If Japan had avoided war with Britain and the United States during WWII and focused instead on Dutch, Chinese...

If japan had access to a pregnant Anne Frank, they would have achieved its war goals. Prove me wrong

Japan could have only won if one of the Chinese factions allied them, think about it the Japanese did those mass rapes and stuff when they were fighting against people, what could China really lose from allying with the japs, at least from the point of view of a Chinese leader who doesn’t have the foresight of knowing modern history

The main problem with Japanese foreign pol is unironically their culture. Weebs have to swallow this hard pill. Allied foreign pol had much more adaptive flexibility especially in the pacific whereas Jap foreign policy was so intertwined with the idea of honouru that serious strategic blunders were constantly being made. The entire meme of "perimeter defense" should've been scrapped in 1939 and it would've if the Japanese war cabinet had level headed people on it but no muh bushido

Good post, I agree with most of it myself, but I don't think attacking Britain was a bad move. The Japanese stomped them pretty much the entire time, which is a benefit to keeping Europe secure for it's allies.

>The port there cuts them off from lend lease
Not entirely. The Soviet Far East received the plurality of Lend Lease shipments in tonnage but other areas like the North and Iran also processed millions of tons.

Britain would probably find an excuse to declare war on a nation that threatens its pacific dominance
USA would join because Japanese expansion is threatening
There is no scenario where a superpower doesn't join

>grabbed a shitton of land in WWII
From incompetent Chinamen and neglected colonial garrisons, mostly. Once they met actual, competent resistance they pretty much crumbled.

>who is Wang Jingwei

>this

>but other areas like the North and Iran also processed millions of tons
True, but not until the midwar. At any rate, the USSR wouldn't be able to supply the far east if Japan was attacking it. The war in the west might not actually change all that much, but they'd have to get used to not being able to draw any of the limited resources of the far east and set's the "win date" for the USSR back if at all.
>From incompetent Chinamen and neglected colonial garrisons, mostly. Once they met actual, competent resistance they pretty much crumbled.
If you look at the actual pivotal naval battles, they lost out of luck. A slight overcast in their favor could have shifted the entire war.

>if you look at the actual pivotal naval battles
but we were talking about the Japanese Army's capacities, not that of the Navy.

Wouldn't Vladivostok have been cut off in 1941 anyway since the Japanese attacked the US and thus would have sunk any US shipping in the waters?

Convenient to forget Singapore and the Philippines

Not if it provides Britain with intel on Germany (fuck Germany) and promises America to buttfuck Stalin.

>but they'd have to get used to not being able to draw any of the limited resources of the far east
They could probably get used to that. The closest industrial/resource center to the Japanese forces was all the way over in Tomsk, and even then anything besides the conquest of the massive industrial area of the Urals wouldn't leave a dent on the Soviet war economy.

>Singapore
>not a neglected colonial garrison
brainlet detected

It's hard to divorce the two. The battles they lost in against America were affected by naval supplies and air support. Look at any given battle against superior numbered and armed British forces and they obliterated them. The UK was not the power that the US was and it was on full display even at the tactical level.
>Wouldn't Vladivostok have been cut off in 1941 anyway since the Japanese attacked the US and thus would have sunk any US shipping in the waters?
Historically that's not what happened. The US was still able to ship to the USSR, and since the USSR had an agreement of non aggression with Japan (that they later broke), USSR shipping was handling the actual movement of items to avoid Japanese hostility. The non aggression pact with Japan really was a massive benefit to the USSR.

>Singapore neglected
>the British lynchpin of the far east

How so?

Except the soviets would hace been facing 2v1 because the U.S. would be involved. American didnt want to be mercenaries in another war and only were goaded into it when japan hit.

winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-169/churchill-and-the-fall-of-singapore/

abc.net.au/news/2017-02-14/fall-of-singapore-75-year-anniversary-commemorated/8267650

historyinanhour.com/2010/02/15/fall-of-singapore/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Singapore

85k Brits vs 36k Japs

Japan did not want to go to war with the US, they were forced to due to the drain on resources the war in china was costing them. They needed access to the oil in the east indies, but if they attacked the Dutch then the US would surely intervene. That's why they chose to launch a surprise attack on the Americans.
As for the soviets I have no idea what you think attacking them would achieve. Almost every time the japs fought them it ended badly, and the last thing they needed was to be drawn into another massive land war.

