When the United States placed trade embargos on Japan, Japan exploded outward with a well coordinated campaign to conquer many of the islands in the Pacific that contained the resources (oil, rubber, etc.) that they required for their recently inflated military machine. How much different would history be if Japan had decided to focus on mainland Asia, rather than the islands of the Pacific? Relatively recently, vast amounts of natural resources have been "discovered" in the Siberian wastes. If Japan had moved north from Manchukuo towards Kamchatka and Siberia, rather than south into the Phillipines, things probably would have turned out rather differently. They could have focused more troops on China as well.

Several hypotheses:
1. The United States probably would not have had a problem w/ the invasion of the Soviet Union, and would have avoided conflict with the Japanese.

2. The Soviets would have faced a two front war, and would not have been able to mass the great armies needed for victories at such turning points in Europe such as Stalingrad and Kursk.

I believe that a thus weakened Soviet Union would have been "easy pickings" for Army Group Center; Moscow would have fallen in 1941, and present day Russia would be half German, half Japanese. If Germany had ended the war w/ the capture of Moscow, would the remaining allies have mounted an invasion to liberate France? I don't know....

All this could have occurred if Japan and Germany actually did act as true military allies rather than as "non-enemies." (AND if Japan and the rest of the world had known of the potential of Siberia).

Thoughts/rebuttals?

Interesting scenario.

Hmm...it all really hinges on the United States staying out of the war. I think that the US would have came to the aid of Britain regardless of whether or not Japan attacked, which would have put us against Germany and Japan and therefore allied with the Soviet Union. At that point, an overzealous Japan would no doubt attack the Phillipines and other American/British holdings, and we'd have a Pacific Front all over again.

Now, lets say that Germany would have beaten the USSR, no big stretch if the reds were fighting a two front war. Churchill, who hated the Soviets nearly as much as Hitler, may well have tried to negotiate with a doubtlessly more amiable Third Reich. I don't think it out of the realm of possibility that Hitler himself would propose peace to Churchill - as having all of mainland Europe and half of asia under his belt could well have been enough for him at the moment. This would be doubly likely if he faced a war with the United States. France would just have to hang. I'm afraid.

But, I find it highly unlikely that Japan would leave the Phillipines alone.

Now, you also raised the point of the Germany/Japan relationship. I think it would be shaky at best - even shakier than the allied/Soviet relationship. I think war between the two would be inevitable at some point. They had solid relations during the war as it was, but they had little to do with each other.

The possibilities of Nazi Germany having all those resources and manpower is staggering and frightening. They would have a very significant lead in the sure-to-ensue "Cold War" with the United States. Scary stuff.

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Now, lets say that Germany would have beaten the USSR, no big stretch if the reds were fighting a two front war. Churchill, who hated the Soviets nearly as much as Hitler, may well have tried to negotiate with a doubtlessly more amiable Third Reich. I don't think it out of the realm of possibility that Hitler himself would propose peace to Churchill - as having all of mainland Europe and half of asia under his belt could well have been enough for him at the moment. This would be doubly likely if he faced a war with the United States. France would just have to hang. I'm afraid.

But, I find it highly unlikely that Japan would leave the Phillipines alone.

Thanks for clarifying that. I meant to include it (the "separate peace" with Britain), but forgot to.

While the Phillipines were indeed extremely tempting (hence the actual invasion), I think Japan would have had its hands full dealing with the administration and resource rape of Siberia and China.

there was a thread on this not to long ago:) it was generally agreed that not being able to remove troops from the east would of severely hurt the russians in front of moscow. i don't think it would of effected japan much as all her early victories were navy based

There were millions of soldiers spread throughout the South Pacific, from the Solomons to the Phillipines, north to Iwo Jima. If those were consolidated into one army, combined with the 1.5 million in Manchukuo and >3 million in the Home Islands, Japan would have had a pretty formiddable fighting force.

japan will rule siberia,then china will fall!

