Plausibility check: Japan keeps peace with US, declares war on Soviet Union in 1941

Here is something interesting I have contemplated on: would it have been possible for the Japanese to keep peace with the United States in 1941 and instead declare war on the Soviet Union? How would this impact the cause of WWII?

I suppose that this would have created a twofold effect:

- Without Pearl Harbour, and also without the German declaration of war on the United States a few days after Pearl Harbour, it's kind of obvious that this would delayed the entry of the US into WWII for a considerable time. I would think that they eventually would have entered the war, anyways, I am not sure if the United States would fight with the same eagerness and commitment as they did in OTL if there wasn't such a humiliating "shock effect" as from Pearl Harbour. It could be that Roosevelt would have a considerably degree of difficulty to get the Americans into WWII.

- Regarding the Japanese and the Soviets, I'm not sure what the effect would be. The Japanese suffered a defeat in 1939 in the Japanese-Soviet border wars, which is the primary reason they kept peace with the Soviets in OTL. However I am not sure how badly the Japanese would really fare against the Soviets. I'm not sure what the butterflies would be, however - it could be that having to fight a two-front war pushes the Soviets near the breaking point - even though that's a tad speculative.

Bottom line, in my opinion is, while I think this would change little about the actual outcome of the war (I think it's unlikely that this would lead to an Axis victory, except for a few unforeseen butterflies), it would certainly prolong the war.
 
Emperor on this matter there are many folks vastly smarter than I am who can give you all sorts of fancy bells and whistles and I'm sure one of our many many go-to WWII experts will drop by to do exactly that.

The impression I've got though for why Japan never started anything with the Soviets is simply because they know they'd be almost guaranteed to lose the war. They're fighting with armored divisions that could best be described as "lackluster" in hostile territory against a numerically superior foe. Japan attacking at the same time as Germany means that they are a minor nuisance and little more to the Soviet Union. Any war means the clock starts ticking on Japan's natural resources, while meanwhile the resource-rich USSR can build up a giant force and crush them.

Japan's avoiding a conflict with America doesn't just rely on Pearl Harbor either. Any potential Japanese conflict with anyone, including the Soviet Union, is going to require the acquisition of resources that they do not possess but that other countries do. Certain areas, like the Dutch East Indies, are strategically important to the United States and Japan, the USA's eagerness to stay out of the war can only go so far once Japan starts upsetting the American way of life and such by taking the DEI and in so doing cut off America's main source of rubber.

Pearl Harbor was basically planned as a way to cripple the Pacific Fleet and give Japan a free hand in the Pacific area without having to worry about the Americans. Avoiding an attack on Pearl Harbor versus avoiding an attack on all American interests and possessions in the Pacific in general is not in the cards for what they're hoping to accomplish in the Pacific by way of not only seizing up air/naval rebasing stations on various islands, but also in taking areas like the Philippines for resources. Attacking the Philippines will unequivocally bring the United States into the war.
 
It's very possible that if the US agreed to supply Japan with the gas and loans it needed in 1941, then Japan would not have attacked Pearl Harbour. I'm not sure about the Soviet Union though, perhaps they'll join if it's seems the Soviets are losing.
 
It's very possible that if the US agreed to supply Japan with the gas and loans it needed in 1941, then Japan would not have attacked Pearl Harbour. I'm not sure about the Soviet Union though, perhaps they'll join if it's seems the Soviets are losing.

For the USA to do that stipulates Japanese withdrawal from China, which will cost them the launching point for their attack on the Soviet Union. Even a truly isolationist USA will not allow Japan to continue on in Asia as it did OTL, that's what lead to the embargo and increased US-Japanese tensions to the point where they would eventually go to war.
 
Emperor on this matter there are many folks vastly smarter than I am who can give you all sorts of fancy bells and whistles and I'm sure one of our many many go-to WWII experts will drop by to do exactly that.

Well, I normally don't care much about WWII what-ifs, the question just dawned to me this morning while the caffeine was slowly seeping into my brain. :p

The impression I've got though for why Japan never started anything with the Soviets is simply because they know they'd be almost guaranteed to lose the war. They're fighting with armored divisions that could best be described as "lackluster" in hostile territory against a numerically superior foe. Japan attacking at the same time as Germany means that they are a minor nuisance and little more to the Soviet Union. Any war means the clock starts ticking on Japan's natural resources, while meanwhile the resource-rich USSR can build up a giant force and crush them.

