"Japan first, then Germany. What if?????" Topic

The Allies made the decision to go after Germany first and then devote their attention to Japan. Would Germany have been totally defeated in the end? Or would they have been able to get a brokered peace? What would've the post war world looked like?

What gaming scenarios could this alternative produce?

There was a discussion on a similar thread about brokered peace. No allied nation was interested in a compromise peace plan. Yes, Germany would have been totally defeated. Japan may have tried to hold out longer hoping for help from Germany, although the Tripartite Pact did not require help, only proscribed interference, IIRC.

Gaming scenarios could include Asia-based German a/c and ships, German weapons used by Japan; in Europe, further development of Germany's secret weapons, a larger navy (finished construction of a CV, for example), a stronger Atlantic wall, a defeated Russia, etc.

a communist europe?

Wait, didn't they win? I mean – they got out of the great depression, got completely rebuilt from top to bottom from virtually scratch, and were again welcomed into the arms of at least some of the allied powers. Sorry, but to speculate that Germany, Italy, and Japan could have won WWII is like speculating whether the U.S. would lose to Iraq in a pitched battle. Logistics was the problem, the Germans knew it, the Japanese knew it, the Italians at least had some idea that logistics were relevant. When Russia produces more tanks in 1942 than Germany does during the entire war, you begin to see the problems. Germany had no real chance of success unless they were to immediately sue for peace after the fall of France in 1940 and then renegotiate the peace treaty on more fair terms – which could not happen for one reason – Hitler. Megalomania knows no bounds.

There's an argument to be made that Germany could have caused enough harm to Russia in 1941 to cause the Communist government to not be able to continue the war.

Without Russia in the East, the situation is completely different.

But assuming that doesn't happen – Communist Europe gets my vote as most likely result.

If the "Allies" , primarily the US, decided on a Japan first policy then I suspect that Germany would have won the war or at least a negotiated peace.

A Japan first theory has to be applied to all areas. Jovian mentions logistics which is the key. The allies would not have had the naval or particularly amphibious capability to conduct a trans Pacific campaign, landings in China etc until probably 1943 at the earliest. To do this would have meant concentration of industry on weapons that would been used against Japan and not Germany .

One immediate question is would Britain and the USSR have received so much lend lease. While Russia built a lot of tanks it depended heavily on lend lease sources for transport .

Two things could have happened .Stalin already angered about no allied second front signs an armistice .If Stalin keeps on fighting the Germans take advantage of Soviet weaknesses and push further in or at least delay a Soviet counterattack.Also would there have been a bombing campaign against Germany.

Meanwhile German industry has been given a breather and concentrates on atomic and missile warfare and weapon development in tanks and aircraft. Another question is would the allies have had the Atomic bomb at the end of the Japanese phase or not? Remember it took 5 year in reality so 1945 again is likely provided the program had been given the same priority.

So what happens when the allies do turn against Germany are both or one side nuclear ? Would Atomic bombs have been used in Europe on a large scale – Or would an earlier version of MAD ( Mutually assured destruction ) have developed and a negotiated settlement made. Or The Allies do not have the bomb and Germany does ?

Looking at these points I think it is reasonable to argue that the Germany first policy was correct.

Given the enormous scale of the Allied nuclear effort, and the ugly historical fact (sorry, what-if lovers) that the German (not to say the Japanese) atomic efforts were nowhere near that level of economic effort, nor would they have been, it's pretty ridiculous to speculate that the German state would have put so much effort into a program that the Nazi leadership viewed through racialist lenses as "Jewish science".

Upshot of this: a Nazi atomic bomb is on par with Nazi zombies and walking panzers in 1945.

Why, exactly, would the Allies pursue what is clearly the weaker of the two Axis powers first, especially as the United States in 1941 had been undertaking a program of near-war with Germany in the first place? The premise makes no sense.

Gremany was totally off track in its atomic research, so we can safely ignore any German atomic bomb.
There is some question over whether Heisenberg was doing this deliberately or not. In any event, the best minds on the subject (except Heisenberg) had fled to Britain or the US. After all, quantum mechanics and atomic research was considered "Jewish science".

As for "Germany First", we have Herr Hitler to thank for that. After all, the US was perfectly willing to go all out vs Japan until Hitler declared war on the US on December 11.

In the immediate Post-war, the only change would have been ending the war a bit later, with more nations inside the Soviet sphere after Germany was eventually defeated…

After that part, I'd say all bets are off regarding predicting other outcomes and time-lines of events (China, Korea, Africa, Middle East/Israel, Pakistan/India, Vietnam, all would have been altered.)

