How would it have turned out if 70 years ago the Empire of Japan attacked the USSR and not the USA?

We are coming up on the 70th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. A "what if" has started me thinking more and more lately. What if instead of the attack on Pearl Harbor the Empire of Japan instead invaded the Eastern USSR?

While Japan and Germany were not strong allies (WWII was in many ways 2 seperate wars that just happened to occour at the same time) they did have common enemies. It is doubtful the USA would have entered the war because of this, at the least it could have delayed entry say 6 months. Natural resources were known to exist in quantity in the area. The Russians lost a war to Japan just a generation before and were barely hanging on against the Germans in the west. So the whole thing could have been wrapped up easily.

What say all of you? How would history have been different?

This is like asking "what would have happened if Edith Keeler made it across the street or McCoy/Kirk/Spock was able to save her life".

The question was answered by them. A delay of the US's entrance in the war might have allowed the Germans to create the Atomic Bomb first. That would have led to the surrender of England. An attack on Russia by Japan may have also allowed Germany to defeat Russia on the eastern front and change the elements of the war (to allow for Germany to create advanced weaponry and the atomic bomb first). This would have led to the delay of creating a jewish state and would have eliminated many of the middle east problems that we had today.

Still, eventually, American would get involved heavily in the war but with the Germans having the atomic bomb and military superiority first, you would have seen world domination by Germany in Europe and Japan in Asia. The United States would be a minor power.

Quote: boymimbo

This is like asking "what would have happened if Edith Keeler made it across the street or McCoy/Kirk/Spock was able to save her life".

LOL!

Quote: boymimbo

Still, eventually, American would get involved heavily in the war but with the Germans having the atomic bomb and military superiority first, you would have seen world domination by Germany in Europe and Japan in Asia. The United States would be a minor power.

And the US would not be known as the country that was crazy enough to actually drop the bomb....

Quote: boymimbo

Still, eventually, American would get involved heavily in the war but with the Germans having the atomic bomb and military superiority first, you would have seen world domination by Germany in Europe and Japan in Asia. The United States would be a minor power.

I don't know if I would go along with the last part. The USA would still have had the entire Western Hemisphere all to itself. Lets assume the Germans could have gotten the bomb (a big IF, Hitler forced out the best scientists years before) delivery to the USA would be a decade or more away. I would go along with the USA would have had to accomodate Germany and Japan in a tri-power world. Possibly playing the Germans off the Japanese in a sort of worldwide Mexican Standoff.

Nice one on letting Edith Keeler die, though. Never let it be said I don't give credit where credit is due.

Apparently this would have been the last thing in the world the Japanese would have wanted to do, totally outside of their priorities, but if they had done so the Axis would have won the war IMO.

On December 5th Army Group Center was within 8 miles of Moscow, and Army Group North had been on the outskirts of Leningrad since August. If Japan had attacked the USSR on Dec 7th 1941, Moscow and Leningrad would have most likely fallen.

Exactly as they turned out, since Japan did strike into Russia in the summer of 1939.

Quote: Nareed

Exactly as they turned out, since Japan did strike into Russia in the summer of 1939.

It was a period of undeclared border wars. At culmination it was total defeat for a Japanese army, but not the only reason the Japanese had other ideas in 1941 [almost '42 of course]

PS: I think Manchuria was the plum both might have fought over, but unless I am mistaken I think the Japanese had Manchuria already.

PPS: The Japanese were undeniably despicable aggressors in this period, however, there has to be a grudging admiration for the term "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." Talk about a well turned Orwellian phrase!

Japan already occupied Manchuria, had since the mid 30s. I don't know what value East Russia would hold to Japan, but I know they were keenly interested in their holdings in the East Indies for the oil and other valuable resources. They saw the U.S. fleet movement to Hawaii as a major threat to their resource holdings. Once the US oil embargo hit, they had to act.

Quote: boymimbo

This would have led to the delay of creating a jewish state and would have eliminated many of the middle east problems that we had today.

