WI Germany + Japan co-op against Russia

Hitler held the Japanese in high regard. What if just before the Nazis launched Operation Barborossa, they asked the Japanese to join in the fight, imposing on Russia a two-front war. Japan would have been eager to avenge the Border Wars against the Soviets. The Germans could offer Japan the oil in Russia and the Middle East if the territories became conquered. The Nazis could also offer to aid Japan in its conquest of Asia after Russia had been defeated.

Would Russia have been defeated? If Japan gets the oil from Russia and the Middle East, would it still have needed to attack Pearl Habour and thereby bring the USA into war?
 

Sir

Banned
Attacking Russia did not immediately offer Japan oil, which was what they needed to keep their war machine going. Additionally, Stalin kept substantial forces in the East even when things were at their most desperate in the West. The Red Army probably could have inflicted severe defeats upon the IJA, possibly expelling them from mainland China. However, Soviet gains in the East would probably be limited for lack of forces to exploit the situation. The Chinese resistance would have done the rest of the work once the Japanese run out of all their necessary resources however.

So really, a Japanese attack on the SU only makes it so Red forces who weren't doing anything OTL have something to do. But this course of action removes the possibility of Japan being the catalyst for USA entrance to WWII. That *might* give the Nazis a little bit of an edge to win in Russia, or at least fight to a truce.

And I'm going to start wanking things for the Axis now but...


If Japan enters the war against Russia, Churchill might feel obligated to declare war on Japan, the same way as they did against Finland. Given the Royal Navy's state in mid 1941, it would be a one-sided curbstomp, and the Japanese might be able to seize the Southern Resource Area at the same time they are being crushed in Siberia. There's probably not enough oil for both operations to go off completely, but I think there's a slim, slim chance that the Japanese could pull it off. The Royal Navy was barely able to hold their own against the Italians during this time period, let alone the entire IJN. It would be a walkover for the Japanese, if they have enough oil for a one-way sailing ticket to the DEI. :p

FDR might want to defend the Allies, but Congress probably won't declare war to defend European colonies. Given the philosophy of the Japanese government, they might try to attack the Americans as well because the Philippines cover their supply lines. At which point the Axis is screwed because the USA is involved months earlier and Japan is getting thrashed by the Red Army. But I digress, back to the Axis wank. ;)

Given:

1) Japan declares war on the USSR same time as Nazis;
2) Britain declares war on Japan the same time as they do with Finland;
3) Japan can scrape the bottom of the barrel to seize Singapore, Malaysia, and the Dutch East Indies WHILE invading Siberia;
4) The USA does not rise to defend the Allies;
5) The Japanese don't actually provoke the USA:

They Axis will have a pretty good shot at winning the war. Controlling the DEI without going to war with the USA is Japan's golden ticket. From there on, it can wage war in China to its heart's content and destroy the British presence in the Indian Ocean. If losses for the British in the Far East are bad enough, you might start to see butterflies like the fall of Malta, which is one of those almost-breaking points for the European theater.

I'm sure someone else can weigh in on the logistics of a Japanese lunge at the DEI while invading Siberia. :p
 
The Japanese have to hold Indochina to get to the Dutch East Indies.

The US embargoed Japan over taking French Indochina, which cost them 90% of their oil supply and spare parts for their machines. This isn't an issue of Congress protecting European colonialism, this is an issue of preventing an aggressive expansionist power from threatening American interests in Asia.

After that the American Philippines are too much of a strategic threat to the Japanese to be ignored, it's a spear pointed right at the crossroads of a new Japanese Empire in the Pacific, the Americans can and likely will knock out Indochina and thus cut off the DEI and Malaya to prevent Japan from being a threat, so the Japanese essentially have to act first to keep that from happening.

It's a lose-lose situation for Japan, the only way to win for them is never to play at all.

Also Japan will get thoroughly and completely pounded in a war with the Soviet Union, Khalkin Gol in 1938 was a taste of what Japan could expect to receive in every land engagement it would ever fight with the Soviet Union. The war will not be an issue of who wins but an issue of do the Soviets decide to push Japan out of Manchuria then accept a negotiated peace or just hurl them off of its possessions in mainland East Asia entirely.

Japan has nothing to gain in Siberia aside from Vladivostok, it will divert vital resources from campaigns to get everything Japan wants and needs in the Pacific area. Japan was massively overextended and then slowly, agonizingly picked apart OTL, ITTL it is even worse.
 

Sir

Banned
The Japanese have to hold Indochina to get to the Dutch East Indies.

The US embargoed Japan over taking French Indochina, which cost them 90% of their oil supply and spare parts for their machines. This isn't an issue of Congress protecting European colonialism, this is an issue of preventing an aggressive expansionist power from threatening American interests in Asia.

After that the American Philippines are too much of a strategic threat to the Japanese to be ignored, it's a spear pointed right at the crossroads of a new Japanese Empire in the Pacific, the Americans can and likely will knock out Indochina and thus cut off the DEI and Malaya to prevent Japan from being a threat, so the Japanese essentially have to act first to keep that from happening.