This nearly happened via the back door with the the greater 'what if' (and almost 'what did') as to what would have been the out come of a successful bomb plot to assassinate Hitler.

You'll note that the US did do a "Japan first" offensive that sucked up most of the US Navy, all of the Marine Corps and the bulk of all US Army troops overseas (until late 1942 – early 1943). Only the move to invade Italy in fall 1943 and the Normandy/Southern France invasions moved the majority of US forces to Europe.

Even the percentage of US Army Air Force units was higher in the Pacific – Asia area until late in the war.

Dan

Even if the USA had decided to focus on fighting Japan, they would still have had a lot of resources left for fighting Germany. US industry could produce far more tanks, trucks, planes and guns than were needed for the Pacific campaign, while building the necessary warships couldn't be rushed that much. Similarly, the army could train far more soldiers than could fit on small pacific islands.

So pure logistics dictate that even with a "Japan-first" US policy, there would be plenty of stuff left for Lend-Lease and fighting Germany. Though D-day would probably have been delayed or not happened at all, so the Soviets might have occupied all of Germany.

There is increasing evidence that a German UBoat was sent in April 1945 to Japan from Germany but surrendered to Allied forces around VE Day. The cargo contained 560kg of Uranium oxide and approximately 3.5kg of the isotope U- 235 or about one third the amount required to make a nuclear bomb. That Germany was even able to produce U235 , given its low priority, suggests that their nuclear program was a lot more realistic than zombies.

link

The article suggests that Japan was a lot closer to the n bomb than most people at the time thought. Probably a lot of information was destroyed by the allies in 1945 on both German and Japanese program so I do not feel that any definitive answer is possible.

The Japs certainly had the brainpower and potential technology to produce a Bomb--However they lacked Uranium and so it was a no-go from the start--
The idea of German ICBMs raining down on the world would never have happenned--The Germans put as much resources inton the V weapons as we did into the A-Bomb--so it is a case of either or--not both!(Luckily) I don't see that a Japan first policy would have made much difference--as stated above there was plenty of resources to go round and most of the USN was focused on the Pacific anyway--with the RN largely responsible for the Atlantic….

There is some question over whether Heisenberg was doing this deliberately

Even he wasn't sure.

Japan first would have led to a Russian border on the Rhine or possibly further west.

in my first post i said "communist" europe meaning not neccesarily soviet. france and greece are both candidates for this as well as yugoslavia and other smaller states.

Two things:

as Dan has pointed out Japan first was much more on the ground that usually thought. Despite Churchill bidding King and Macarthur were teo bigger powers than Marhsall and FDR combined (espcially considering how King was playing).

Also the idea that ithout massive american commtiment in europe Stalin would have had free hand… again if they weren't fighting the Allies hwere all those german formation in France and Italy would have ended? Also if the america stop the blug of lend and lease the massive production in Soviet tanks would have been divided with trucks and other stuff…

also raw production numbers are silly… how many tanks in 1942 were BT, T26 and T60?

Again the soviet got berlin in 1945 with an army in shambles… male population was depleted (they had plutaiton problems until the fities, logistic support was collpasing and still the Luftwaffe was holding their own agaisnt the soviets with startegic bombing campaign, france, italy and lend an lease…

Considering that the underground Japan first policy actually applied I doubt that WW2 would have changed.

Let's not forget technology. The US was stimied in helping the Brits out because of the Uboat war. A massive effort in more effective radar eventually gave the allies a credible ASW capability. Had the German's put such an effort into the Luftwaffe to aid the submarines they probably would have dominated the Atlantic for longer and kept America at bay.

The real implication of 'Japan First' is no D-Day in 1944 (and presumably no Torch in 1942, Husky in 43 etc).

Giving Germany and Italy an essentially free hand is to doom Russia to at least a stalemate in 1943 if not outright defeat, and possibly a stalemate in 1944.

Try playing Third Reich without significant US air, naval and land resources and see just how far the Germans can go…

Having defeated or at least made peace with Russia, then the prospects of a 1945 D-Day don't look terribly peachy. You can drop all the A-Bombs you like on Germany, without boots on the ground the Germans aren't going to surrender, and how do you fancy Britain being drenched in nerve gas plus submarine/air launched missile attacks on the US?

German occupied Europe posed a far greater threat than Japan did, it had vast industrial potential, which was why historically the Allies chose Germany first. their task was made a bit easier by Hitlers lunatic decision to declare war on the USA. Now there is a 'what if'. What if after Pearl Harbor, Germany hadn't declared war on the USA….

