Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 6th, 2011, 08:26 PM   #1
rawr
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Los Santos, San Andreas
Posts: 4,742
Would Japan Lose?


What if Japan only fought the Chinese during World War II? Would the Japanese occupation collapse from internal dissent, would the Japanese conquer all of China, or would the Japanese economy fail?

Thoughts?
mingming is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 6th, 2011, 09:19 PM   #2

Belloc's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: USA
Posts: 5,418

I doubt Japan even intended to conquer all of China in the first place, and probably wouldn't succeed if it did. Conquer the coastline, yes, but not the interior.
Belloc is offline  
Old January 24th, 2018, 12:28 PM   #3
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: silverdale,WA
Posts: 3

Does Japan Only have Korea,or does it also have Indochina?
chromsumia77 is offline  
Old January 24th, 2018, 02:23 PM   #4

Jake10's Avatar
Guardian Knight
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 11,954
Blog Entries: 5

With the full might of the Japanese army focusing on China, Chiang Kai Shek's forces would have suffered huge casualties. The remaining forces would have struggled against the PLA, but the PLA would not have been as effective against the Japanese army, because many of their weapons came from defeated Japanese troops. The US would not have had a reason to support China, because Pearl Harbor would not have happened, which would mean that Japanese pilots would have bombed Chinese forces with little opposition. The Japanese army would have secured the ports and major roads, which would have given them ample food and left the Chinese forces with little. China might have given in after years of suffering.
Jake10 is offline  
Old January 24th, 2018, 02:45 PM   #5

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,266

Japan couldn't have conquered all of China and even before going to war with the United States & Britain was bogged down, but without foreign intervention China likewise could not drive Japanese forces out.

In a hypothetical scenario where no Western Allied Powers are involved, the war likely would have ended with an armistice where Japan retained Manchuria as a puppet state, and parts of the coastal area of China would remain under Japanese occupation. It would also likely be a temporary peace and mere a prelude to another Sino-Japanese War at some point.

A Japanese victory in other words, but not a complete one.
Scaeva is offline  
Old January 24th, 2018, 03:02 PM   #6

Jake10's Avatar
Guardian Knight
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 11,954
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaeva View Post
Japan couldn't have conquered all of China and even before going to war with the United States & Britain was bogged down, but without foreign intervention China likewise could not drive Japanese forces out.

In a hypothetical scenario where no Western Allied Powers are involved, the war likely would have ended with an armistice where Japan retained Manchuria as a puppet state, and parts of the coastal area of China would remain under Japanese occupation. It would also likely be a temporary peace and mere a prelude to another Sino-Japanese War at some point.

A Japanese victory in other words, but not a complete one.
But, with Japan controlling the ports, and a Japanese navy that China could not even consider attacking, what future would China have? They would have grown weaker and weaker, while Japan would have become stronger. After years of being starved, China would have become easy to take.
Jake10 is offline  
Old January 24th, 2018, 05:54 PM   #7

analysis17456's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: China (Hong Kong SAR)
Posts: 1,609

I suspect so, Mao's approach was similar to as seen during the Vietnam War, the strategies considered and executed is best for when against a much more powerful force. In fact, China has a gigantic advantage that Vietnam doesn't have, in that China's population is larger than that of Japan. A much larger population allows what might be termed a "protracted war" of logistical attrition to be significantly more effective. Further, Imperial Japan lacks many technological innovations which the U.S. possess during the Vietnam War. For example, the Imperial Japanese army lacks the aerial bombing abilities/prowess of the U.S.. And Vietnam survived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Protracted_War
https://www.marxists.org/reference/a...2/mswv2_09.htm

Last edited by analysis17456; January 24th, 2018 at 05:58 PM.
analysis17456 is offline  
Old January 24th, 2018, 06:00 PM   #8

analysis17456's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: China (Hong Kong SAR)
Posts: 1,609

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake10 View Post
The Japanese army would have secured the ports and major roads...
An assumption which commonly fails against competent guerilla strategies.
analysis17456 is offline  
Old January 24th, 2018, 06:03 PM   #9

analysis17456's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: China (Hong Kong SAR)
Posts: 1,609

"Despite a common misconception, both Nationalist and Communist forces maintained active underground resistance in Japanese-occupied areas during the Second Sino-Japanese War. Even before the outbreak of total war in 1937, partisans were already present in Manchuria hampering Japan's occupation of the region. After the initial phases of the war, when large swaths of the North China Plain rapidly fell to the Japanese, underground resistance, supported by either Communist sympathizers or composed of disguised Nationalist soldiers, would soon rise up to combat the garrison forces. They were quite successful, able to sabotage railroad routes and ambush reinforcements. Many major campaigns, such as the four failed invasions of Changsha, were caused by overly-stretched supply lines, lack of reinforcements, and ambushes by irregulars. The Communist cells, many having decades of prior experience in guerrilla warfare against the Nationalists, usually fared much better, and many Nationalist underground groups were subsequently absorbed into Communist ones. Usually in Japanese-occupied areas, the IJA only controlled the cities and railroad routes, with most of them countryside either left alone or with active guerrilla presence. The People's Republic of China has emphasized their contribution to the Chinese war effort, going as far to say that in addition to a "overt theatre", which in many cases they deny was effective, there was also a "covert theatre", which they claim did much to stop the Japanese advance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...o-Japanese_War
analysis17456 is offline  
Old January 24th, 2018, 06:06 PM   #10

analysis17456's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: China (Hong Kong SAR)
Posts: 1,609

The simple fact being the effectiveness of a protracted guerrilla war could be magnified so significantly by the difference in population values.

Think about Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Initially, Nazi Germany was significantly more organized and developed in theory, execution and technology. But Nazi Germany exhausted their resources in Russia, so much so that the Soviet Union drove straight into the heart of Berlin before the Allied forces in the western theatre with millions of active personnel involved in the eastern theatre.
analysis17456 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
japan, lose



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What if...Germany lost WWII but Japan had won? JohnnyH Speculative History 21 May 9th, 2015 10:56 PM
Attitude of Soviet Union towards Japan in WWII as Japan tried to seek Soviet mediation? curiositay History Help 5 April 6th, 2015 11:00 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.