What if Japan....?

What if instead of Japan attacking the US at pearl harbor, they diverted theyre fleet and airforce, and available ground forces towards the russians? I certainly beleive that the long range G4m and the zero could have done some serious damage to tagrets 900 miles inland of the soviet union, and that the IJN could have reaked havoc against the soviets. Carrier based bombers, fighters, and battleships could attack coastal targets, and targets in northern russia. Land based bombers in china and manchuria could reach far, far into the mother land. Granted campaigns were raging in china, and manchuria at one point, but without facing the US, japan had the power to at least make an attempt at this. When the soviets moved production facilities from its western front, they would have put them within range possibly of japanese bombers and ground forces. Yes, japan had very poor tanks, and theyre infantry werent winter specialists, but if they attacked along with germany, they might have crippled russia before the harsh winter could hamper them, and result in theyre own stalingrad. They were timid because of previous defeats yes, but that doesnt mean they couldnt win. They got resources in manchuria, and air bases to launch air craft, and theyre navy could crush an soviet resistance. At this point, japan and the soviets had a peace treaty in terms, so the soviets would not be fully prepared, and in this area had little air force, and what they had was equipped with obsolete fighters and bombers, that would have probably been crushed on the ground in the intial surprise bombings. Please post comments to this, id love to hear them.

[Jim Oxley]

The scenario you alude to was in fact a prime concern of Stalin's and the Soviet High Command. Japan and Russia had fought a brief, but savage, battle in 1939 known as the Nomonham Incident. Even after June 1941 Russia continued to hold valuable troops in the South in case Japan took the opportunity to attack Russia. Only after Japan struck south against the British, Dutch and American colonial powers did the Soviet High Command breath a sigh of relief.

The Japanese Army also saw Russia as the main enemy, and several plans existed for the invasion of Russia. It was only in early 1941 that the Japanese High Command finally settled on striking south against the Western powers that Army planners changed their focus.

Had Japan struck north into Russia, from both Manchuria and Japan itself, instead of south against the Colonial powers, a whole different ending of WWII may have come about.

[Rich47]

An initial attack into Manchuria didn't make any sense for the Japanese. They knew their main adversaries would end up being the Americans and the Brits anyways, "also knew they would end up being at war with them eventually", so why tie up your forces in Manchuria?

There is some argument for Manchuria being "resource rich" but it was second in importance to the oil rich British colonies in S/E Asia. Doubly so after the American oil embargo!

Besides Japan was 100% dependant on imports for its war industry. To leave their extended sea lanes vulnerable to the powerfull Brit and American navys would have been madness. The Japs had two options open to them in 1941. #1, Was to give up their dreams of empire. #2, Was to attack the American Pacific fleet, hopefully crippling it enough for them to get a few years to shore up their Empire, eventually getting a peace on their terms. Manchuria was on the short list but it wasn't a main objective.

[drgondog]

Rich - you are right. The Japanese had to have oil. Period. Had to neutralize the Brit and American Navy to secure it in SE Asia... and had to have secure supply to finish China, much less attack Russia.

Had the Japanese negotiated a favorable settlement with US and Britain, then Russia could have been next... but not until the energy issue was solved.

Another interesting question would have been armor and anti armor against the Soviets. The Germans didn't fare well and they had the best of both categories

Last but not least is the incredible supply chain issue to support their troops should they have tackled Soviet Union from SE.. bad move all around.

[Ruy Horta]

The only what if might have been an attack bypassing any US assets, which would have exposed their flanks from two sides. The risk might have been worth it, if the US public remained in favor of neutrality.

IMHO America would have declared war sooner or later in this scenario (according to Daniel Ford policy in China was one of increasing involvement anyway).

[Graham Boak]

They'd already been hammered by the Russians - another try would have brought the same result. Maybe not as easy, because the Japanese had improved their air power compared to the Russians, but the army was still outclassed. Good tank country, Manchuria.

The British did not have any oil-rich colonies in SE Asia. The oil was with the Dutch. The British had rubber. And tea.

The Americans had an emotional attachment to China because of years of attempted missionary activity. They would have come around to military action against Japan had the oil stranglehold failed - not that I think it would have done. Japan had to strike south or abandon years of expansion. Not an option, in their way of thinking.

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Another interesting question would have been armor and anti armor against the Soviets. The Germans didn't fare well and they had the best of both categories

It is arguable if the Germans always had the best in terms of armor and anti-armor compared to the Soviets, in many cases the reverse might be more accurate.

The Germans made a mistake relying too much on their armored spearheads and neglecting to give them sufficient infantry support.

Armor should not be used to attack enemy strong points, but find weakspots and use mobility to cut deep into enemy territory - flanking strongpoints.

But it needs infantry support to hold territory.