I think most people are looking at this with the wrong perspective. Yes, America had production power, but not until late '42 early '43. If America went for a Japan first campaign, I believe they would have been bogged down. Look at Guadalcanal or Wake. Not only that but Lets not forget the Devastated Navy. The Navy was No-existent due to the Peal Harbor Bombings. No Navy, still gearing up for war… Not only that but as many have mentioned, Lend Lease was the life blood to Britain and Russia. If the US did decide to do a Japan first, would the lend/lease program have continued? I think after the many defeats in the Pacific, the US would have cut off Lend/lease if Britain and Russia didn't go along for the ride in the Pacific. The question now is what would Britain and Russia have done? Britain had resources in the Pacific, but again major defeat had them losing a foot hold. The Soviets had some boarder skirmishes with the Japanese in China which resulted in a stalemate. I'm thinking that the Brits would have thought Europe was still the best bet and continued to resist Germany. Russia, again would probably have done the same as Japan is really just worried about Asian Conquest. So now we have Britain and Russia Fighting Germany with next to nothing in material. The only real tank the Russians had was the T-34, which at this point would still be in few numbers. Early experiences for the Germans in Russia suggest it would have been an easy go. The next point is Stalingrad, for most scholars believe this is the turning point in the West. Again, what would have happened? We know that Stalin was SCREAMING for a second front, the allies gave him one with the Dieppe disaster. But if we go with the Pacific campaign first there would have been NO Dieppe and the Germans would not have had to hold troops at the West Wall for a possible Allied Invasion. More troops for the Russian Front equals more fighting power and this gives Hitler the idea that he can win in the East.

We could go on and on, but I was just trying to show people that you can't OVERLOOK certain aspects because that is what historically happened. Going into a What if scenario one has to re-look at everything. The wild card in this situation is Hitler. Suppose Hitler decided against the Jewish extermination. Let's also remember that the Atom Bomb theory hinges on certain Jewish Scientist making it out of Europe. If a Pacific Campaign happened would they have made it out? Would Britain or America have taken them? Remember that the first Jewish Solution was Deportation to other countries. This didn't work as No other country was willing to take Jews. America originally had one of the LOWEST percentages of Jewish Refugees.
All this aside, you also have to deal with the Sub Hunting in the North Atlantic, which again would have been non existent as the Navy was wiped out in '41 All this and we still haven't taken into account Italy's part in this. Again this is My Opinion, but as I stated you can't go into this saying America would have out Produced again and won the war, as American needed that 2 year gap between 1941 and 1943 to re-build the Navy, Airforce and Army as well as supply the Allies.

"Germany First" was the bargaining chip that kept Russia in the war (never mind Lend Lease).

Japan First => Russia signs a treaty with Germany => All of Germany's attention is focused on the West => D-Day is impossible, the war is stalemate for years. Maybe Cairo falls, Britain is weakened economically and disconnected from important colonies: India and Iraq throw off their Anglo-overlords and deepen ties with Nazi Germany. And if you really want to go nuts, Germany invades Britain, but probably not.

After years of stalemate the U.S. asks why its even bothering with the war.

So Japan first was never going to happen, but if it did you do get a very different war, and after war. In the scenario above, Germany gets the bomb first, then the U.S., and Russia perhaps not for a decade or more later. The space race and cold war would have been fought against Germany.

Andrew

Japan First:
America has a hard slog island hopping but gets to Japan.
But the bomb is not ready and the Japs are going to fight!

We know the Japs had lots of suicide aircraft,boats and a will to die that makes most modern suicide bombers look like wimps!
They may have even used biological and gas warfare
After mass slaughter that makes Omaha beach look like a walk in the park the Americans reach Toko – Japan surrenders.

American popular opinion turns against the war – after all Pearl Harbour has been avenged.
America has a Pacific empire

Meanwhile in Europe the German war economy has not been devastated by the RAF (damaged, yes – devastated, no) The Atlantic wall is strong Britain is an irritant the can be lived with for now.
(Their time will come!)

The Atlantic has become a killing ground for convoys – few supplies reach Russia.
The Russian front is hard but Germany wins the land it wants Russia is force back behind the Urals
and a tottering Soviet state sues for peace.

Germany gets the bomb London is toast!

Now we see a cold war arms race between America and Germany.
German genius produces great ICBMS plus jet bombers etc
Wouldn't the White house look good with a swastika? Thinks Hitler! …….