What makes you think the Japanese didn't try? ;)

In 1936 IIRC, the Japanese invaded Outer Mongolia, which was under Soviet control. Probably as the first step in their Siberian and Soviet Far East campaign.

They got beaten by Soviet armor - having had nothing to match the formidable Soviet armor forces except suicide attackers and on-the-spot created 'anti-tank' explosives.

Originally posted by XIII
What makes you think the Japanese didn't try? ;)

In 1936 IIRC, the Japanese invaded Outer Mongolia, which was under Soviet control. Probably as the first step in their Siberian and Soviet Far East campaign.

They got beaten by Soviet armor - having had nothing to match the formidable Soviet armor forces except suicide attackers and on-the-spot created 'anti-tank' explosives.

was the soviet armor so good in 1936 or the japanese armor was pitiful!

The Germans experimented (and thus shared) and tested their armor secretly in the Soviet Union, during the days when they're still trying to uphold their end to the Versailles Treaty. In those days, the Reds and the Germans were still on cozy terms, with both sides seeing themselves as 'opposing' the West.

Guess where the Soviets learned to make tanks? ;)

The Japanese had no tanks, other than light ones. No need. Their steel went into warships and planes instead. ;) Guess they found a need in Outer Mongolia... :lol:

Mind, the Soviet tanks weren't exactly state-of-the-art. IIRC more like light to medium ones - they too were still on the learning curve, and all too frequently breaking down, or the engine froze in the cold etc. But still sufficient to more than match the Japanese who had none or few tanks at all.

Besides, Zhukov was commanding the Soviet side, one reason why he escaped the purging of the Red Army officer corps at this time. ;)

And the Mongol troops were supporting the Soviet forces, and fighting on home ground. ;)

The only tank worse than an American tank (Sherman) was a Japanese tank...

Still, with a more serious threat in Europe (i.e. a more heavily armed German juggernaut already much closer to Moscow), I think the Russians would have moved the bulk of their armor west to the Eastern Front. (Is that phrase confusing to anyone but me?)

Also, this scenario would require different long term planning by the Japanese -- I am not insinuating that they could have changed their mind in Novermber of 1941. If, however, throughout the 20s and 30s they had built up their land forces instead of their navy, such a chain of events would be more likely. Also, they could have avoided breaking the 5-3-3-1 (are those numbers correct?) pact -- not that breaking it in real life had any actual consequences...

In 1936, the Germans and Soviets were hardly at each other's throat yet. Besides, only a portion of the Soviet armor and army was deployed in the Far East - the main forces were in the West; though little good they did after the officer corps was purged. That's how badly the Japanese got beaten.

In 1941, the Japanese were already heavily entangled in China. Not exactly the easiest thing in the world to pull your armies back out to head for another destination thousands of miles away. For the Japanese, it was probably easier to send their equivalent of the Afrika Korps to sweep into SE Asia, than to invest a potentially huge force to take on the Soviet Union. By that time, the Japanese wanted to keep China.

The Japanese themselves didn't have an overall leader directing the war; then (like now) they still worked in committees. Also the Japanese high officers worked in terror, in fear of assassinations by right-winger young officers in the armed forces and their supporters, and of each other. Imperial Japan was a war machine going out of control.

Originally posted by wildWolverine
Also, this scenario would require different long term planning by the Japanese -- I am not insinuating that they could have changed their mind in Novermber of 1941. If, however, throughout the 20s and 30s they had built up their land forces instead of their navy, such a chain of events would be more likely. Also, they could have avoided breaking the 5-3-3-1 (are those numbers correct?) pact -- not that breaking it in real life had any actual consequences... Problem is Imperial Japan is not like playing civ. No one was in control and directing the whole imperial enterprise. Prime Ministers and generals were assasinated as a matter of politics all the way thru the 20s and 30s, by Young Turks in the armed forces.