Interesting way of putting it - a German win, or even a delay of the eventual VE day, would have "eliminated many of the the middle east problems" because the Germans would have finished eliminating all the Jews.

Whether the Germans would get the bomb is rather problematic. By one account, Heisenberg had given a truthful "No" when asked if he could have a bomb built by 1944 and so the Germans put money into the V-2 program instead.

I would put my money on an Axis victory leaving a tri-power world of Germany, Japan, and USA.

Quote: odiousgambit

It was a period of undeclared border wars. At culmination it was total defeat for a Japanese army, but not the only reason the Japanese had other ideas in 1941 [almost '42 of course]

That was a big reason they had other ideas in 41. Not least that Germany did not help them then, but instead signed a non-aggression with the Soviets. When Germany could have used help opening a second front, not to mention threatening the trans-Siberian railroad, the Japanese were understandably otherwise engaged.

Quote:

PS: I think Manchuria was the plum both might have fought over, but unless I am mistaken I think the Japanese had Manchuria already.

The Japanese held Manchuria. What they wanted was parts of Russia and Siberia. But given their defeat, they gave it up.

If Japan attacks Russia in 1941, there is no Pearl Harbour. No Pearl Harbour, and the Germans don't declare war on the US, which sped up the US entry into the war. The UK is under stress at this point, but the situation in North Africa is stable, and the Battle of Britain is already over... Operation Sealion isn't happening, and it'll be a while before the German Afrika Korps threaten Alex. The high tide of the Axis is mid-1942. But I suspect the US entry into the European front would have occurred soon enough.

In the Pacific, the Britsh and Dutch interests are stretched paper thin, and by early '42, the Japanese are knocking on the door of Australia, Singapore has fallen, and the Japanese start marching towards India.

The Japanese at this point by declaring another campaign on Russia probably gain by not having the US entry into the war for a few months, meaning the push the British back further, and building up their land holdings.

The Japanese army wasn't that great. I don't think they'd have been well equipped to win a battle on the open land of Eastern Russia, and the Eastern defences of Russia were there to hold off a back door, and I think they'd have been able to keep a fighting retreat. I don't think a Japanese invasion of Russia turns the tables on the Russian front. They need to come far to far to start breaking down the factories pushed East after the German invasion.

The Japanese's strength was their Naval presence. It wasn't the same quality or size of the US, but was plenty powerful enough to deal with the Commonwealth forces at the time.

If the Americans don't get involved in the Pacific at all, Eastern India is under long term siege, and the flow of supplies into China dries up. The Japanese can strengthen their hold on the Pacific.

The American would have been freer though to aggressively pursue the European first strategy even more. And that would make a different. If the US still runs Operation Torch at the end of 1942 and invades North Africa, but with more material, Tunis is taken quicker and the Italian front is opened. By this time, Germany is breaking itself on Stalingrad, and I don't see much change in the result in Europe. Japan -could- at this point consolidate it's gains and negotiate a peace with the US and UK and USSR that would have been tired from a long long war. Whether Japan actually does do something sensible like that is another question.

But Pearl Harbour was a huge mistake for both the Axis powers. Japan's pre-strike only works if they knock out more carriers. They didn't and woke a force they couldn't match (they expected the American's to not want to fight). Hitler should never have given the US the excuse they needed by declaring war.

(I love these sorts of thought experiments, nice question AZ)

The Japs have always lusted after Hawaii, thats why
they attacked it. They wanted it as their own. Ever
since the war ended they've tried to buy as much
of it as possible. I think there are more retired Japs
in Hawaii than there are in Japan. I lived there for
six months, and believe me, they think they won the
war and Hawaii is theirs. Thats how they act, anyway.

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour to try and take out the concentration of US force there, as a pre-emptive strike, as they expected the US to enter the war any day soon.

The US weren't ready to enter yet, but their hand was rather forced. Bad move.

