WI: Iapo-American War in the '20s-'30s?

Wolfpaw

Banned
All on the tin. What could lead to a war between Japan and the United States in the 1920s or 1930s? What would such a war look like, who would the leaders be, strategies, homefront effects, etc, etc.

I suppose there's the Panay Incident, but that seems a bit old hat, so bonus INTERNET POINTS!!1!$$$!1 if you can come up with something original :)
 
AudieonAHCom

AudieonAHCom

Wolfpaw said:
All on the tin. What could lead to a war between Japan and the United States in the 1920s or 1930s? What would such a war look like, who would the leaders be, strategies, homefront effects, etc, etc.

I suppose there's the Panay Incident, but that seems a bit old hat, so bonus INTERNET POINTS!!1!$$$!1 if you can come up with something original :)
Click to expand...
I only can of thinking one thing.."The Conclusions". If US-Japan fails to achieve peace,or still fighting until late 30's,prepare for a harder WWII..or even a early pacific front.If US-Japan achieved peace by treaties(not with winning the war),prepare for a colder Pacific front..the last of it,IF neither US or Japan can win the war(but not annexing any territories,only winning skirmishes,or even rising the casualty meter skyhigh...)..expect a easier pacific front for neither Japan,or US. If japan suceeded,america will lose all grips on the pacific,while if US won,the nuke wouldn't be dropped,Operation:Downfall will be commenced.
 

Danth

jaoan hasnt attacked the europeans yet so the war is shorter as america only has to worry about japanese posesions and not areas such as australia
 

Bob in Pittsburgh

Let’s assume Japan wants nothing to do with the Washington Naval Conference. The result would be a Pacific arms race but the United States would not go to anything near the total war footing of the 1940s. By 1930 Japan probably would have completed its Eight-Eight Plan of battleships and battlecruisers. United States would have completed the Montana class battleships and 2 or 3 of the Lexington battlecruisers. Instead of invading China Japan begins an anti imperialist drive to stir up trouble in the Philippines, Dutch East Indies, French Indo China and Malaya. Pick a war supporting whichever insurgency seems to have the best chance.
 
NHBL

NHBL

"Great Pacific War" by Bywater

Look up "The Great Pacific War," written by Hector Bywater. He wrote it in 1927, and it's set from 1931 to 1933. It portrays, reasonably well, a war betyween the USA and Japan. IMVHO, it's quite plausible, though not perfect.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

The Ubbergeek said:
BTW, I believe it would be Nippo-american as the correct adjective in english.. not sure, though.
Click to expand...

Useful answer. Use ,,Japanese-American,, to be safe. I dont think theres a useful combining form for either nation.

Unhelpful answer. Clearly hes talking about the us going up against the formidible might of Yap, the pacific island.
 
Jape

Jape

Was going to bring up Bywater.

I imagine without Taranto there's no *Pearl Harbour style attack. So the early months of naval war would probably see direct ship to ship fighting. No idea how that would pan out. However given distances involved I can see the aircraft carrier slowly becoming more important through the success of spotter planes and island based aircraft.

Thing is, with a decade less and no WWII, the atomic bomb isn't happening but Japanese do or die ideology is. Would the United States be willing to sacrifice for a victory in what is effectively a regional war?
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
Jape said:
Was going to bring up Bywater.

I imagine without Taranto there's no *Pearl Harbour style attack. So the early months of naval war would probably see direct ship to ship fighting. No idea how that would pan out. However given distances involved I can see the aircraft carrier slowly becoming more important through the success of spotter planes and island based aircraft.
Click to expand...

The British since 1919 have been sitting on their plans of an aerial attack on Wilhelmshaven by carrier launched aircraft. Supposedly they dusted it off when considering action against the Italians during the Ethopian Crisis and they more likely shared their plans with the Japanese in the 1920s when helping to form Japanese naval aviation.
 

CT23

NHBL said:
Look up "The Great Pacific War," written by Hector Bywater. He wrote it in 1927, and it's set from 1931 to 1933. It portrays, reasonably well, a war betyween the USA and Japan. IMVHO, it's quite plausible, though not perfect.
Click to expand...

How did that book turn out?

I can't get it on Amazon right now and am willing to be spoiled on the ending.
 

DD951

CT23 said:
How did that book turn out?

I can't get it on Amazon right now and am willing to be spoiled on the ending.
Click to expand...

(highlight the rest of the post as white text used in case others don't want spoilers)

Short version is that in a battle near Yap, the US wins the great, decisive battleship clash that both sides were expecting, & although it was costly for both sides, the USN still has enough operational combat power to carry out the invasion of Guam & the Philippines & retake the islands after intense & costly fighting, while a Chinese counteroffensive starts making progress & drives the Japanese back out of China, & started to be in a position to threaten Korea, (just slightly optimistic in light of OTL events) while Japan had to buy the Soviets off by returning the lower half of Sakhalin. Meanwhile, the USN starts seriously interdicting Japanese commerce, & even launches an air-raid against Tokyo from carriers to drop propaganda leaflets, leading to public discontent with the war reaching a boiling point, & the Japanese government, facing an increasingly hopeless military situation & domestic disorder, sues for peace.