>what are Imphal and Kohima
>what is the battle of the Ngakyedauk

>Historically that's not what happened....
Ah, I see, thanks for the info.

>manned by poorly trained and poorly equipped colonial troops
>negligible air power
>stunningly incompetent commander
>not neglected
k senpaitachi

See:

Lol that's enough spin to start the prop on your getaway Spitfire

You (I assume it's you) said this:
>Look at any given battle against superior numbered and armed British forces and they obliterated them.
I gave you several examples of that not being the case.
>but muh singapore
was an undersupplied backwater led by a hilariously incompetent officer.
>pic related, it's him

Attached: percy.jpg (194x240, 5K)

>85,000 men
>capital harbor and British gateway to the entire pacific
>bunkers and coastal artillery lining the city
>Japan had to land miles north and march all the way done using bikes and rice rations
>Churchill said it'd take at least 50k men to do it and the Japs would be mad to try
Just because the Brits suck at fighting doesn't mean they neglect to put the troops where they should be.

>brits put an idiot in charge of their most important port
>they even know it's their most important port
>user picks a bunch of shitty side battles when Japan is fighting superior REAL adversary: the US of A(wesome)

Even assuming you are 100% right about Singapore (contemporaries like Churchill disagreed), Japan took the Philippines against MacArthur.

shitty troops from India and Australia that barely had training and weren't even at full strength.

I never said the city wasn't properly fortified (it was), it was just that the garrison manning it was second-rate at best.

I don't know too much about the battle for the Philippines desu, so I won't try to go into that.

>Bongs lost hard to the Japs in every single battle!
>No they didn't, in fact they got curbed hard in Burma
>b-but those battles aren't reeeelevant

>it was just that the garrison manning it was second-rate at best.
Because it was commanded by Britbongs for starters. See what happened was that the Brits sent all their real men all over the world to line up in rows and cut down enemies. They dispersed, many died, and left the home realm. So now all it was left with was a degenerating group of nutless sods spiraling down a well of cuckery into the present day.

>Slim
>Wingate
>Alexander
>Auchinleck
>Wavell
all these top lads served in Burma and were quite decent.

They're hardly relevant. The fact you're calling it Burma just reveals that you're a butthurt britfag. US and Japan were the titans of the {acific, Germany and USSR were titans in Europe-and then there's you. Getting shamed wherever you go and hoping for tactical "victories" in colonial backwaters hoping the ANZACs will nut up and do more suicide missions.

Impugning the capability of veteran Japanese infantry ca. 1940 is just dumb. These were perfectly capable troops, well equipped and trained for the operations and areas they were in. They inflicted remarkable delays against the Americans numerous times in strategically hopeless situations.

Japan was never going to beat the UK or the USA, but the army they did have could have beat China and some of Russia.

Two of those were decent. If you pick the correct two I'll grant you respect.

I never even started over the relevance you retarded weeb, you said the bongs got stomped by the Japanese whenever they fought, I proved they didn't, and you go >muh backwater

t. not even a bong (thank god)

>Japan took the Philippines against MacArthur
Japan took the Philippines against an under-supplied garrison primarily made up of constabulary units and reserve units before news about the war even broke and even then they never took full control due to guerrilla actions that were on-going until liberation. Seriously. They didn't even control 40% of the Philippines during their occupation. It's like giving them a major credit for taking Wake Island.

Slim and Auchinleck, Wingate was good too but on a smaller scale.

>you said the bongs got stomped by the Japanese whenever they fought, I proved they didn't, and you go >muh backwater
The point was to determine a bottomline situation. I didn't say the Japs were undefeated against the bongs, I meant that they tended to have strategic and operational superiority. Aside from a few tactical mishaps, the Japs dominated the Brits most of the time.
You're a fucking retard and you should neck yourself immediately. You scored -2 out of 2.

>Slim and Wingate
>not the best British commanders around
further arguments discarded

>Wingate
Wingate was one of them actually, but you just kind of threw him in there in favor of Auchinleck.