The war would have ended the same day. The first a-bomb would have been dropped on Berlin instead of Hiroshima.

Btw you still get a lot of credence of the application of germany first strategy on the ground.

In the end the first american offensive happened in the pacific when the US forces were ready.

The idea of a devasteted navy don't hold agaisnt reality check… (Carriers were safe, USN was on the offensive almost immediatly, and the battlehsip were again operational as early as April; there is an interesting article on TF one on the Journal of Military History).

Despite what Marshall and some other wanted Pacicif was always well sotcked up to the LOGISTICAL CAPABILITY of the area (caps intended). In terms of raw resources Pacific got much more than europe. Germany First was a diplomatich chip used both for internal and foreign bargaining. Churchill had got wind of it almost immeadiatly and complained with no avail. I would opunt out that the landings in the Marshalls and Mariannas had a much lςavish scale of support that anything in europe. While Churchill was bargaining for sufficiant landing shipping for Anzio King, Nimits and MacArthur had no problems…

So I would dare to say tha in the end we have seen if not a Japan First at least a Germany-Japan together

And please do not talk of devastated navy, disproved by Wilmott, Lundstrom and Frank or Dieppe Second front… Dieppe didn't fooled anyone, Germans or Soviet…

Germany was faced with a two front war from the very beginning – they knew it and they planned for it. The "What if" scenarios can go so many different directions as there are so many things which can be "what if" that they can go all over the place. The problem is the personalities at the head of Germany and Russia. Neither Hitler nor Stalin would broker a peace – Stalin because he could not lose face within the party as this was the great patriotic war which had to be won at all costs. Hitler, because he thought he was invincible as he had won in France, Poland, and the earlier political developments like the Anschluss, which made him into a megalomaniac.

A just as plausible "what if" would be – What if France and Britain had actually launched a real offensive against Germany within days after the German offensives against Poland? France had the men, the tanks, the planes, the artillery, and the wherewithall to do it, and the BEF would have only further bolstered their abilities. What if France had done a reverse von Schlieffen plan against the Germans and had an offensive minded generation of generals or at least forward thinking generals like Manstein, Guderian, or similar? Would Germany have collapsed within hours, days, weeks, or months? Would the German General Staff have authorized the assassination of Hitler upon the launching of this offensive and sued for peace? I speculate that if the British and French forces had launched an all out offensive against Germany within 30 days of the German invasion of Poland, that Germany would have collapsed within 6 months to a year or that Hitler would have been assassinated.

Hitler had promised the German General Staff that no campaign would be launched against France or Russia until at least 1942 to allow them to build up their armored forces and to strengthen their infantry and air force. The critical factor is the adventure which Hitler launched them on when Britain and France declared war when he invaded Poland against the advice of the General staff. Hitler had counted on Britain and France not doing anything and vassilating like they had with all of the earlier annexations and sword rattling by Germany. Hitler counted wrong, which caused the General Staff to report that they were doomed unless they could win in Poland and then fight for a brokered peace with France and Britain early on – when Poland fell in such short order – it bolstered Hitler's confidence in his abilities, and the abilities of the German army. Caution remained within the General staff however, and they were very afraid that the gamble that became termed "blitzkrieg" would be a total disaster and it nearly was but for the total incompetence of the French response to the German invasion and the total success of the German propaganda machine and counter-intelligence system.

The problem with so many "what if" scenarios is there are just as many speculative responses – what if Stalin had allowed his field commanders to actually command their units and promoted the most successful and didn't purge them as a threat? What if the Soviet Union had launched an all-out production of the best fighter designs from 1938 at the time they were put forth and then put a massive effort into training pilots? What if they actually trained their tank crews and did not purge the officer and senior enlisted ranks of the armed forces in 1935 and later years? What if . . . I guess this is my point, based upon all of my reading and research, the only way Germany wins World War II, is to ally themselves with the United States and to then secure their logistical supply lines. This cuts off both England and France from supplies, eliminates lend-lease to the Soviet Union, and if Germany played their cards right – they could have divided China with the U.S. and allowed the U.S. to keep Japan. This is a more likely scenario than Germany winning with the U.S. against them – Russia had been dealt a severe blow by 1942, but the German army was out of steam, out of supply, and out of gas. Russia did exactly what they were expected to do – exhaust the supply capabilities of the invaders and allow the Russian winter to destroy the fighting ability of the invader. Which happened in early 1942 when Germany failed to take Stalingrad and Moscow. Those two failures dooms Germany to defeat – regardless of how you look at the rest of the What IF scenario. Those two defeats give the Soviet army time to regroup, refit, and launch their counter offensive.