The situation in 20s and 30s Japan required an understanding of their unique conditions at the time, and not what we impose as a matter of logical conclusion fr our seats in the here and now. ;)

Tojo exercised some measure of control through the thirties and WW2. However, you are correct. For my hypotheses to work, one stable leader would have been needed through the thirties. Had Japan waited 5 years, and coordinated their efforts with Germany, a pincer movement on the Soviets could have worked. Remove the Chinese invasion, except for a beach head in Manchuria. My "alternate" history would have Japan divert all of her offensive forces towards Russia in a joint strike w/ Germany. After Russia had fallen, Japan could turn towards China, if the need arose.

Keep in mind that Hitler's plans didn't call for instigating a war until ideally 1944.

Japan was in the war for her own reasons, and not to aid Germany. She would have viewed the Germans getting the juicy part of the ex-Soviet Union with more apprehension than glee.

After being beaten, the Japanese didn't even want to think about facing Soviet armor again. They kept their part of the peace treaty negotiated after that war all the way until 1945 when the Soviets invaded Manchuria and Inner Mongolia in force, as part of the tacit agreement with the US and other Allies.

Good point about not wanting to face Soviet armor again. However, if they had focused their entire national military industry towards developing ground forces instead of naval forces, the initial combat may have been different. My argument rests on the entire second twenty years of the twentieth century (1920 - 1940) being different for Japan, not just their conduct from 1936 on.

Granted, the western half of the Soviet Empire was much more industrialized. However, with the exception of the southern oil fields, the Siberian steppe has exponentially more natural resources. I'm not sure who would have gotten the better end of the deal -- Germany with the western factories, or Japan with the Eastern natural resources.

One flaw in this whole argument is that there is no rubber in Siberia...

One question - why would invaded Japan Far East part of Soviet Union ???

IMHO the big advantadge would be to cut the supply line for American help ... if the USA still would send this to USSR ... ;)

Regards

Resources. Supremacy. And because they could.

Thank you Rich. Although at the time, I'm not sure that the extent of the resources in Siberia were known. That's one of the premises for this alternate history -- that in fact, they were known.

I like the poll question. :D

So hard to answer... :hmm: ;)

Originally posted by wildWolverine
Thank you Rich. Although at the time, I'm not sure that the extent of the resources in Siberia were known. That's one of the premises for this alternate history -- that in fact, they were known.

It certainly was known that there were resources worth exploiting, but the exact extent was, of course, still open to speculation (as it is today ;) ) .

I suppose we'll find out in about 50-100 years, when it becomes necessary to exploit them...

I'm really surprised no one voted for No -- by XIII's arguments, I thought he would have voted that way........

He agrees - as I do - that it would have been drastically different if Japan had attacked the USSR.

Neither of us think it would have been LIKELY to happen, though.

Personally, I'm more curious about the question : what if, on the morning of december 7, 1941, Chuichi Nagumo had been seriously ill (as in out of comission ill) forcing one of the other two commanders of the carrier (I'm especially thinking Yamaguchi here) force to assume command of the Pearl Operation?

There's also the fact that Siberia is too cold, for the Japanese' liking. Japanese colonists viewed even Manchuria as too cold, during the winter, and saw being sent there as a slow death sentence.

After WW1, when the Reds were fighting to take Russia, the IJA even occupied Siberia for awhile. Unsure of the extent though, probably just the Maritime area.

PS Too lazy to vote; better things to do. :p

Originally posted by XIII
What makes you think the Japanese didn't try? ;)

In 1936 IIRC, the Japanese invaded Outer Mongolia, which was under Soviet control. Probably as the first step in their Siberian and Soviet Far East campaign.

.

The Japanese were beaten twice by the Soviets. First, in 1937,
was pretty small scale. Then in summer 1939, the Japanese tried again at Khalkhin-Gol (sp?), where Zhukov gave them a sound drubbing.
According to the book "Japan's War", the Japanese frontline units suffered 70% casualties during this bout, mostly due to tactics where they charged straight into Soviet machine guns and tanks.