It's a lose-lose situation for Japan, the only way to win for them is never to play at all.

Also Japan will get thoroughly and completely pounded in a war with the Soviet Union, Khalkin Gol in 1938 was a taste of what Japan could expect to receive in every land engagement it would ever fight with the Soviet Union. The war will not be an issue of who wins but an issue of do the Soviets decide to push Japan out of Manchuria then accept a negotiated peace or just hurl them off of its possessions in mainland East Asia entirely.

Japan has nothing to gain in Siberia aside from Vladivostok, it will divert vital resources from campaigns to get everything Japan wants and needs in the Pacific area. Japan was massively overextended and then slowly, agonizingly picked apart OTL, ITTL it is even worse.

The US Congress may put more sanctions on Japan, but it's doubtful that they'd support a declaration of war, depending on the circumstances leading up to it. If there's a second USS Panay incident, sure. If Churchill makes some magnimanious diplomatic gesture and declares war on Japan, I think it's less likely.

The Japanese also stand to gain Sakhalin Island, in addition to Siberia. There is no question that Japan and the USSR were enemies, and that it was the best interests of Japan to weaken the USSR all it could. It was within Japan's possible interests to go to war with the USSR, but it found no favorable terms to do so IOTL. Certainly an attack on the USSR was no more insane than the attack on the USA, and given that there were powerful factions in the Japanese military establishment that advocated such an attack, I think it's very plausible that in an ATL, that Japan does go North. It's less plausible that Japan actually gains anything from this adventure. In the timeline I outlined the benefits were really more from butterflies than anything else.
 
The general consensus on this question seems to be that Japan probably wouldn't have joined in an attack on the USSR, simply because it had little to gain and much to lose. Remember there was no Siberian Oil in 1941, and they aren't getting anything from the Middle East as long as the RN still exists.
 

Sir

Banned
The general consensus on this question seems to be that Japan probably wouldn't have joined in an attack on the USSR, simply because it had little to gain and much to lose. Remember there was no Siberian Oil in 1941, and they aren't getting anything from the Middle East as long as the RN still exists.

I thought I heard somewhere that Russia was shipping Japan oil until the very end of the Pacific war; where did that originate from?
 
I wonder what sort of puppet regime(s) the Japanese would have established in the Soviet Far East? They occupied Vladivostok during the Russian Civil War, and didn't relinquish it until 1922, so that city would probably have been one of the first places they captured.
I know there were some White Russians in Japanese service, but unfortunately little has been written about them.
Since local separatists have used a green and white banner, I imagine a Japanese-allied Siberia would have adopted this as its national flag.
 

Sir

Banned
I wonder what sort of puppet regime(s) the Japanese would have established in the Soviet Far East? They occupied Vladivostok during the Russian Civil War, and didn't relinquish it until 1922, so that city would probably have been one of the first places they captured.
I know there were some White Russians in Japanese service, but unfortunately little has been written about them.
Since local separatists have used a green and white banner, I imagine a Japanese-allied Siberia would have adopted this as its national flag.

Japan is going nowhere in Siberia. The Red Army in Siberia was made out of crack troops. If you want to know how a Japanese invasion of Siberia when the central government had collapsed and the entire country collapsed into civil war, one has to look no farther than the Siberian Invervention during/after WWI. It was an expensive failure.
 
A few issues

I. Where is Japan going to get the troops to invade Siberia in the first place? At the time the majority of the IJA is fighting in China. Any invasion of Siberia is going to require a major withdrawal from China to defensive postions at best and most likely a seperate peace between China and Japan. Something which after the Rape of Naking is HIGHLY unlikely.

II. Tanks! This is the single bigest tactical problem with a Japanesse attack on the Soviets. Japanese tanks made the Italian tanks look like King Tigers, they really where that bad. Soviet T-34's or even older models like the T-28 would have curbed-stomped the Japanese.

III. Logistics People have already pointed out that Japan doesn't have the Oil, Rubber, Metal or raw materials needed for war with the USSR. Futhermore the IJA lacks the logistical capacity to invade Siberia.

IV. What's the Objective??? Unlike Germany there is nothing Japan can do to defeat the USSR. At best they can capture Vladistock , North Sakhalin, the Amur river basin and Mongolia. Then What? This doesn't crush the soviets, in fact it only causes a steady flow of Troops and Tanks eastward on the Trans-Siberian railway, forcing a War of Attration Japan cannot win.
 
IV. What's the Objective??? ...This doesn't crush the soviets, in fact it only causes a steady flow of Troops and Tanks eastward on the Trans-Siberian railway, forcing a War of Attration Japan cannot win.

Some people might be thinking that would be the objective in itself, to draw off forces that would otherwise be used against Germany. It works that way in Axis & Allies, after all. ;)
 
Thanks for the replies.

Its pretty much a no-go, I suppose? Russia could handle both.
"Never get involved in a land war in Asia."
The Soviet forces in the east, which history showed had the Japanese completely outclassed, were never reduced during the war, even when the Germans were running amok in the west. They had all the strength and tech needed to win. So yes, it's a no-go.
 
Top