Operation Barbarossa - the UK is neutral and Japan attacks Siberia

After thinking on this some more I'm not sure Japan could easily end the war in China. For one thing there were two Chinese forces they were fighting the Nationalist and the Communist. The former may have had some incentive for at least a cease fire but the latter didn't that I can see. Furthermore the US stance was that they had to give up their gains in China and especially after Nanking I'm not sure the Chinese would ultimatly want less. Now a cease fire while they reequip and train might have had some appeal to the Nationalist but I doubt they wanted a permanent treaty.

There's also the question of the impact of these moves on the Soviets. They had a good idea based on their intel assets historically that the Japanese were headed South. Even if these assets don't report the oreintation toward the USSR the peace with China and reaproachment to the US surely point in that direction. As it was Soviet intel was reporting the possiblity of the Germans attacking, if it looks like the Japanese are going to do the same I would think Stalin would get a bit more nervouse than the historical case. The result of the Germans hitting a well prepared Soviet defence from the beginning are not likely to be pleasant for the Axis powers.

Oil is still the elephant in the room for the Japanese in any case. They really wanted more oil than they were getting even before the embargo. Nothing in the North is going to win them any significant additional and they are giving up any chance of procuring more in the South as well as handing the US a very effective economic weapon. At the same time a few additoinal months may allow the US to fortify the Philipines to the extent that they can't take them or at least can't take them at an affordable price nor can they let them stand as a US bastion if the US enters the war against them.

 

I'm sure there were people in Japan who wanted to get out of the Chinese quagmire; it just seems a bit contradictory to suggest that the grownups would assert control over ending the China war but then let the hotheads drag them into an equally pointless war with Russia. It might be the right move for the Axis player in a war game, but I doubt the Japanese at any level from lieutenant to Emperor based their policy on doing what was most helpful to Hitler.

We do seem to be assuming that this all happens after Hitler invades Russia. Up to that point I agree that most people in the US and Britain viewed the USSR as more part of the problem than the solution. Churchill famously explained that "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons", and a lot of other people felt the same way. FDR was determined to oppose Hitler, and once the USSR became part of the anti-Hitler coalition an attack on her would clearly put Japan and the US on opposite sides.

 

The Japanese announcing that they were withdrawing from the Washington naval treaty in 34 pretty much set the tone for things. Picking a fight or even hinting at one with your largest soucre of oil and metal isn't a very far sighted idea especially if no alternate sources are easily obtainable. The Japanese might have been able to contain things if they had reigned in the IJA shortly after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident but if they wait too long they have too much prestige tied up in it.

I don't see another point where it's easy for them to extract themselves and certainly by the beginning of 41 it's too late.

Perhaps it would be best if a time line was suggested then we can look at it in a bit more detail rather than flinging generalities around.

 

Ok here's my stab at a timeline.
April-May 1941 US and Japan are in talks over Japan's involvement in China, and trade matters. The Japanese feint at going along with the the US proposal of May 1941 and offer a cease fire while the US brokers an agreement between the Nationalists and Japan. By May 1941 Japan has some inkling of a German invasion of the Soviet Union. After all it was communist spies in Japan who were among the first to warn Stalin of the coming invasion.

At the end of June early July he Japanese hold imperial conferences to discuss war strategy. By this time Germany has invaded the Soviet Union. The German ambassador to the Soviet Uniton is assuring the Japanese the war will be over soon and Japan should attack the Soviet Union. Instead of taking a wait and see attitude the Japanese drink the German Kool Aid and like the Americans and British think the Soviets will collapse in a few months.

Given that many Americans think the Soviets won't last long perhaps they agree to try to broker a cease fire between Japan and China ease their embargo of Japan.

Even if the US doesn't ease their embargo, if the Japanese believe the Soviets will collapse soon, as many did, they might think the war will be over before the embargo really starts to bite. Moreover, the Japanese might assume that they will be able to get oil from the Germans once Germany conquers the Causcus region.

So in AUgust-September 1941 Japan invades the Soviet Union.

 

I will propose another timeline scenario:

After joining this discussion I went back and looked at Hotta's 1941, According to Hotta on 7/24/1941 (the day Japanese assets were frozen and the oil enbargo went into effect) admiral harold stark and undersecretary of the State Wells Roosevelt and Nomura met. Roosevelt hinted at further sanctions and possible war should Japan try to sieze oil from the Dutch East Indies.
If Japan refrained or reversed the occupation French Indochina, Roosevelt promised he would do everything in his power to obtain from China, Great Britain , Netherlands and the US a binding and solmn declaration to consider Indochina a neutral country. He also made no mention of China. Hotta interprets this conciliation by Roosevelt as a desire to focus on Hitler and keep things quiet in the Pacific.