That is actually where I wonder: was this really the case? Would the Japanese really just be a "minor nuisance" for the Soviets if at the same time Germany was pushing them from the West? I see your point about the meek armoured divisions of the Japanese, however. At the flip side, the Soviet armoured divisions at that point cannot be really described as any better, however. We are talking about the same Soviet Union that was caught with their pants down in 1941.

Japan's avoiding a conflict with America doesn't just rely on Pearl Harbor either. Any potential Japanese conflict with anyone, including the Soviet Union, is going to require the acquisition of resources that they do not possess but that other countries do. Certain areas, like the Dutch East Indies, are strategically important to the United States and Japan, the USA's eagerness to stay out of the war can only go so far once Japan starts upsetting the American way of life and such by taking the DEI and in so doing cut off America's main source of rubber.

Pearl Harbor was basically planned as a way to cripple the Pacific Fleet and give Japan a free hand in the Pacific area without having to worry about the Americans. Avoiding an attack on Pearl Harbor versus avoiding an attack on all American interests and possessions in the Pacific in general is not in the cards for what they're hoping to accomplish in the Pacific by way of not only seizing up air/naval rebasing stations on various islands, but also in taking areas like the Philippines for resources. Attacking the Philippines will unequivocally bring the United States into the war.

Yes, but you haven't answered on how this would affect the US's eagerness to fight the war in the first place. Would the US even bother to rally the war effort that it did in OTL without an event like Pearl Harbour?

There is also another question: how long would it have taken for the US to enter into the European theatre without Pearl Harbour?
 
Well, I normally don't care much about WWII what-ifs, the question just dawned to me this morning while the caffeine was slowly seeping into my brain. :p



That is actually where I wonder: was this really the case? Would the Japanese really just be a "minor nuisance" for the Soviets if at the same time Germany was pushing them from the West? I see your point about the meek armoured divisions of the Japanese, however. At the flip side, the Soviet armoured divisions at that point cannot be really described as any better, however. We are talking about the same Soviet Union that was caught with their pants down in 1941.

It's still the same one that whooped Japan back in the 30s, again, having Germany win in the USSR is hard enough, Japan is outright impossible.


Yes, but you haven't answered on how this would affect the US's eagerness to fight the war in the first place. Would the US even bother to rally the war effort that it did in OTL without an event like Pearl Harbour?

There is also another question: how long would it have taken for the US to enter into the European theatre without Pearl Harbour?

The Philippines would've had US citizens and troops stationed there, that would piss off the American public to a sufficient extent.
 

Thande

Donor
This has been discussed a fair bit before, EQ. Basically, the USSR has nothing the Japanese want. What the Japanese want is oil and rubber and other supplies they need to continue their war in China, which they can get from the Dutch East Indies and British Malaya. And they think (though this has been argued) that the USA will kick up a fuss if they do that, so they need to try and destroy the US Pacific fleet with an attack on Pearl Harbour. If this seems like ridiculous foolhardy overkill and the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, that's because it was.
 
It's still the same one that whooped Japan back in the 30s, again, having Germany win in the USSR is hard enough, Japan is outright impossible.

I see your point. The question I was wondering on is though: would a Japanese incursion in the Far East force the Soviets to draw away resources in the West, and would this actually hurt/delay their effort on the western front in any signifcant way?

The Philippines would've had US citizens and troops stationed there, that would piss off the American public to a sufficient extent.

Well, I wasn't thinking about the Philippines. I was thinking about when and if a US entry into the war in Europe would have happened without a Japanese/German declaration of war on the US.
 
This has been discussed a fair bit before, EQ. Basically, the USSR has nothing the Japanese want. What the Japanese want is oil and rubber and other supplies they need to continue their war in China, which they can get from the Dutch East Indies and British Malaya. And they think (though this has been argued) that the USA will kick up a fuss if they do that, so they need to try and destroy the US Pacific fleet with an attack on Pearl Harbour. If this seems like ridiculous foolhardy overkill and the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, that's because it was.

Duh. :eek:

Well, considering that I normally just.don't.bother with WWII what-ifs at all, I suppose it's not surprising that the one time in a year that something dawns into my mind... it goes all awry. :p

But yeah, it makes somewhat more sense the way things plotted out in OTL there.
 
Top