Japan doesn't join the Axis

Japan invades French Indochina, and doesn't sign the Tripartite Pact. Effectively declaring war on the Axis Powers. Nationalist China might sign Tripartite Pact. US probably won't War the Axis, so the Allies don't have America's production power. A lot of people don't realize how important the US is on the Eastern front, After Stalingrad the Germans were preparing a counterattack at Kursk. The US supplied the Soviets HEAVILY. Allowing for the powerful defense of Kursk and them to win the battle. Would Germany still win anyways? Put ur thoughts below
 

Deleted member 1487

The US still provides LL even if just filtered through the UK and through Persia/Vladivostok. The US focuses on war with Japan while heavily aiding the Brits assuming they stay out of the war in Europe. The thing is without the US help in Europe Britain has a hard time tackling the Axis on their own and pretty much are just locked into a Mediterranean campaign that drags out, the strategic air war, and trying to aid the USSR via their LL. The Allies suffer accordingly without the USAAF contributions or the Torch landings. Britain could launch the Italian campaign on their own, but Italy won't defect without the US in the war, neither will Vichy simply give up either and they'd probably fight back against Britain alone (they said they would IOTL, which is why the US led the Torch invasion) if they tried to invade French North Africa. Overall then that means a much harder campaign for the Brits and Soviets, perhaps being unable to defeat Germany on their own even with LL. The Soviets heavily benefited from the Torch landings and daylight strategic air war that drew off the Luftwaffe from 1943 on. Victory, if it comes, will be much more costly than it was IOTL.
 

nbcman

Donor
Japan invades French Indochina, and doesn't sign the Tripartite Pact. Effectively declaring war on the Axis Powers.
Nope. Invasion of South FIC by Japan put them on path to war with the Western Allies. Whether or not they signed the Tripartite Pact made no difference.
Nationalist China might sign Tripartite Pact.
Why? The Tripartite Pact was a defensive alliance in case the US declared war. Nationalist China had no need for it as the US wasn’t going to declare war on them.
US probably won't War the Axis, so the Allies don't have America's production power.
Japan invading FIC set them on the path that either led to their retreat from China or war. And if Japan declares war, Hitler will follow suit. So the US will be in the war.
A lot of people don't realize how important the US is on the Eastern front,
Not the members of this website.
After Stalingrad the Germans were preparing a counterattack at Kursk. The US supplied the Soviets HEAVILY.
US lend lease supplies were not that much before Op Citadel. They were much greater later in the war.
Allowing for the powerful defense of Kursk and them to win the battle.
The Germans weren’t going to win at Kursk. They had shot their bolt in 1941 & 1942.
Would Germany still win anyways? Put ur thoughts below
You are aware the Germans lost that battle and the war, right? This is the second thread that you’ve stated that Germany won.
 
Nope. Invasion of South FIC by Japan put them on path to war with the Western Allies. Whether or not they signed the Tripartite Pact made no difference.

Why? The Tripartite Pact was a defensive alliance in case the US declared war. Nationalist China had no need for it as the US wasn’t going to declare war on them.

Japan invading FIC set them on the path that either led to their retreat from China or war. And if Japan declares war, Hitler will follow suit. So the US will be in the war.

Not the members of this website.

US lend lease supplies were not that much before Op Citadel. They were much greater later in the war.

The Germans weren’t going to win at Kursk. They had shot their bolt in 1941 & 1942.

You are aware the Germans lost that battle and the war, right? This is the second thread that you’ve stated that Germany won.
I've never stated Germany won the Second World War, I do know that the Soviets won Kursk. Also, Vichy France controlled Indochina , not the allies, but it would make tension and maybe War would start
 
I've never stated Germany won the Second World War, I do know that the Soviets won Kursk. Also, Vichy France controlled Indochina , not the allies, but it would make tension and maybe War would start

Vichy France wasn't officially part of the axis so if Japan invades Indochina they aren't "effectively" declaring war on the axis, they are just being imperialistic. Japan didn't have a claim to Indochina so them invading it only increases their trouble with the US. It was Japna's OTL invasion of Indochina that earned them the oil embargo.
 