German industry is so short on critical supplies before the war – they didn't secure them during the first six months of 1941 when they invaded Russia – and they did not launch a war-time economy in all of their controlled areas (France and the rest of Europe) to insure that they had adequate supplies, hardware, and fuel to keep up with their advances.

The U.S. is the deciding factor on who wins WWII – it doesn't matter which way you slice it – the incredible unknown in 1940 was how great the industrial might the U.S. was capable of being. German ambassador staff said in 1941, shortly after the declaration of war – in early February, 1942, that Germany has lost the war when he watched a "Liberty" ship built in less than a day and launched – he knew right then – that there were DOZENS of shipyards just like this launching a liberty ship every hour of the day as production ramped up – and that was just the transport system being built to transport military hardware, material, and troops, let alone the production of the rest of the industrial system!

How would France & Britain attack Germany?
France had a strategy based on defence – the The Maginot Line

Germany had the Siegfried Line which proved very effective even in 1944.

I doubt that France & Britain would have violated the neutrality of Belgium.

Narvik proved that a it is not easy to get the logistics right in such a short time so I do not think that they could have opened a front in Poland.

Actually France strategy was offensive… Maginot libne was in place only to allow the mobilization of french reserev and freeing a mobile force for offensive operations…

another hard to die myth

But the cost of such defences Left little money for an effective offensive force..

Buying time while you mobilise means the enemy has the initiative, your response is defensive.

The Black Tower
''Japan First: America has a hard slog island hopping but gets to Japan. But the bomb is not ready and the Japs are going to fight!''

No problem. Japan required constant imports of foodstuffs and raw materials to maintain its war effort. Bottled up in Japan (as MacArthur wrote), it wouldn't have been very effective and could have been blockaded and left alone while the Allies turned to Europe.

The main problem, is Hitler's invasion of Russia.

Without the bombing of its cities, the war in North Africa and the Threat from England, Hitler would not have bothered pursuing his fantasy of peace with Great Britian and so fatally delaying the invasion of Russia. Further, without the necessity of defending Europe from the attacks from Britian, he would simply have had more material to launch against Russia in '43. If Russia had lost, Hitler would have won.

Meanwhile, the US (as warewolf wrote) was simply not ready for war immediately. Aside from having little Navy after Pearl Harbor and no army (and an inexperienced army at that) it needed to build up its manufacturing capability. Don't forget, that Britian's war began in 1939 and
it wasn't until after (the British and Commonwealth dominated) Normandy landings that the US could place more troops in theatre than Britian. So the question is, what would the Allies have done until then?

Jovian1
''The U.S. is the deciding factor on who wins WWII – it doesn't matter which way you slice it – the incredible unknown in 1940 was how great the industrial might the U.S. was capable of being''.

Possibly true, but until the beginning of 44, Britian and its Dominions were the dominant military partner in the Alliance. You would have to argue that somehow it was in Britain's interest to go after Japan before Germany – and I think that's a tricky one to argue.

The Black Tower – that's another myth I'm afraid. The Maginot Line had been paid for well before the war & the French were in the process of purchasing & building large quantities of modern ordinance when the Germans struck. There were plenty of failing on the part of France prior to & during WWII but the Maginot Line wasn't really one of them. After all, it worked; unfortunately for the French the Germans (literally) found a way around it.

Defensively the the problem for the Germans in the West in 1939 was not so much the Siegfried Line itself, (even though it was incomplete) but the lack of troops to man it; only some 10 divisions, & some of those only partially trained & mobilised & with no armour & very little heavy equipment. They really were worried that the Western allies would attack during the Polish campaign because there really wasn't anything that they could do to stop them. Fortunately for the German war effort, that wasn't part of the allied strategy.

The Black Tower
''But the cost of such defences Left little money for an effective offensive force.'
'France had a strategy based on defence – the The Maginot Line''

Huw R Davies
''The Black Tower – that's another myth I'm afraid. The Maginot Line had been paid for well before the war & the French were in the process of purchasing & building large quantities of modern ordinance when the Germans struck.''

1) Defence

I think you'll find that The Black Tower is correct and that practically, the French plan was indeed defensive in its overall stategic character. Plan D called for the British BEF and French 7th, 9th and 1st Armies to move to a defence line behind the Meuse and Dyle rivers. Then, the army was to conduct a policy of containment, attack and counter-attack as had been practised in WW1 within localised areas. The French command system, in practice, was defensive in character: Gamelin said that to get orders to the front took 48 hours. The 'Fortress' divisions had no transport. During the invasion, Gamelin used WW1 trench vocabulary, for example 'sealing off' enemy attacks and stabilising the front' etc.