Japan was lusting after the rich oil and minerals in South East Asia. Hawai'i at this point was a side show. Maybe in the future a Hawai'i landing was planned. But Pearl Harbour was nothing to do with a lust after the islands. If the US carrier force had been in the Aleutians, they'd have attacked there (they did, just not in the same force, but they did occupy some of the US islands).

Quote: thecesspit

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour to try and take out the concentration of US force there

Hawaii was always in their plan, they resented the hell
out of the US for claiming it. Have you ever been there?
Not another place on earth like it.

The two prevailing theories seem to be either Gemany-Japan or Germany-Japan-USA, as the surviving powers, right?
Why not Germany-USA or just Gemany? If Hitler built the bomb before USA, would it be beneath him to drop it on the ally? Perhaps, Hiroshima destiny was predefined, no matter what?

Quote: thecesspit

The US weren't ready to enter yet, but their hand was rather forced. Bad move.

Bad blunder. They should have followed up by taking Hawaii, carriers or no carriers. You don't go taunting the sleeping giant and leave his forward base for him to use against you.

I don't agree. The Japanese were hoping for a limited war in the Pacific and to have a "prosperity sphere" that was as far east as Phillipinnes. The wanted to knock the allies out of the war quickly, negotiate a peace, grab the Burmese oil and continue on land in China. The misunderstood the desire of the US to go for a total war response in the Pacific for islands they neither knew or cared about.

An invasion of Hawai'i was not part of Japanese plans in 1941, and even if Pearl Harbour had been a landing, it was almost untenable. The Imperial Japanese Navy couldn't match up to the size of the US navy, or it's ability to keep up production and replacements to losses.

Maybe, just maybe, if the allies negotiate a peace after the Phillipinnes, Burma and South East Asia is secured, and China becomes a slow war, and the Japanese kick up their economy with the new raw materials over 10-20 years, maybe they would start looking east again.

In short, taking Hawai'i just wasn't the goal of the war in the pacific for the Japanese high command. At all. How ever nice it is there, and how ever much the Japanese who live and visit there want to own it.

Quote: Nareed

Bad blunder. They should have followed up by taking Hawaii, carriers or no carriers. You don't go taunting the sleeping giant and leave his forward base for him to use against you.

That was the plan with Midway. After that, and 100,000's of lives later...

Hawai'i was untenable as a position for the Japanese Navy. Too far, not enough resources to supply it effectively.

Quote: thecesspit

That was the plan with Midway.

Yes, but by then it was, as the old saying has it, two days late and a dollar short.

Quote:

Hawai'i was untenable as a position for the Japanese Navy. Too far, not enough resources to supply it effectively.

True. But taking Hawaii would have been like playing offense in the enemy's 49-yard line. Simply bombing it, once, was like handing the ball to the other team at their 49-yard line.

I've thought of a similar question, and likewise wondered "if".

If Japan doesn't attack Hawaii, we probably still go to war. But, it would have been a planned, gradual process. Wasn't a good part of what brought us out of the depression the sudden and immediate churning of the war machine? Would that effect have been the same if it was a gradual process, instead of a "save your tin foil NOW" type of process?

Also, from what I understand, the American people were very much behind the war effort. We were attacked and it required a response. If we hadn't been attacked, might that fervor have been lessened, maybe even reversed, if not for the attack? Might a Vietnam-esqu mindset have fallen upon the people?

Even assuming the war went off in the same fashion and the same sequence of events, how important was that one attack in shaping America?

From 1885 to 1894 over 28,000 Japs immigrated to Hawaii,
they were attempting a silent takeover. They imported 25,000
workers in the 1890's. Part of the reason for Japan becoming
a US territory was to prevent the Japanese from doing it first.
In 1920, almost half the population of Hawaii was Japanese.
To this day, 40%+ of Japanese newlyweds go on their
Honeymoon to Japan. In the 1980's, 9 of the 14 hotels
on Waikiki Beach were Japanese owned. They want it now,
they've wanted it for 150 years.