Vichy France wasn't officially part of the axis so if Japan invades Indochina they aren't "effectively" declaring war on the axis, they are just being imperialistic. Japan didn't have a claim to Indochina so them invading it only increases their trouble with the US. It was Japna's OTL invasion of Indochina that earned them the oil embargo.
K thx
 
IF Japan was not in discussions to join Axis would Germany pressure Vichy regime to allow them into Indochina? or just take no position? not sure what options French had? cooperate/collaborate with KMT China? (this was same month they fought off British force at Dakar but they did not have that type of firepower in Indochina)

IF Japan did not join Axis, Germany might have continued their unhappy collaboration with USSR?

in Sept. of 1940 Germany had just sent first raider Komet thru Northern Sea Route to Pacific with consent and help of Soviets and were discussing using ships using other direction to carry freight as well as repair base in remote Kamchatka. the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact had not been signed at that time (not until April 1941.)
 
IF Japan was not in discussions to join Axis would Germany pressure Vichy regime to allow them into Indochina? or just take no position? not sure what options French had? cooperate/collaborate with KMT China? (this was same month they fought off British force at Dakar but they did not have that type of firepower in Indochina)

The French were, from the Japanese PoV collaborating with the KMT. The port of Haiphong was becoming a alternate to the Chinese ports the Japanese held.

IF Japan did not join Axis, Germany might have continued their unhappy collaboration with USSR?

Why? Conquest of the easter slavic populations was high on Hitlers to do list. He had expected to do that very soon anyway, before any war in the west vs either France of Britain. The collaboration between the USSR and nazi Germany was as you say unhappy, and it was understood the conquest would be more difficult later.

[/QUOTE]in Sept. of 1940 Germany had just sent first raider Komet thru Northern Sea Route to Pacific with consent and help of Soviets and were discussing using ships using other direction to carry freight as well as repair base in remote Kamchatka. the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact had not been signed at that time (not until April 1941.)[/QUOTE]

& about the same time in the autumn of 1940 the decision was made to attack the USSR in the spring of 1941. I'm unclear what the point is about the Soviet-Japanese Nuetrality Pact is.
 
IF Japan was not in discussions to join Axis would Germany pressure Vichy regime to allow them into Indochina? or just take no position? not sure what options French had? cooperate/collaborate with KMT China? (this was same month they fought off British force at Dakar but they did not have that type of firepower in Indochina)

IF Japan did not join Axis, Germany might have continued their unhappy collaboration with USSR?

in Sept. of 1940 Germany had just sent first raider Komet thru Northern Sea Route to Pacific with consent and help of Soviets and were discussing using ships using other direction to carry freight as well as repair base in remote Kamchatka. the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact had not been signed at that time (not until April 1941.)

The French were, from the Japanese PoV collaborating with the KMT. The port of Haiphong was becoming a alternate to the Chinese ports the Japanese held.

Conquest of the easter slavic populations was high on Hitlers to do list. He had expected to do that very soon anyway, before any war in the west vs either France of Britain. The collaboration between the USSR and nazi Germany was as you say unhappy, and it was understood the conquest would be more difficult later.

in the autumn of 1940 the decision was made to attack the USSR in the spring of 1941. I'm unclear what the point is about the Soviet-Japanese Nuetrality Pact is.

the Vichy regime was trading with KMT, the possibility exists they could increase that, making the Japanese invasion counterproductive ... not that that was something stopping the Japanese in all instances!

yes, understand the clash with USSR was considered to be fate but there were serious discussions for Soviets to join Axis. meant that there was period where Japan would not have concluded any treaty or agreement with either Axis or Soviets (they are "free agent")

Germany would desire a Soviet-Japanese war, they were not able to entice Japan into that historically, even after giving up their dealings with KMT China and pressuring the Vichy in Indochina. while unlikely, they might have had more success making Indochina appear bitter fruit and serving as Soviet cat's paw in Pacific? leading to the Strike North.

(even if unsuccessful they have maintained their trade with USSR, China, Indochina, Iran, and solidified their collaboration with Vichy France)
 

Deleted member 1487

the Vichy regime was trading with KMT, the possibility exists they could increase that, making the Japanese invasion counterproductive ... not that that was something stopping the Japanese in all instances!

yes, understand the clash with USSR was considered to be fate but there were serious discussions for Soviets to join Axis. meant that there was period where Japan would not have concluded any treaty or agreement with either Axis or Soviets (they are "free agent")

Germany would desire a Soviet-Japanese war, they were not able to entice Japan into that historically, even after giving up their dealings with KMT China and pressuring the Vichy in Indochina. while unlikely, they might have had more success making Indochina appear bitter fruit and serving as Soviet cat's paw in Pacific? leading to the Strike North.

