Why USA and not USSR ?

Inter-service rivalry had allot to do with it.
The Japanese Navy saw their own budget get crushed and the army's ballooning in the event of Russo-Japanese war two, electric boogaloo.
By contrast, a war against the occident would be primarily a naval affair.

Also, practicality, Japanese war plans against the Soviets had them attempting occupation far into Siberia, which was an unsustainable pipe-dream even by Empire of Japan military planning standards. By comparison, blitz the allies, occupy the Asian colonies, and sue for peace before retaliation seemed doable.
 
The Soviets had already walloped the IJA once with one-arm tied behind their back. See the Battle of Khalkhin Gol

Colonel Masanobu Tsuji was a notorious Army militant and war criminal. Despite his relatively modest rank, he was remarkably influential (reportedly charismatic), and was often present at Imperial War Council meetings, where he opposed any peace moves whatever. However, he had been present in Manchuria during the clash with the Soviets, and the beating the Japanese got was enough to make him opposed to any further trying-on with them.

Furthermore, there wasn't oil exploration in Siberia at the time. They couldn't support their empire on the promise of future oil trade with Germany in the event the Soviets were beaten. It was needed almost immediately or the war effort in China was going to collapse.

The oil that was within reach was in the Dutch East Indies.

And in Brunei, then a British protectorate. During the war, IJN ships sometimes used unrefined Brunei crude for fuel (it's fairly light). IIRC, some of the Japanese Navy based at Brunei for that purpose, to save tanker capacity.

Securing it means taking the Phillipines, or else the Asiatic Fleet or land based planes could just sit astride the sea lanes and prevent the oil from reaching the home islands, because there was no way in Hell that the US would let them get away with an unprovoked war of aggression against the Dutch.

And British - but that was the Japanese assumption, and I don't know that it is true. If Japan invaded Malay, Sarawak/Brunei, and the Dutch East Indies, but did not attack the Philippines or any other U.S. territory, would the U.S. go to war? Seriously, would the Congress of 1941 declare war over actions on the other side of the world, not involving the U.S.? I doubt it.

This necessitates crippling the Pacific Fleet, hence the attack on Pearl Harbor.

It means war with the U.S., but it was Yamamoto who insisted on the Pearl Harbor strike, over the objections of the Navy plannng staff. The staff idea (which had been the Japanese plan for years) was to seize the Philippines and Guam, and wait for the U.S. Pacific Fleet to sail west to the rescue. Japanese airpower, submarines, and small craft would harass and attrit the U.S. fleet on its long voyage, and then the Japanese fleet would meet and destroy the Yankees in "one great battle".
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Invading Siberia would have been really stupid. Crossing the Amur river even worse (you can possibly hold the territory east of the river, however if you cross it Siberia opens up, and you have endless territory to occupy with a more and more limited manpower, and all you'll do is spreading yourself thin and freezing your balls off).
 
On the one hand, a Japanese invasion of Siberia does mean the Germans probably take Moscow. On the other hand, it also means that the Japanese lose a lot of land, because they aren't beating Zhukov's Siberian reserve divisions. The Japanese would have essentially been sacrificing themselves for Germany, which they would not have accepted. The Imperial Japanese Army was rather lackluster in 1941, while the navy was formidable. A war against the USSR would mean Japan would primarily use her army; a war against the USA would mean Japan would primarily use her navy. It's basic logic.
 
Whilst we know that there's HUGE amounts of resources available in Siberia now, back then they didn't and they also completely lacked the equipment to do so (hell so did we until the 80s as its brutally hard work out there).

The resources South are far easier to get at. The IJA also got a serious bitch slap in 39 that acted as a bit of a deterrent. Also as folks have said, Siberia is huge, absolutely huge and its not just frozen wasteland. In summer its a mosquito hell with few if any roads or useful drinkable water. In Summer it can also be surprisingly hot and dry. Its basically not a nice place to go to and considering the IJA's 'shakey' (worse than Nazi Germany) grasp on the concept of Logistics..

And yes the Russians also never withdrew troops from Siberia, they withdrew troops from central and eastern Russia but they never weakened their defences in Siberia.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Whilst we know that there's HUGE amounts of resources available in Siberia now, back then they didn't and they also completely lacked the equipment to do so (hell so did we until the 80s as its brutally hard work out there).

The resources South are far easier to get at. The IJA also got a serious bitch slap in 39 that acted as a bit of a deterrent. Also as folks have said, Siberia is huge, absolutely huge and its not just frozen wasteland. In summer its a mosquito hell with few if any roads or useful drinkable water. In Summer it can also be surprisingly hot and dry. Its basically not a nice place to go to and considering the IJA's 'shakey' (worse than Nazi Germany) grasp on the concept of Logistics..

And yes the Russians also never withdrew troops from Siberia, they withdrew troops from central and eastern Russia but they never weakened their defences in Siberia.

Also, the USSR can actually afford to allow Japan to hold parts of Siberia for a while, since they can easily be driven out once the Germans are dealt with.
 
Japan does not need yet another major war in 1941/42, they're alredy engaged in China more than enough. Going against Soviets means Army must do it pretty much on their own, the powerful Navy can't add that much, apart from the, admitedly capable, air arm.
All in order to capture 'all a lot of nothing', as stated before in the thread.
 
People didn't know Siberia had oil at the time.

Plus I think after a number of borders clashes in 1939 a treaty of sorts was signed.
 
Last edited:
what is the saying "fool me once shame on you ..."

the Japanese HAD stepped out against the Soviets once (or stumbled out against them) only to have their erstwhile ally Germany sign pact with them literally at the same time.

"fool me twice shame on me" logically they waited on Moscow to fall (or at very least signs the regime was crumbling) before entering campaign.

that is generally viewed as waiting for Soviets to be defeated, which it was, but IMO also waiting to insure the Germans would not strike another deal with Soviets (or rump state) who could then turn east and destroy (any) Japanese offensive.

Japan should have struck a deal with USSR for oil, plausibly even gained all of Sakhalin.
 
Japan does not need yet another major war in 1941/42, they're alredy engaged in China more than enough.

True. So they took on the British Empire and the United States.

Japan's policy in this period was so foolish that it is almost impossible to exclude any possible move by them because it would be obviously wrong.
 
True. So they took on the British Empire and the United States.

Japan's policy in this period was so foolish that it is almost impossible to exclude any possible move by them because it would be obviously wrong.

Yes but going South is a stupid move that has a short term payoff in terms of Malayan rubber and tin and rice, and DEI oil.

Going North is a stupid move that nets you no short term resources.
 
The thing is the Soviets where prepared for somekind of conflict with Japan even possibly being able to hold them off even somehow the Japan did get the insane idea to invade.
 
Top