If Japan takes the Dutch East Indies, do you REALLY think anyone is going going to declare war on them? The USA won't. France doesn't exist anymore. Britain would be stupid to. The fight against Hitler is THE fight Britain cares about. What would be Britain's wargoal in this fight? Taking the islands of the Dutch East Indies back by force? Impossible without entirely defeating the Japanese navy, which ISN'T going to happen. If Britain declares war on the Japanese in 1941, it gets its fucking ass kicked and signs a peace treaty after the Japanese take Singapore. Japan had to find an alternate source of oil and other materiale after the USA stopped selling to them and taking the DEI is a good way to get a lot of it.
What I DO think is possible is that in the wake of Japan taking the Dutch East Indies the US starts deliberately provoking the Japanese, for instance refusing to respect Japan's claim on the DEI, convincing other nations to embargo them, building up ship and troop concentrations in the Philippines, conducting military exercises in their territorial waters, and flooding guns, tanks, and volunteers to Chiang Kai Shek. ie. poke the japs until their retarded Yamato Damashi Puraido compels them to attack the united states the way they did in real life and then beat the Japs into the ground.

Attached: 1494779171509.jpg (680x533, 128K)

then you're still wrong by one officer.

Attached: basedslim.jpg (259x194, 11K)

Let's move goalposts with qualitatives.

Hey my uncle was fucking there with the US cavalry but what the fuck does Us cav matter, right? What does it matter the japs had to contend with an amphibious invasion and a pretty good allied commader?

The point is the jaos could have beaten shitty chink armies amd russian conscripts all day if they had put their minds to it.

>If Japan chimps out in the US sphere of influence, do you REALLY think the US won't just let them shit in their backyard?
Also US literally had a secret defense pact with the Dutch and embargoed Japan because they moved against French Indochina.

>85,000 men
There were four understrength divisions (2 regiments instead of the typical 3) which represents around 2000 combat troops.

Why do you think the US would remain neutral. Would they really just sit back and let their biggest rival take over the pacific. Maybe not right away, but If they did prepare for war like you suggested then Japan would be even more fucked. The industrial capacity of the US was far greater than japan, every delay would just shift the balance further.

>Hey my uncle was fucking there with the US cavalry but what the fuck does Us cav matter, right?
There was only one cavalry regiment and it was a flip unit dumbass.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/26th_Cavalry_Regiment

You fucking dope, did you not think you'd get outed?

>not reading your own link

Attached: dumb fag.jpg (490x46, 12K)

Is it or is it not a fucking US cav division, equipped and trained as such? If you want to get racist with this go ahead but dont expect me to take you arguments seriously.

My great uncle was white and he fought with US cav in the phillipines, and was intensely proud of his unit.

Regiment*

>Is it or is it not a fucking US cav division
It was a US cav regiment, not a division, and it was full of flips you filthy dogeating gook.

Wait so was he white or American?

Oh good, just garden variety racism amd no good arguments. Anyone have any serious points?

>Hey my uncle was fucking there
Are you 80 years old?

Someone posited that Japan took the Philippines against an undersupplied forces that was largely Philippine reserves (which is factually true) and in response all you said was muh uncle was there, and you expect people to dignify your inanities with serious responses?

Yes, because i have first hand accounts of the fight and personally I think it's clear the Americans put up a fight in the Philippines which was superior to any the Russians or Chinese would have mounted in their place.

>equipped and trained as such
Nope. Out of the entirety of the Philippine garrison, 0% were fully supplied or trained for combat. It was a quick ditch effort done over 2 months. Iirc, only 20% of artillery units even had artillery. Your point about the naval invasion is irrelevant since the Navy immediately pulled out of the Philippines at Washington's request. On top of this, while the Battle of the Philippines WAS a tactical victory for the Japanese (despite not actually occupying even half of the archipelago), it was a major strategic defeat that cost them the Solomons, Borneo and Java and caused 3 years of headaches from guerrillas. Your point about Chinese armies and Russian conscripts is countered easily when you realise that Ichi-go and Khalkin Gol fucking failed so miserably that all offensive operations in China ceased and the Japanese signed a neutrality agreement with the Soviets out of sheer terror.