Quote: dwheatley

Japan already occupied Manchuria, had since the mid 30s. I don't know what value East Russia would hold to Japan, but I know they were keenly interested in their holdings in the East Indies for the oil and other valuable resources. They saw the U.S. fleet movement to Hawaii as a major threat to their resource holdings. Once the US oil embargo hit, they had to act.

I agree with this assessment. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a pre-emptive move in attempt to defend the spoils of ten years of aggressive conquest in multiple places in East Asia. To say "what if" the Japanese had attacked Russia instead of Pearl Harbor would be a major change in the motivation of the empire. They alread controlled Manchuria and Korea, and to start a war in East Russia would have left them vulnerable in many places.

But the other question is how do you motivate the citizens of the USA to go to war in the 20th century without responding to a direct attack? You might say that USA went into the second Iraq war without being attacked, but I believe that it wouldn't be possible without 9-11. Even though Iraq was not responsible, there was still a groundswell of emotion in America that linked the two events.

If Pearl Harbor had not happened, we may have dithered until the two regimes were permanently established. Clearly the events from September 1939 to December 1941 were not enough to bring USA into the war. If the invasion of France, the Battle of Britain, and Operation Barbarossa did not bring us into the war, it is difficult to imagine what could have happened on the global front that would have drawn us in without PH.

Another thing to remember is that Japan's surrender was partly a reaction to Russia declaring war on them in 1945. There is a certain argument that the Russian declaration was a bigger factor than the atomic bombs dropped on them. I don't really agree with that, but would say it was possibly equally weighted. It was certainly a factor.

Quote: EvenBob

The Japs have always lusted after Hawaii, thats why
they attacked it. They wanted it as their own. Ever
since the war ended they've tried to buy as much
of it as possible. I think there are more retired Japs
in Hawaii than there are in Japan. I lived there for
six months, and believe me, they think they won the
war and Hawaii is theirs. Thats how they act, anyway.

Hawaii is one of the two keys to defending North America from foreign navies, the Alleutian Islands and AK being the other. By the late 1800s the USA had established itself as the land power in North America, Canada being too sparsely populated and Mexico too weak and disorganized to challenge. So the focus from about 1860-1905 went to naval defense. Alaska was the first part, then Hawaii, then Cuba via Guentanamo Bay. For as far out in the Paciffic it is, HI is still the key.

Without naval power, a nation cannot project power or have an effective expeditionary army. This is why China will always have problems breaking out to be a more international power. USA bases in Japan and elsewhere mean we can resupply and operate to bottle them up near their coasts. And once they did break out, where do they go? They have few bases worldwide to stage ops from.

In this way, Japan attacking Pearl in 1941 still affects geopolitics.

Quote: AZDuffman

Without naval power... China will always have problems breaking out to be a more international power.

They are trying to fix this, you know.

Quote:

USA bases in Japan and elsewhere mean we can resupply and operate to bottle them up near their coasts.

The Japanese angle is getting to be interesting. We are getting out of Okinawa, which is why I think we are now hearing about Australia as a base. Bottling up China in the area of Japan probably depends on Japan stepping up to the plate for their own defense.

Get ready for a naval arms race someday in the area. If China will lend us the money we might be able to keep up [g].

Quote: odiousgambit

They are trying to fix this, you know.

They are but a big case of "easier said than done." The US Navy has been developing itself and its tactics since John Paul Jones. China has bought an aircraft carrier, but as STRATFOR stated, one carrier is not much worry. At the least it has to be in port sometimes and requires a surrounding fleet to service it. Sailors need to be trained and tactics learned. Even after all of this they still have to break out into open seas, which the USA Navy could deny them in a case of war due to al of our surrounding bases. China's neighbors are not crazy about her with even Vietnam of all places discussing cooperation with the USA.

Quote:

The Japanese angle is getting to be interesting. We are getting out of Okinawa, which is why I think we are now hearing about Australia as a base. Bottling up China in the area of Japan probably depends on Japan stepping up to the plate for their own defense.