2) Ordinance

The French already had plenty of ordinance: they had as many tanks as the Germans and theirs were much better: the Germans had nothing to match the Char or the Somua. The Allies together had slightly more aircraft than the Germans.

3) Money

Gol. A. Goutard wrote that ''the army was never refused any money'' In 1936 Gamelin asked for 9 billion francs and he got 14 billion and then another 23 billion by 1939.

Arrigo, Interesting that the Navy was not in shambles according to Wilmott, Lundstrom and Frank. According to History the U.S. Navy didn't make a move or have it's real victory until Midway which was June of 1942. If the fleet was not in total shambles they should have been able to take on the IJN at Wake Island or help the Allied Forces in Hong Kong, Singapore Island, Darwin, Timor, New Guinea or Battan. I guess the abandonment of Forces on Wake and the Battan Death March were just part of the US Navy's strategy. As for Dieppe, it wasn't supposed to surprise anyone, It was devised in 1941! The Germans new about it, Mountbatten new the Germans new about it and the troops new the enemy knew. According to Denis Whitaker in his memoirs " Dieppe Operation Jubilee- Battleground Europe", everyone knew the Raid was happening but the Canadian wanted to see some action. Even if it didn't fool anyone, it did accomplish it's main objectives, German troops were pulled from the Eastern Front to defend the West wall and it kept the Soviets from signing with the Germans.

"According to History the U.S. Navy didn't make a move or have it's real victory until Midway which was June of 1942."

Strongly disagree, you totally ignore the Battle of the Coral Sea which, while a tactical Japanese victory was a strategic US victory as the Japanese had to abandon their goal of landing troops at Port Moresby.

And I would imagine the fate of Force Z was enough evidence for the US that sailing even an intact fleet into such situations as Hong Kong, Singapore or even the Phillipines was a fools errand.

Japan required constant imports of foodstuffs and raw materials to maintain its war effort. Bottled up in Japan (as MacArthur wrote), it wouldn't have been very effective and could have been blockaded

If that was the case why did America plan Operation Downfall?
link
waszak.com/japanww2.htm
It states:

While naval blockade and strategic bombing of Japan was considered to be useful, General MacArthur, for instance, did not believe a blockade would bring about an unconditional surrender. The advocates for invasion agreed that while a naval blockade chokes, it does not kill; and though strategic bombing might destroy cities, it leaves whole armies intact.

Marshall's estimate of up to one million casualties for the invasion of Japan

Such a bodycount would have left Americans asking why should we send our boys to Europe it is not our fight.

Only Pearl Harbour brought isolationist America into the war – once Pearl Harbour was avenged they would want peace.

"Only Pearl Harbour brought isolationist America into the war – once Pearl Harbour was avenged they would want peace."

Really? Could have fooled FDR. That whole sending the Marines to occupy Iceland thing took place before PH, after all. And the USN was shooting at (and getting sunk by, if I remember the U.S.S. Reuben James correctly, and I do) U-boats months before PH, and not by the IJN.

Where on earth do you get the idea that avenging Pearl Harbor means the US wants peace? Where do *any* of you get that notion? Do you even know why the B-36 plans were developed in 1940, when it appeared that Britain might fall? Do you realize that the US was willing to turn as many German cities into radioactive zones as possible to *win*, not just "impress the Soviets" or whatever you want to toss around?

God, this sort of talk irritates me. If the USN was "in shambles" after Pearl Harbor, then WHY HAD 25% OF ITS COMBAT STRENGTH BEEN SENT TO THE ATLANTIC BEFORE PEARL HARBOR?!?!?!

WELL? If it was "in shambles", how was it able to start carrying out raids on Japanese possessions within two months?

link

A relief force *WAS* sent to Wake, you know, and it was only because Pye decided a carrier shouldn't be risked that there wasn't a naval battle less than THREE WEEKS *after* Pearl Harbor.

Yeah, that sounds like a navy "in shambles" to me.