In the treaty, the Japanese surrendered the ex-German Mandates to the US, & other territorial changes were on the basis of who occupied them (which worked to the benefit of the US as they occupied all the Japanese Pacific islands & retaken their own territory.) No reparations were demanded, though there was a side commercial pact. Both governments pledged to respect the territorial, political, & economic integrity of China & consult each other with a view to joint action against third parties that try to do so. Although victorious, the US didn't get any real benefit other than eliminating the threat of war with Japan by breaking Japan as a great power for at least a generation, which was offset by major debts, high taxes, & the destruction of much of the US merchant fleet by Japanese raiders.
 
Hetalia

Hetalia

Bob in Pittsburgh said:
Let’s assume Japan wants nothing to do with the Washington Naval Conference. The result would be a Pacific arms race but the United States would not go to anything near the total war footing of the 1940s. By 1930 Japan probably would have completed its Eight-Eight Plan of battleships and battlecruisers. United States would have completed the Montana class battleships and 2 or 3 of the Lexington battlecruisers. Instead of invading China Japan begins an anti imperialist drive to stir up trouble in the Philippines, Dutch East Indies, French Indo China and Malaya. Pick a war supporting whichever insurgency seems to have the best chance.
Click to expand...
Invading Philippines this early though, is suicidal. It will be, Pre-WWI/Russo-Japanese War Doctrine Army (Japan) vs. Modern Warfare+Guerrilla Doctrine Army and Irregulars (US/Philippines), considering that unlike WWII, Japan isn't well armed yet, and has no real experience to modern combat, except Russo Japanese War and Pacific Theater WWI which involves more naval engagements than land engagements, and when they do engage on land, 19th century doctrines still seems to work for them. For them, machine-guns of the 20th century is no different to the Gatling Guns used during the Boshin War and Satsuma Rebellion. In contrast, Filipinos and Americans stationed in the Philippines has experience in Spanish-American War, Filipino-American War, and Western-front WWI, where the former two involves Guerrilla Warfare and the latter involves Trench Warfare, these experiences will prove vital to the defenders, and gives them flexibility in situations, which is in contrast to the rigid Japanese. The defenders can make Philippines look like Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Guerrilla + Trench Warfare > Rigid, Line Formation Doctrine

With out Air Support and modern equipment, it will be a massacre for the Japanese.

Not to mention, facing only one front, America can concentrate forces to the Pacific theater immediately, bringing more hell to Japan, and denying Philippines from the Japanese, while simultaneously, make landings on the Japanese Home Islands.
 
Last edited:
NHBL

NHBL

Not on the Home Islands...

I would consider American landings in force on the home islands to be relatively unlikely. You would need the USA willing to accept MASSIVE casualties, as well as develop the techniques needed.

IMVHO, a war between the USA and Japan would not be an existential threat to the USA, or seen as such. Even if Japan refused to surrender, like in 1945, would the USA invade, blockade, or see if some sort of face-saving settlement could be reached? Part of that answer depends on how far Japan has changed from its Great War society, culture, and government to its World War II versions.

(Small raids on the home islands might be done, to show that they can be, and hit specific targets...)
 

Richter von Manthofen

The Book by Hector Bywater would be an interesting read.

I "only" have one thing to criticises.

in a review about the book its stated that the Japanese open hostilities by conquering Formosa (=Taiwan) and Korea - but tose were already owned by the Japanese...?
 

DD951

Richter von Manthofen said:
The Book by Hector Bywater would be an interesting read.

I "only" have one thing to criticises.

in a review about the book its stated that the Japanese open hostilities by conquering Formosa (=Taiwan) and Korea - but tose were already owned by the Japanese...?
Click to expand...

That reviewer got it wrong, as the war didn't start that way, & Japan & China didn't actually go war until quite some time had passed
 

Richter von Manthofen

Thanks for the clarification - a conteporary (2012) writer (not necessarily US;)) might have made such a blunder, but in 1925 writers usually made their homework, so I was wondering :D
 

bsmart111

I found Great Pacific War on Google Books (I didn't really need it I have two copies on my shelf :))

http://books.google.com/books?id=KOys6iShHT4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Great+Pacific+War&source=bl&ots=uptwnm6pFU&sig=d2kvO-SC7NVHC8sLLSlr7nQ4pmQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xB06UP62KMap0AGYg4GgDQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Great%20Pacific%20War&f=false

I have always found it very interesting as much for the differences it has with the reality of WWII as the similarities

1) The use of GAS.

2) The way the Japanese abided by the Geneva Conventions and other western 'rules of war'

There is also some naval action in European waters as part of 'Commerce Warfare'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top