I personally doubt whether Russia would have gone down to defeat in 1941 if the Japanese attacked. The Japanese would IMO have been slaughtered, since their tactical thinking wasn't influenced by the previous encounters with the Soviets. The Germans would IMO have been stopped in front of Moscow, but the Moscow counteroffensive would not have happened without the Siberian troops. What happens at this point is extremely hard to say, since there are quite a few variables, based on what
the Japanese decide to do, and what the US decides (or is forced) to do.

I think you guys are missing my point. Imagine if the Japanese had spent 20 years building armor and perfecting infantry techniques, rather than building battleships and practicing torpedo bombing formations. The two conflicts you mention would not have happened as they did....

Japan is an island nation. What's the point of building armor forces, particularly when their nearest neighbour, China, was so weak? The region's geography is also not exactly conducive to conduct large-scale armor warfare.

Maintaining armor forces for the mere possibility of using them in some far distant geographically suitable locale is a bit silly. These are expensive, unlike infantry formations, and Japan was strapped for cash.

Remember, in the 1920s and 30s, tanks were still in the experimental stage, in warfare and in military doctrine. The British, the French never planned for the German panzers either. How so were the Japanese to devise armor tactics equivalent to the German ones, for use against possible tank formations of the Soviet Union?

The navy was essential for home defense and power projection. W/o securing her shipping lines to the mainland, there's no point for armor forces on the mainland either.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wildWolverine
I think you guys are missing my point. Imagine if the Japanese had spent 20 years building armor and perfecting infantry techniques, rather than building battleships and practicing torpedo bombing formations. The two conflicts you mention would not have happened as they did.... [/QUOTE

but wolverine we could play this game for years--what if. if the japanese concetrated on land forces their navy would of be weak--hence no pearl harbor, and expansion across the pacific. it also assumes that the japanese can do a 180 degree turn and everybody else stays the same

maybe if japan had all of china,then russia will fall.

Theres a lot of 'what ifs' involved in this question. What if they had a stable leader? what if they concentrated on building armour? what if they co ordinated their attack with Germany? If you have enough 'what ifs' then there is only 1 conclusion you can reach- the one that you want people to.
It took the Soviet Unoin about 4 months to get back on her feet once the Germans attacked. They always had a vast superiority over the Germans in men and equiptment. I think Stalin would have been happy to let his generals withdraw in Siberia as long as it bennefitted his armies in the far west. Soon the Japanese would be facing supply problems and partisans and standing in the middle of a frozen hell. Even if they did capture vast amounts of eastern Russia its not like you can set up mining and oil refining facilities over night.
The Japanese army would have reached a high point and then kind of stayed there 'till '45 when the Russians would have annihlated them.
The Japanese didn't really have a lot of soldiers commited in southern Asia in comparison to the amounts they had in Manchukuo and China so Its not like any potential invasion force would get a great boost if they used troops earmarked for PNG and the Philipines.
The Germans spent long time developing there armour and it wasn't until the Panther entered service that they had a tank with tracks wide enough to take on snow. I don't think the Japs could have come up with anything that would match the t-34 or KV-1.

then japan will screw!

A more interesting hypothesis would be if Japan had not planned on a quick expansion and then a negotiated peace with the US allowing them to keep most of their gains including the oil and iron they so badly needed. They were in a use it or lose it position with their navy after Roosevelt cut off their oll and other imports from the US if they didn't withdraw from China, which was politically impossible for them.

What if they had decided to conquer our west coast, or at least trash the naval bases and ship building facilities at say San Diego, Puget Sound and San Franciso Bay? They probably could have put the Panama Canal out of commission, too. They probably could have taken Hawaii if they had really wanted to (in late 1941 anyway.) Would have made the war a lot longer, and different in Europe if we hadn't had a Europe first strategy. I think the Japanese could have hit the USA with much harder blows than they did. Even just hunting down our carriers would have made a difference to the 1942/43 campaign. Or just hit the fuel storage facilities at Pearl Harbor, one of the biggest mistakes of the war, for them.

(skans post to make sure I did not abbreviate Japan inappropriately. It seems you can say anything about Japan as long as you keep the an in the word.)

Actually, I think the preferred term is Nippon, although I'm not sure about that...