(even if unsuccessful they have maintained their trade with USSR, China, Indochina, Iran, and solidified their collaboration with Vichy France)
Carl's right, there is nothing in this POD that changes or butterfly's Hitler motivations for Barbarossa. Functionally little changes other than perhaps the Germans and KMT staying aligned and there is the question of whether the Soviets let the Germans trade with the Chinese via their territory like they did with the Japanese after the blockade of Germany started. IIRC (which I may not be) the Soviets cut their support for the KMT to appease Japan by the late 1930s, so they well might not allow for German-Chinese trade, which would be the only connection the two countries would have. If they allowed trade then Germany and China would continue to about mid-1941, which was far more lucrative than trade with Japan.

The changes ITTL might not really crop up in Europe until 1942 when the US should have entered the war, as there then won't be the mass slaughter of shipping off the US coast; things cascade from there, but significant changes don't really crop up (assuming the US stays neutral) other than the BotA ending in Britain's favor earlier due to restricted Uboat hunting grounds, until Torch. Arguably the strategy for 1942 might be different in the East without the US in the war and the pressure of that and same with the response to Operation Uranus without Torch. 1943 will be quite a bit different in Europe compared to OTL.

In the Pacific the US should also be doing somewhat better against Japan without the losses to German Uboats and ability to focus on one front.
 
Carl's right, there is nothing in this POD that changes or butterfly's Hitler motivations for Barbarossa. Functionally little changes other than perhaps the Germans and KMT staying aligned and there is the question of whether the Soviets let the Germans trade with the Chinese via their territory like they did with the Japanese after the blockade of Germany started. IIRC (which I may not be) the Soviets cut their support for the KMT to appease Japan by the late 1930s, so they well might not allow for German-Chinese trade, which would be the only connection the two countries would have. If they allowed trade then Germany and China would continue to about mid-1941, which was far more lucrative than trade with Japan.

the point I was trying to make (probably poorly) was that if Japan does not join the Axis the door is open for them to swap OTL roles, a Soviet-Japanese conflict and cold peace between Germany and Soviets (not likely but the possibility is there when it was not IOTL.)

(on the trade, the Soviets DID offer a favorable or reduced rate on TSRR to Iran and Manchuria as part of their last offer to join Axis, the inclusion of Iran led me to think they would allow trade with China? that may be misinformed)
 

Deleted member 1487

the point I was trying to make (probably poorly) was that if Japan does not join the Axis the door is open for them to swap OTL roles, a Soviet-Japanese conflict and cold peace between Germany and Soviets (not likely but the possibility is there when it was not IOTL.)

(on the trade, the Soviets DID offer a favorable or reduced rate on TSRR to Iran and Manchuria as part of their last offer to join Axis, the inclusion of Iran led me to think they would allow trade with China? that may be misinformed)
I don't see how that would happen, either Japan nor the USSR had much to gain from a war; the USSR still had too much to fear from Germany to get bogged down in Asia, while the Japanese were too bogged down in China and had problems with the US that were growing; having no allies in the world would make their concern about getting into a war even greater.
The problem is that there was no rail link to China other than through Manchuria for the USSR. The coast ports of China were held by Japan by 1939 as part of their strangling strategy, while the Brits are not going to let the Germans use the Burma road. The inclusion of Iran in the Soviet offer was because Germany had a lot of business in Iran, not because Iran could really be used to link to China.
http://www.westpoint.edu/history/SiteAssets/SitePages/Chinese Civil War/ChineseCivilWar06.gif
http://www.emersonkent.com/images/china_1941.jpg
 
(on the trade, the Soviets DID offer a favorable or reduced rate on TSRR to Iran and Manchuria as part of their last offer to join Axis, the inclusion of Iran led me to think they would allow trade with China? that may be misinformed)

The inclusion of Iran in the Soviet offer was because Germany had a lot of business in Iran, not because Iran could really be used to link to China.

meant to include Iran as example that Soviets had at least offered to continue allowing trade not that Iran would become part of German Silk Road.
 

Deleted member 1487

meant to include Iran as example that Soviets had at least offered to continue allowing trade not that Iran would become part of German Silk Road.
Sure, the problem though is the lack of a rail line to China, unlike Japan (occupied Manchuria) or Iran.
 
Top