Japan allied with UK and US

Inspired by this:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?p=11092418&posted=1#post11092418
Further but Japan clearly demonstrates that being in the Axis does not mean being in the war. The Japanese waited until they were quite sure that the advantages of peace were outweighed by the necessity of war and they got that calculation wrong clearly.

Given the shift in alliances then it is going to be very tempting to approach America for access to Lend Lease to go fight the Soviets...the Army wants to just fight someone and make the kind of career and personal loot type gains that the officer corps had grown used to. One enemy was as good as another while for the Navy not fighting the British and Americans is a dream come true. For those ministers with an actual eye on the economy then good relations with the US and peaceful access to the markets of the British Empire are also going to be attractive.
Probably Japan on the side of the allies TL it's been done before in a different form, but in this timeline, let's say Stalin joined the Axis, and there is reproachment between Japan and US, UK etc. How would that go? Would Japan go to war against the USSR? Would they receive lend lease (say the one historically sent to USSR)? What happens to China and rest of Asia in this TL? And what interests me most, what are the effects on the IJN and japanese army and air force, and indeed how does the immediate postwar period looks like in this Japan?
 
Smashed on the mainland while the U.S. and britian laughs .i don't see the allies winning their not going to or be able to nuke everything to the urals .
 
Inspired by this:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?p=11092418&posted=1#post11092418

Probably Japan on the side of the allies TL it's been done before in a different form, but in this timeline, let's say Stalin joined the Axis, and there is reproachment between Japan and US, UK etc. How would that go? Would Japan go to war against the USSR? Would they receive lend lease (say the one historically sent to USSR)? What happens to China and rest of Asia in this TL? And what interests me most, what are the effects on the IJN and japanese army and air force, and indeed how does the immediate postwar period looks like in this Japan?

The thing is that Japanese expansion necessarily brings it into conflict with the US, UK and to a lesser extent France and the Netherlands. Invading Siberia is a plan for war with the Soviets and a bad one at that, as the Eastern Soviet Union is lightly populated and conquering the land itself provides little benefits for Japan, but will take a lot of money and troops to hold (particularly when the red army arrives a few weeks later en mass via the Siberian Railway). For the Japanese to expand their empire there is only really one way to go: South. This means as in OTL invading China, which brings it in direct conflict with American and British interests in that region. As in OTL once the Japanese do that the Americans will put up an oil embargo on Japan and freeze its overseas assets, unless it agrees to retreat its army. As Japan is utterly dependent of foreign oil (it is an Island with no oil itself and a big navy and air force to fuel) it either has to bow to American demands or launch an all out attack on the oil and resource rich areas of South East Asia which are already part of the European or American Empires.

Honestly, for the Japanese to have any real hope of expanding their power in the region by force they HAVE to fight the British and the Americans, as these countries either lay direct claim or exert heavy influence (informal empire) on all the resource valuable regions of East Asia. One the Americans are pushed to a full embargo of oil and raw materials the Japanese have to attack or their war machine (and country) will simply grind to a halt as their oil, metal and rubber reserves are quickly depleted.

Of note the Anglo-Japanese alliance was formed by both countries in order to Check US ambitions in the Pacific. The British refused to renew it in the 1920s because they feared that they would be drawn into war with America by the Japanese. Japanese and American interests in Asia at this time fundamentally conflict with each other.

As Yamamoto stated: "Japan now faces two choices: expansion or decline"

Maybe the Japanese can take and hold Manchuria without provoking Americans to embargo, but that's about the limit they can go without having to war with the US.
 
Last edited:
Please see page 4 of the thread referred to in the original post.

In reference to the comments from that thread:
I honestly cant see the Europeans being willing to make much in the way of accommodations for Japan in order to get a Japanese alliance. Their Far-East possessions are valuable and China is an enormous Cash-Cow. The west really needs their eastern resources to fuel the European war. To be honest an alliance with Japan is hardly better than a neutral Japan for the UK or the USA, as their really isn't much Japan can do in the region to further allied war goals. Sure they could send an army wandering through Siberia waiting to get crushed by the Red Army or to freeze to death, but that's about it. Furthermore the main goal of the UK and US in East Asia at this time is to restrain Japan's influence in the region. I just cant see them willing to give the Japanese European possessions an essentially concede hegemony in East Asia to Japan, not when the benefits of having an allied Japan are so minimal.
 