It continues the US Policy of keeping regional powers in Mexican Standoffs around the world. If we keep the Chinese focused on Taiwain; the Japanese on China; South Korea on Japan; well, you get the picture. Benefit in East Asia over the Middle East is we have decided China is the main threat of being the hegemon while in the Middle East the players are more evenly matched so you have a harder time juggling.

Quote:

Get ready for a naval arms race someday in the area. If China will lend us the money we might be able to keep up.

We are already 100 years ahead of them naval-wise. These Asian "miricles" seem to boom their economy for 20-30 years and then major, painful corrections. China has been on a tear for 20 or so years now. Their factories make everything but profits. Look for a collapse. And when it happens, DUCK. There will be no money for a 1997-style bailout.

Quote: AZDuffman

Without naval power, a nation cannot project power or have an effective expeditionary army. This is why China will always have problems breaking out to be a more international power. USA bases in Japan and elsewhere mean we can resupply and operate to bottle them up near their coasts. And once they did break out, where do they go? They have few bases worldwide to stage ops from.

In this way, Japan attacking Pearl in 1941 still affects geopolitics.

China is building a formidable Navy. The first thing they will do if they regain Taiwan is to build a base on the mountainous eastern side of the island that will give them immediate access to deep water.

Look into the Tumen River Area Development Project (TRADP). It is a long delayed project to develope the Tumen river for the shared economic development of Russia, North Korea, Northern China (Manchuria), and Mongolia. But if it does go, China will add a military development angle to the project. That will give their submarines access to the Sea of Japan.

Make no mistake about it. The Chinese submarines are going further and further into the open ocean. They are conducting operations in such a way to show their power. They are claiming large areas of the Ocean that are "Open Seas" under international law, but they consider to be territorial seas.

Quote: EvenBob

I think there are more retired Japs in Hawaii than there are in Japan.

Hawaii has an Asian population of 525K, and a "Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander" population of 135K. Japan has a population of 126 million. Basically, Hawaii has an insignificant population compared to Japan, so the idea that there could be more retirees in Hawaii is preposterous.

Quote: pacomartin

Hawaii has an Asian population of 525K, and a "Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander" population of 135K. Japan has a population of 126 million. Basically, Hawaii has an insignificant population compared to Japan, so the idea that there could be more retirees in Hawaii is preposterous.

Yeah yeah, I said that wrong. I meant more retired Japanese
in Hawaii than retired Americans. In 1920 they were almost
half the population.

Quote: EvenBob

Yeah yeah, I said that wrong. I meant more retired Japanese in Hawaii than retired Americans. In 1920 they were almost half the population.

That claim is true. The exact percentage was 42.2% , but it had only dropped to 37.3% by 1940.

The native population of Hawaii in the late 1700's was estimated at over 300,000. The majority of the population in 1920 could be viewed as workforce that was brought in from other countries to replace the native population which had been wiped out by brutally hard labor, syphilis, and other diseases. The native Hawaiians would have sex with the European sailors for a nail, because they had never seen metal. The captains originally wouldn't let the sailors go ashore since they knew that the sailors would give them syphilis, but at some point the reasoning was reversed. The captains wouldn't let the sailors have sex with the natives, because so many of them were infected.

Population in 1920
Total.............................................................................. 258,912
Japanese.............................................................................. 109,274
Chinese.............................................................................. 23,507
Filipino............................................................................... 21,031
Korean............................................................................... 4,950
Hawaiian (full or part)............................................................ 41,750
White (Caucasian)..................................................................... 57,742
Black.................................................................................. 348
Not elsewhere classified............................................................. 310

Also about half of the Caucasians were Portuguese.

It is also true that today the Japanese Americans are the dominant economic ethnicity in Hawaii. The claim is not in dispute, but the emphasis is on Japanese Americans. There are far more Japanese tourists in Oahu than americans from mainland USA (also not in dispute), as mainlanders tend to go to Maui or the big island. Americans do not like to vacation in urban areas.