Cacadores
''Japan required constant imports of foodstuffs and raw materials to maintain its war effort. Bottled up in Japan (as MacArthur wrote), it wouldn't have been very effective and could have been blockaded''

The Black Tower
''If that was the case why did America plan Operation Downfall?……..Marshall's estimate of up to one million casualties for the invasion of Japan ''

I don't disagree. But we were discussing what if a 'Japan first then Germany?' strategy was adopted. I was simply suggesting that if we take that idea seriously, then the best way of doing that would have been to fight until Japan was blockaded in the home islands (and cut off in the others). Japan would then have no oil and it's industrial capacity ruined. Having left enough troops to maintain the blockade, the Allies could have then sent the rest of their men and material to fight in Europe and dealt with Japan later.

Operation Downfall was not MacArthur's idea: he simply became the army's nominee on the planning comittee. In order to fulfill the State Department's insistance on unconditional surrender, MacArthur realised only invasion could achieve it. But before, without insistance on unconditional surrender, he had been in favour of a blockade.

The topic is Japan first, It is hypothetical – based on some of the facts

FDR's views was not representative of the views of most of the American people.
Most did not want American boys killed in another European war.
Look at the American papers and newsreels of the time – the average Joe did not want any part of what was happening in Europe.

As for America in WW2 Pick a start date

1931: The Japanese invasion of Manchuria.
7 July 1937: The Japanese invasion of China (the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War).
1 September 1939: The German invasion of Poland.
3 September 1939: France and Britain declared war on Germany. (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa followed by 10 September).
10 June, 1940: Fascist Italy declares war on Britain and France.
7 December, 1941: Japan attacks America without any declaration of war.
America joined the war only when directly attracted!

1,000,000 US dead would have been a shock to the American people, many would see the defeat of Japan as enough of a victory – we have done our bit. To be honest I would not blame them!
Look at the US reaction to the losses in Vietnam.

As for a blockade that would tie up a lot of Ships men and aircraft.
Sitting targets for Kamikaze aircraft and boats

Hardly – with air superiority against them, Kamikazes are useless.

The japs had cheap manned flying bombs, faster and a smaller target than the old Zero.

Unless you have a standing air patrol then the reaction time may be too late.

They also had small Kamikazes boats – even the modern USN has had problems with that type!

Well, I was thinking after laying low Japanese shipping and their air force, Allied ships wouldn't have to be just outside the ports and vulnerable to hit and run raids: it might be enough to straddle the main supply routes and maintain air patrols over the mainland ports. What you reckon?

US submarines already had placed a stranglehold on Japanese shipping so the country was already blockaded with most of its merchant marine at the bottom of the sea. The Japanese anti-submarine campaign was not particularly successful.

See valoratsea.com/subwar.htm for an overview. The chart at the bottom of the page is illuminating and remember that this is with the 'Europe first' policy.

This is all trivial, as I have it from a reputable source that Japan had a new Wonder Waffen designed and built under the nose of the USA and allies. Had the Americans landed on Japanese shores they would have been pushed back into the sea by THIS!

picture

The bombing of Japan is a lie, according to the my source, the atomic blast that happened at Hiroshima was due to an overpower of this giant suits Beam sword. Apparently a piece of fallen rice shorted out a circuit board. The second blast at Nagasaki was a misfire of the beam rifle. A techie nudged the fire button while eating his noodles.

There is no guarantee even an airtight (watertight?) blockade would have resulted in the surrender of Japan. Consider:

1. There is no way of knowing definitively how long such a blockade would take and indeed if it would even work. Especially once the war in Europe was over there was a great deal of pressure in the US to end the war and bring the boys home.
2. As was pointed out the US submarine campaign, which focused on the Japanese merchant fleet unlike the Japanese submarine force which, until near the end, concentrated on warships, had already instituted a strangle hold. The Japanese showed amazing ingenuity in adapting.
3. There was already a spirit of sacrifice with much of the available foodstuffs, for example, going to support the military. For all the talk about the "inhumanity" of the two nuclear weapons would it have been more humane for millions to have starved to death?
4. With less and less food available and a rapidly declining health crisis Japan became ripe for an eventual pandemic which would have once again killed millions.

And by the way I have never seen a number of 1 million dead for the US, perhaps you will provide a credible source for that number Black Tower? General Marshall estimated that anywhere from 250,000 to 1,000,000 casualties but that is NOT dead. The Joints Chiefs of staff, in perhaps one of the better studies, estimated US casualties of approximately 465,000 with upwards of 109,000 of those being fatalities. Certainly not a small number but a 10th of the stated 1,000,000 dead.