If Stalin joins the Axis, then the British are in a far worse scenario than OTL. India and the Middle East is threatened (if not invaded) and the Germans can put a much deeper focus into trying to bomb/starve the UK into submission. I would think that in these circumstances, any help would be worthwhile.
 
If Stalin joins the Axis, then the British are in a far worse scenario than OTL. India and the Middle East is threatened (if not invaded) and the Germans can put a much deeper focus into trying to bomb/starve the UK into submission. I would think that in these circumstances, any help would be worthwhile.


This assumes that in any sort of German/Soviet Alliance Stalin actually trusts the Nazis enough to redeploy the bulk of his army to Asia to launch an invasion of British India. Considering Hitler's whole end game was to conquer Russian "Labensraum" and he even publish a book where he said as much the idea that the USSR even with a formal alliance with Germany would be willing to shift a big army (and it would half to be big as the British Indian Army had mobilized 2 million men and could easily mobilize more if India itself was under attack) is pretty much ASB. Furthermore the whole reason why Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler in the First place was to get time to rebuild his army after the purges. 1939-1940 Red Army can barely defeat Finland (and after that the whole world now knows how ill-equipped the Russians are to invade other countries), and gets its ass kicked by the German Army before they can finally build enough war material to even equip ever soldier with a rifle. Remember invading a country takes up a lot more resources than defending because you have to deal with the logistical burden of operating in a foreign land, and India is a big country to conquer, with the important cities mostly in the south, so that's a long way for the Russians to project an army with practically no mechanization or logistical equipment (they would later rely on American Lend-Lease for that, with the US sending Russia huge amounts of food, trucks and jeeps that allowed it to advance through Europe). Not to mention that invading through Northern India is much more of a logistical strain then through Europe because the infrastructure is so much worse. Norther India in the 1940s is at best dirt roads and craggy mountains, pretty much the worst terrain to project an army, not to mention an army with a decimated and inexperienced officer corps, and practically no mechanization (its artillery was still primarily pulled by horse). Even if Stalin wanted to invade India in 1939 or 1940 it would likely end in a disaster as the Red Army at this point is pretty much incapable of projecting force for any really great distance, and again this is even assuming that Stalin is foolish enough to actually believe that contrary to Hitler's stated goal of destroying the Soviet Union, a paper alliance with Germany will prevent him from stabbing Stalin in the back when he moves on India. To reach British possessions in East Asia the Russians first have to get through Japanese occupied China, so why would the British concede anything to the Japanese here, when any Russian attack would automatically make the Japanese co-belligerents on their side.

So in summary, the USSR poses little real threat to British India or Britain itself at this pint because A: The USSR is obligated to keep the bulk of their army on their western border, and B: They simply don't have the logistical capability of projecting a significant force to India.

So no, an Axis Russia really isn't a good tool for forcing concessions from Britain for the Japanese.
 
This assumes that in any sort of German/Soviet Alliance Stalin actually trusts the Nazis enough to redeploy the bulk of his army to Asia to launch an invasion of British India. Considering Hitler's whole end game was to conquer Russian "Labensraum" and he even publish a book where he said as much the idea that the USSR even with a formal alliance with Germany would be willing to shift a big army (and it would half to be big as the British Indian Army had mobilized 2 million men and could easily mobilize more if India itself was under attack) is pretty much ASB. Furthermore the whole reason why Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler in the First place was to get time to rebuild his army after the purges. 1939-1940 Red Army can barely defeat Finland (and after that the whole world now knows how ill-equipped the Russians are to invade other countries), and gets its ass kicked by the German Army before they can finally build enough war material to even equip ever soldier with a rifle. Remember invading a country takes up a lot more resources than defending because you have to deal with the logistical burden of operating in a foreign land, and India is a big country to conquer, with the important cities mostly in the south, so that's a long way for the Russians to project an army with practically no mechanization or logistical equipment (they would later rely on American Lend-Lease for that, with the US sending Russia huge amounts of food, trucks and jeeps that allowed it to advance through Europe). Not to mention that invading through Northern India is much more of a logistical strain then through Europe because the infrastructure is so much worse. Norther India in the 1940s is at best dirt roads and craggy mountains, pretty much the worst terrain to project an army, not to mention an army with a decimated and inexperienced officer corps, and practically no mechanization (its artillery was still primarily pulled by horse). Even if Stalin wanted to invade India in 1939 or 1940 it would likely end in a disaster as the Red Army at this point is pretty much incapable of projecting force for any really great distance, and again this is even assuming that Stalin is foolish enough to actually believe that contrary to Hitler's stated goal of destroying the Soviet Union, a paper alliance with Germany will prevent him from stabbing Stalin in the back when he moves on India. To reach British possessions in East Asia the Russians first have to get through Japanese occupied China, so why would the British concede anything to the Japanese here, when any Russian attack would automatically make the Japanese co-belligerents on their side.