>because i have first hand accounts of the fight
You are definitely not a historian if you think your solitary (and dubious) primary source trumps the entire historiography based on thousands of primary works.

Chiang kai shek actually didn't care to attack the japanese and wanted to keep good relations until the warlords and others forced him into conflict after they kidnapped him.
Also the Japanese did ally with chinese and set up various puppet governments on the mainland in the cities. Chinese for the most part cooperated in the cities.

>lose battle
>outnumbered enemy almost 3 to 1
>"well, you see what happened was...."

>pretty good allied commader
MacArthur was incompetent

America in the Philipines:
>more troops
>more tanks
>enjoys defensive advantage which Japanese would later use to much better effect against Americans throughout the Pacific campaign

Japan in Philipines:
>enjoys air superiority
>enjoys naval superiority
>wins all the parts of the area that actually fucking matter leaving you to bitch about how guerrillas controlled the irrelevant countryside
>BTFOs US Marines at Corregidor

>Ichi-go a failure
literally a tactical Japanese victory

>Khalkin Gol
>ever not lopsided as fuck in favor of the Soviets in innumerable ways
>in any way representing the ability of the Soviets to keep Vladivostok against Japanese Combined Arms.

You may not be aware of this because all you're focused on is whether the Americans were represented in full force in the Philippines, but the point of the thread is highly ahistorical and we're trying to surmise how Japan would have fared vs. Russian Far East army units in hypothetical 1940s coastal actions based on Japanese successes against Americans early on.

Does any of your historiography deal with that notion?

Dude no, you are just running a fucking narrative

>Japanese successes against Americans early on.
You mean Filippinos right? Or are you referring to Wake and Guam?

Japan should've picked Subdue Chinese Warlords focus and conquered different parts of China one by one, then they can go after the Soviets while holding off on declaring war against the US until the last minute.

Great Post

t. americano

>war with Britain

This is even worse than the other Brit delusions about WW2. Britain in the Pacific was a non-entity.

>If Japan had avoided war with Britain and the United States during WWII and focused instead on Dutch, Chinese, and Soviet holdings

you really think would let Japan build up a nice little pacific empire without getting involved? War with the US was inevitable, why do you think they surprise attacked them?

Alright Veeky Forums riddle me this: what if the bong commander isn't a turbo pleb and doesn't surrender Singapore without a proper fight? Obviously not Stalingrad tier but a determined defence.

The japs seemed incredibly lucky that they won

Wasn't the US planning on getting rid of the Phillipenes at some point? Like it wasn't profitable and all so why didn't the Japs just try to buy it?

Why do you even mention Britain as if they had been relevant to the Japanese defeat, when they got absolutly BTFO by Japs?

Your sentence should have been
>If Japan had avoided war with the United States during WWII and focused instead on British, Dutch, Chinese, and Soviet holdings, it could have achieved its war goals.

And the answer is yes

Attached: sn.png (646x1096, 427K)

>Why do you think the US would remain neutral.
cause historically US policy cared very little for asian and pacific politics. they were always a sideshow, especially in WWII where roosevelt mostly cared about nazi germany. He actually didn't want to get caught up in the pacific at all but pearl harbor forced him to

>War with the US was inevitable
brainlet detected

The isolation loving American public would never ever honor that pact.

>Burma didn't happen
The Anglophobia on this board really gets out of hand sometimes

The U.S agreed to give the Philippines independence and was setting up for it as it was suppose to happen real soon. Then Japan invaded was like "We are riberators!"

They were pretty ok with the US being at war nearly constantly since its founding, and in WW2 the US public didn't mind that the US was engaging in extremely belligerent activities such as literally shooting at German ships and invading and occupying a neutral country.

>if X just didn't do these things that made them lose then they wouldn't have lost
Gee

they tried the soviet one a few times. And failed. every. single. fucking. time.

it's a hypothetical designed to winnow down what the real moment of no return for a nation was.

they might have held out longer, but I think they still eventually would have surrendered if Britain didn't send more, better equipped forces.

Japan was essentially running out of steam some time before Pearl Harbour