Transcript of "OPERATION DOWNFALL [US invasion of Japan]: US PLANS AND JAPANESE COUNTER-MEASURES" by D. M. Giangreco, US Army Command and General Staff College, 16 February 1998

link

The second invasion on March 1, 1946 – code named Operation Coronet
waszak.com/japanww2.htm

I've seen that Black Tower and not a bad resource but once again it does not mention 1,000,000 DEAD. Please provide a source for that number, would be very interested in seeing it.

Marc33594,
''I've seen that Black Tower and not a bad resource but once again it does not mention 1,000,000 DEAD. Please provide a source for that number, would be very interested in seeing it.''

Frank: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire p. 340.

Combine that with this:

link

…which charts the reasons for the Japanese surrender, it gives some insight into the problems and exaggerations faced.

That we should be using these figures now is somewhat odd. Because actually, the point is not US estimates of death per-se, but rather the options chosen and the opinions given by the generals to Truman. Which of course opened the door to exaggeration since no General ever wants to be responsible for underestimating potential deaths.

They were all wild 'guestimates': Herbert Hoover, in memorandums to Truman and Stimson, estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 deaths, i.e. a half-million tolorance!

Yet MacArthur, who had more reason than most to know about landings, wrote that "I am certain that the Japanese air potential reported to you as accumulating to counter our OLYMPIC operation is greatly exaggerated. … As to the movement of ground forces… I do not credit… the heavy strengths reported to you in southern Kyushu….''. As fortune had it, Truman, for political reasons was not paying much attention to MacArthur by that stage.

In contrast (or as an injection of reality) the Montgomery-planned Normandy invasions caused (only) 63,000 casualties in the first 48 days.

Moving forward to after the bombs effect became more widely known, the people responsible naturally had an interest in keeping the estimates for seaborne assault high.

There are several other points no-one has considered here.

Firstly, the French army at the time of the German assault was still in some ways organised like a WW1 army; An English observer noted that the command elements of their tank battalions were still no motorised but still horse-drawn. He estimeted that the French armour could travel across the country in two days, but their commanders would take a wekk to so the same. Several French commanders loathed the idea of moving infantry by trains despite a terrific rail network, so a response by the French to the Blitzkrieg would be problematic at this point in time.

Secondly, Hitler missed a perfect opportunity to launch Zeelion on the 1st May 1940; London had just been thrashed by the greatest Luftwaffe raid ever, and because of this the rail and communications links to the south of England were down for days. There's a book called "The City That Wouldn't Die " IIRC that details the situation, and paints a picture of a mortally wounded England ripe for invasion. And why wasn't it? A dinner party dare. Seriously – One of Hitler's political cronies pointed out that England was now an easy target but what about the 'Subhuman Slavs' who were Germany's real enemies – Could they be crushed as rapidly? And, as we all know, Hitler launched Zitadel betting that they would be.

Finally, Japan could well have surrendered much faster in a 'Japan First' camapign. Remember, most of the fighting military as opposed to the militaristic political forces knew that an assault upon Pearl Harbour wiould be necessary to suppress US action in the Pacific, but would come at the cost of 'waking a vengeful giant' IIRC. As long as no Americans were harmed during the Imperial expansion, it would have not involved Washington to any extent greater than such units as the Flying Tigers. Should the US have forced a massive campaign with all the allies ( Russia coming through the Korean peninsula with the promise of a warm water port ), it would not be unrealistic to predict a Japanese version of 'Valkyrie' and a surrender or negotiation with a military-led governement. . . Which opens some intriguing possibilities in itself however.

One extreme possibility is that in C M Kornbluth's well-reasoned short tale "Two Dooms" which throws a wild card into the mix by eliminating Hitler, who, in the mid 21st century alternate future is described as " A minor party leader who was liquidated for conspiring against the Furher – Goebells, the tall, heroic blonde man in the portrait on the wall there . . . "

Japan First…interesting options. The reconquest of the Philipines become a priority
The US priority is Japan, not enough naval and air units are send to the Atlantic to support the UK, no US troops are send to africa. the Suez Canal falls.
The Germans link up with the Vichy french in Palestine/Lebanon.
Hunger in the UK.
Turkey enters the war against Russia, second front in Russia, oilfields in Russia taken. Iran joins axis.
Uk looses irak and iran oilfields.
Malta taken by combined Para landings of Germany and italy, Gibraltar falls as Spain enters war, Spain invades Marrocco.

Nice speculation, Lichtenberg . . . However, I'm not entirely sure that Iraq and a few other Gulf states such as were there did not have Pro-German sympathies already. The US involvement in the Desert War was not inconsequential but hardly major either. And who would the Turks support in all this?