So in summary, the USSR poses little real threat to British India or Britain itself at this pint because A: The USSR is obligated to keep the bulk of their army on their western border, and B: They simply don't have the logistical capability of projecting a significant force to India.

So no, an Axis Russia really isn't a good tool for forcing concessions from Britain for the Japanese.

I agree that the USSR would have to be extremely wary of trusting Hitler and that India won't be easily conquered.

But will the British public and politicians see it that way?

You've just watched Russia batter Finland into submission and carve up Poland with Germany (whom you're at war with). Now they've officially aligned themselves together. The reality of the situation might not be the same as the perceived situation.
 
I agree that the USSR would have to be extremely wary of trusting Hitler and that India won't be easily conquered.

But will the British public and politicians see it that way?

You've just watched Russia batter Finland into submission and carve up Poland with Germany (whom you're at war with). Now they've officially aligned themselves together. The reality of the situation might not be the same as the perceived situation.


They just watched Russia do miserably in Finland. In fact in OTL Russia's poor performance in Finland just convinced the Germans that Russia would be easy to conquer (as indeed it appeared to be for the first year of Barbarossa). The main point is that an alliance with Japan wont even help Britain vs Russia. Japan is a Maritime power. Infantry is fine for attacking the fragmented, obsolescent forces of a China in the midst of a Civil war, or for fighting on a series of small jungle Islands, but Siberia is wide open pains and Steppes. In that terrain tanks are king, and Japan has practically no tanks. For the Japanese to do anything but annoy Russia, they have to march all the way through the sparsely populated eastern Russia and strike at major cities of Western Russia, which is completely beyond their abilities, especially since the bulk of the Japanese army is already engaged in China. To put it another way, there is a reason why Russia in OTL spared very little f its forces to defend its eastern border from a Japanese attack (and when the Japanese did make minor attacks they lost) and that is because they knew the Japanese were completely incapable of threatening them. There is no reason to believe the British didn't know this as well.

To put it in short form: Japan is a naval power, it is no more ability to defeat the Soviets on land then the Soviets do to beat the Japanese on the seas, and the UK will know this, so again, why would they abandon their main objective in the pacific (containing Japanese expansion), and give up their colonies to get an ally that could give them little in return?
 
The UK can force concessions from China (which is likely cut off from them anyway), the Dutch East Indies (which is under colonial control of a government-in-exile), Papua New Guinea, and Malaysia (which it controls). Japan gets oil, natural resources, and a free hand in China where it can train its troops on new weapons. It also gets chunks of Siberia after the war which it considered as an alternative to expansion in the Pacific.

Yes, the situation has to suck for this to be on the table, but if Moscow and Berlin are playing nice in late 1940 it does not get much worse.
 
They just watched Russia do miserably in Finland. In fact in OTL Russia's poor performance in Finland just convinced the Germans that Russia would be easy to conquer (as indeed it appeared to be for the first year of Barbarossa). The main point is that an alliance with Japan wont even help Britain vs Russia. Japan is a Maritime power. Infantry is fine for attacking the fragmented, obsolescent forces of a China in the midst of a Civil war, or for fighting on a series of small jungle Islands, but Siberia is wide open pains and Steppes. In that terrain tanks are king, and Japan has practically no tanks. For the Japanese to do anything but annoy Russia, they have to march all the way through the sparsely populated eastern Russia and strike at major cities of Western Russia, which is completely beyond their abilities, especially since the bulk of the Japanese army is already engaged in China. To put it another way, there is a reason why Russia in OTL spared very little f its forces to defend its eastern border from a Japanese attack (and when the Japanese did make minor attacks they lost) and that is because they knew the Japanese were completely incapable of threatening them. There is no reason to believe the British didn't know this as well.

To put it in short form: Japan is a naval power, it is no more ability to defeat the Soviets on land then the Soviets do to beat the Japanese on the seas, and the UK will know this, so again, why would they abandon their main objective in the pacific (containing Japanese expansion), and give up their colonies to get an ally that could give them little in return?

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I think the British leadership would argue that "any help beats no help." I agree with all your points, but I think if the Soviets looked poised to attack India and the Middle East that that will be the prevailing attitude.
 
Top