japan isn't that big

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      It is

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        wtf

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The "Japan is smol" thing is a Psy op. Japan is bigger than Germany even.
      Southern Japan to northern Japan is like going from Alabama to Maine.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Japan only looks small in comparison to China and Russia.

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Then this would happen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WUMhgDINDU

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    a land invasion of australia would've been so fricking kino it's a shame this country has never had anything like that

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Oh no, Daisy and Bruce didn't get to experience horrors beyond their comprehension and have Japanese soldiers bayonet their baby to death, what a shame

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        tbh I don't think the Nips would go that far before the Australians kick them out

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        think of all the kino war films instead of rehashing Gallipoli for the 15th time though

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Hmmm you're kinda right on that one. Gallipoli is getting a bit stale.

          tbh I don't think the Nips would go that far before the Australians kick them out

          Australia only had 6 million people at the time. If Japs were willing to be total psychos they'd honestly probably manage to kill at least 1/6 of the country

  18. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Alternate reality where the US is never dragged into Europe by Germany, no Pearl Harbor, and the Phillipines remain untouched. However, the US continues programs such as lend lease, and the insurgent support by the OSS. Would Japan be able to realize their ambitions? Would the USSR still prevail against Germany?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *