What would have happened if the Japanese had gone after the US in WWII instead of Southeast Asia, Australia and various islands? Say they went after the oil resources in Alaska (were they even developed then?), the west coast and landed in force.

Total tactical blunder?

Did they have the manpower and equipment to do so? Fuel resources?

Considering the cultural differences between them, could China have ever been persuaded to side with them? Say, instead of invading in '37 they negotiated a treaty.

What if the US had not restricted Japanese access to fuel resources? Would that have delayed their entry into conflict with either China or the US?

Thanks,
Bill

Edit: Looks like around 1900 were the first productive oil rigs in Alaska.

Quote from: HinterWeltWhat would have happened if the Japanese had gone after the US in WWII instead of Southeast Asia, Australia and various islands? Say they went after the oil resources in Alaska (were they even developed then?), the west coast and landed in force.

Total tactical blunder?

Did they have the manpower and equipment to do so? Fuel resources?

Considering the cultural differences between them, could China have ever been persuaded to side with them? Say, instead of invading in '37 they negotiated a treaty.

What if the US had not restricted Japanese access to fuel resources? Would that have delayed their entry into conflict with either China or the US?

Thanks,
Bill

Edit: Looks like around 1900 were the first productive oil rigs in Alaska.

They kind of did invade Alaska. They invaded and occupied small parts of the Aleutian islands. They did it. To be a diversion for us forces, to divert our attack at midway. Not knowing we had broke their code. So we didnt do much to defned them. Then later took them back anyways.

Quote from: HinterWeltWhat would have happened if the Japanese had gone after the US in WWII instead of Southeast Asia, Australia and various islands? Say they went after the oil resources in Alaska (were they even developed then?), the west coast and landed in force.

They probably couldn't have done so unless they struck Pearl Harbor earlier in the conflict (say, '37).  Either way, we'd know they were coming, because even by 1935, communications with Hawaii were very mature, and we had spies all over there.  They might have attempted a landing on the California coast, but where?  

Alaska they did go after, and succeeded in capturing a good number of the Aleutian islands, but there was not a lot of oil coming out of there at the time.

Quote from: HinterWeltTotal tactical blunder?

Definitely something that was planned, looked at, and scoffed at.  There was a plan to invade and capture Hawaii, which was quickly scrapped.  However, it was fictionalized by my favorite alt-hist author: Harry Turtledove, in his books Days of Infamy and End of the Beginning.

Quote from: HinterWeltDid they have the manpower and equipment to do so? Fuel resources?

They did not have anywhere near the manpower to tackle the US head on.  Fuel they might have, but timing is an issue.

Quote from: HinterWeltConsidering the cultural differences between them, could China have ever been persuaded to side with them? Say, instead of invading in '37 they negotiated a treaty.

China was in chaos at the time.  Some of the warlords wanted the Japanese in China, but neither the Nationalists nor the Communists wanted anything to do with them, the same was true for the majority of the unaligned warlords.

Quote from: HinterWeltWhat if the US had not restricted Japanese access to fuel resources? Would that have delayed their entry into conflict with either China or the US?

Well, we knew they wanted us out of the Philippines.  They wanted us out of Guam and Midway, too.  They really didn't want us in the Pacific, and knew that the Nazis wanted us away from the Eastern Hemisphere altogether.  Not embargoing the Japanese may have kept them from attacking Pearl Harbor, and kept us out of the war...although Roosevelt was a hell of a war-monger (like all the other Depression-era dictators).  If the US had stayed out of the war, it would have been crushed by the Japanese and the Nazis (mostly the Nazis) eventually.

Total tactical blunder. As I recall the history, weren't the Japanese grasping at a lot of straws and planning on a whole lot of luck?

The man in charge of planning the operation at Pearl Harbor, from what anecdotal evidence I was able to glean, did not believe that Japan could, in any meaningful way, beat the US.  All he expected to be able to do was bloody our noses and convince us not to get into the fight. The typical American response was hugely unexpected on the world stage. No one loses their entire navy in the first volley of the war only to go on the offensive. Unheard of!

Still, a Japanese invasion of the mainland could have been very interesting, though I am sure it would have entailed a massive drawdown of troops from China, possibly allowing Kiang Kai-Shek to rally and go on the offensive, retaking Nanking, for example.

The Japanese might expect an 'easy slaughter' as they had in China (Man Chu Ko?), but the widespread prevelance of firearms (hunting rifles and the like) coupled with the rugged terrain of the west coast would have worked against them.  Further compounding the situation is the nearly unique American instituition known as the National Guard. Organized Milita forces, while laughable perhaps compared to full time soldiers are still a different animal than a population that is used to being... well... sheep. Still, a preoccupied US would have not been fighting in the pacific worth a damn for a while, and probably wouldn't have been able to send troops to Europe until the homeland was secure, dragging the war out for a couple more years and expanding the influence of the soviets in the eventual victory.   In Asia, predicting forward, if the KMT (proto-KMT?) had rallied and won major victories over the Japanese forces in China, then the Maoist revolution would have been hampered by a vigorous, victorious Chinese government headed by Kai Shek.

It would have been completely infeasible from a logistical point of view.  The Japanese had enough shipping to land a force of a few corps' size...if they didn't need food or ammunition after they landed.  The early war landings strained what capability the Japanese did have; any real attempt at a US landing would have required much more.  The Japanese didn't have the industrial capacity to build the required shipping, nor the fuel to keep them running.

Speaking as someone who has played a metric ass-load of Axis and Allies, I can say that Japan's best move would have been to harrass the US fleets in the Pacific when possible, bog them down in island fighting if the US was so inclined, but to concentrate more on a massive invasion of Eastern Russia, culminating in a joint German/Japanese defeat of Soviet Russia, while securing more resources for Japan. Once that was accomplished, then they could turn their attention to the Commonwealth countries secure in the knowledge that Britain and America would have their hands full with Germany.






What?

Quote from: Werekoalaconcentrate more on a massive invasion of Eastern Russia, culminating in a joint German/Japanese defeat of Soviet Russia, while securing more resources for Japan. Once that was accomplished, then they could turn their attention to the Commonwealth countries secure in the knowledge that Britain and America would have their hands full with Germany.

Not unbelievable - Germany pushed for Japan to attack Russia.  That might have caused Russia to collapse (troop transfers from Siberia shored up defenses at a key time).  But it would have required a massive troop allocation at a time when most of their army was mired in China and they wouldn't have gotten much by way of resources.   It would have been great for Germany but not so great for Japan.

To the original question, I think taking Hawaii would have been a big stretch, the mainland impossible.  But if they had taken Hawaii, they would have really hampered a U.S. response.  Most of the Japanese leaders were aware of the risk attacking the U.S - they had been worried about a showdown for quite a while due to the constant U.S. protests about things in China (pre-war U.S. sentiment seemed at least as worried about the massacres in China as they were about the build up in Germany).  I think that if the U.S. hadn't cut off oil to Japan, they wouldn't have attacked because they wouldn't have been as desperate - they would have concentrated on the serious issue of China.  They might have eventually moved against Dutch possessions and also British if Britain continued to fare poorly in the war.

Quote from: joewolzNot embargoing the Japanese may have kept them from attacking Pearl Harbor, and kept us out of the war....

On the other hand the US was already helping Britain and the USSR enormously with Lend Lease, and American warships were getting into scraps with U-Boats in the Atlantic.

Remember the sequence of events: France falls, Japan takes over Indochina, the US embargoes supplies to Japan, Japan now decides to take over the rest of SE Asia and Indonesia to ensure continued supplies for the war in China. Take out the part in bold, and WWII remains two completely separate conflicts unless Japan attacks Russia or India. The former was a real possibility in spite of a nonaggression pact which had been signed. However I doubt the Japanese were really very keen on much more than expanding their East Asian possessions. I wonder if Stalin might have bought off Japan so that he could concentrate on his fight for survival with the Nazis.

So as long as the Red Army stayed intact and the US was able to keep shipping weapons to Britain and Russia, I think Germany would ultimately have been defeated regardless of when (or whether) the US formally entered the fight.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo as long as the Red Army stayed intact and the US was able to keep shipping weapons to Britain and Russia, I think Germany would ultimately have been defeated regardless of when (or whether) the US formally entered the fight.

I agree 90%!  However, the Nazi nuclear program was mature at this time, and the U.S.'s was not.  It's possibly (but very unlikely) that the Nazis could have had the bomb before we did, had we not entered the war.  We raced to fully develop the bomb because the Nazis were so far ahead of us, remember.  If the US had simply remained a trade partner, we might not have developed the bomb, and no European nation (with the exception of possibly Russia, who we saved) would have continued the fight after being nuked.

I thought that postwar analysis showed the German nuke program had made several mistakes that basically doomed it...possibly helped along by deliberate fumbling by Heisenberg.

Wikipedia on Heisenberg, the German nuclear energy project, the "Tube Alloys" project (codename for the British nuke project before Manhattan) on the whole suggest to me that the US at least would have had a nuke before Germany...and Germany would probably have been beaten in conventional warfare before their nuke program produced a weapon.

I think most likely, though, we'd have found a way to get into the war in Europe...just a little later than actually happened. Hitler didn't seem too concerned about keeping the US out of the war...remember that he declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, which was very convenient for the American strategic leadership, who considered Germany the primary threat.

Quote from: Spike\The Japanese might expect an 'easy slaughter' as they had in China (Man Chu Ko?), but the widespread prevelance of firearms (hunting rifles and the like) coupled with the rugged terrain of the west coast would have worked against them.  

WOLVERINES!

Sorry, had to say it.  I have nothing else to add except I find this discussion fascinating.  A lot of alternate WWII histories seem to focus on "what Germany would do if. . ."  What Japan would do is often tacked on as an afterthought.  

Pete

I second the notion that this has been an absolutely fascinating thread.  Thanks to Bill for starting it and all you history guys for all of the interesting speculation!

Quote from: HinterWeltWhat would have happened if the Japanese had gone after the US in WWII instead of Southeast Asia, Australia and various islands? Say they went after the oil resources in Alaska (were they even developed then?), the west coast and landed in force.

A west coast invasion is logistically impossible in 1941. A raid perhaps but all that would have accomplished is a further focus on the US on defeating Japan  vs Germany (assuming Hitler declares war as he did in OTL).

The best the Japanese could have done is take Hawaii and delay the eventual offensive. The blunder was committed the moment Japan decided to goto war with the US. The logistical disparity between the USA and the Japan is several orders of magnitude.

It would however have a great impact on the European war. If the US adopts a Japan first strategy. If a Germany first is still adopted then the Pacific War is prolonged to 1946/47. With a possible surrender in 1945 if the US decides to nuke a few islands instead of invading them as a demonstration of the atomic bomb. Note with a Hawaii Takeover assume that most of 1943 is re-taking Hawaii and 44 is like our 43, 45 like our 44. late 45/ early 46 is finally when they get islands in B-29 range of Japen. But since they will have the bomb by then they may decide to do a drop on say Iwo Jima or another island that was bypassed in our timeline.

Quote from: HinterWeltTotal tactical blunder?

Did they have the manpower and equipment to do so? Fuel resources?

Supply the forces from across the pacific. Hawaii or Alaska would be a possibe base but the supply depots would have to be built up before sustained operations could take place. By then the US would have secured the West Coast. A raid however may be a possibility.

Quote from: HinterWeltConsidering the cultural differences between them, could China have ever been persuaded to side with them? Say, instead of invading in '37 they negotiated a treaty.

The Japanese are quite racist in their attitudes to the Chinese. They tried working through puppets but the Japanese were so blatant about their racism that even puppets realized they were getting a raw deal. It is similair to the problem the Nazis had in taking advantage of any anti-Stalin sentiment in the invasion of the Soviet Union.

A PoD would have to be in the militarist takeover of the Japanese Government. A more civilian oriented government may had a more benign attitude and simply tried economic domination rather than outright military conquest.

Quote from: HinterWeltWhat if the US had not restricted Japanese access to fuel resources? Would that have delayed their entry into conflict with either China or the US?

The embargo was the immediate cause of the war with Japan. It was a direct threat to their ability to wage war. If a PoD (Point of Departure) modifies the influence of militarism in the Japanese Government to be less conquest oriented then it would be likely that the conflicts between US and Japan could have been resolved.