Remember it was the Japanese invasion of Indochina that sparked the oil embargo and frreezing of Japanese assets. If the Japanese pulled back from Indochina, and Roosevelt convinced the China, Great Britain , Netherlands and the Congress to go along the oil embargo presumably would not have went into effect. This would not have solved tensions between Japan and the US. But it would have provided a window of opportunity for Japan to invade the Soviet Union. Moreover, according to Michael Barnhart in "Japan Prepares for Total War" in the summer of 1941 Japan had a two year supply oil and other raw materials for war.

If, in late July-AUgust 1941, the Japanese believed the SOviets would soon collapse, a plausible what-if scenario, the Japanese could have accepted Roosevelt's offer on the assumption the Soviet Union would be done by the time the US reinstated the embargo or before the embargo started to bite, and proceeded to invade the Soviet Union.

BTW this thread has deviated far from the original what-if scenario of what would happen if Japan invaded the Soviet Union to discussing the plausibility of Japan invading the Soviet Union. I hope I have convinced some that Japan invading the SOviet Union is not as preposterous as some previous posters make it sound.

 

Of course Avgas and metals were embargoed previous to that date. It's also worth noteing that the IJN used what they thought would be a years worth of oil in the first 6 months of the war. Even without the embargo the Japanese were likely to see their alotments shrink. As the US gears up for war their demands will increase as will the demands of their future allies. Attacking the USSR is also likely to reinstate or initiate the embargo depending on which of the above cases you choose.

 

I'm going to have to go with LWD on this one. If the Japanese suddenly move against the Soviets, I believe that would make the Americans just as wary.

Also...Was not the Japanese plan to smash south for a quick end to the war, and then turn against the Soviet Union in Summer 1942.

 

Iwd, Takao

Are you guys arguing Japan shouldn't have invaded the Soviet Union? Or are you arguing that it is inconceivable that Japan would have invaded the Soviet Union?

Clearly the best thing for Japan would have to not invade anybody and just trade to get the resources they needed, which is what happened after the war.

But in 1941 Japan invading the Soviet Union was not inconceivable. Stalin apparently took the threat seriously enough to keep several hundred thousand men in Siberia.
It is true that the U.S. might have cut off oil after an invasion. But the threat of embargo did not deter Japan from invading Indochina or the Dutch East Indies.

 

I don't see the motivation for it. I wouldn't go so far as to consider it inconceivable but I simply can't see even mid level officers thinking it would be a good idea.

Actually I think a stronger case can be made for the threat of an embargo driving them in that direction. They needed to secure a source of oil the only one within reasonable distance was in the Dutch East Indies. Indochina was an obvious stepping stone to that goal.

 

The Japanese certainly were motivated to get rid of the Russian/Soviet threat. Consider this:
In 1904-1905 Japan and Russia fight a war over competing interests in Northeast Asia.
During the Russian Civil war (1918-1922) the Japanese occupied much of eastern Siberia ostensibly to support the whites in the Russian Civil war. The Japanese also saw this as opportunity to take care of their "nothern problem."
In 1936 the Japanese signed the anti-comitern pact with Germany which specifically called for them not to enter into sepate treaties with the Soviet Union.
From 1937-1939 the Japanese fight several border battles with the Soviets in Manchuria.
Many in the Japanese army and the Japanese foreign minister Yōsuke Matsuoka specifically argued for the "Northern option" during the summer of 1941. They saw Barbarossa as an opportunity to deal with the Soviet Union once and for all.
In sum, the Soviet Union had been Japan's arch rival in northeast Asia for several decades, Japan was fervently anti-communist, and Japan had several military altercations in the previous 40 years. These would seem to be motive enough.

I agree that in the abstract Japan attacking the Soviet Union would not have been a good idea. But compared to what Japan actually did, I'm not so sure things would have turned out worse for Japan.

Given Japan's overarching objectives their best bet probably would have been to
1. Negotiate some type of settlement to end the China incident.
2, Invade the soviet Union late summer 1941.
3. Invade the Dutch East Indies but avoid attacking the US directly.

 

The US was demanding they pull out of China and after Nanking I don't think there would have been much political support in the US for not following through with those demands. Japan's lack of oil is a critical problem. If there supply gets turned off then it has serious impacts starting no later than a year or two out and if they are prudent the impacts start much sooner. Attacking the USSR is likely to triger the same response as Indochina but leaves Japan incapable of siezing the Dutch East Indies to moderate that impact. In the mean time the US can build up military capability in the Philipines which becomes a direct threat to any Japanese opearations in the mid or south Pacfic. In the mean time all they manage to do is at best nulifiy a threat that historically they were able to do with diplomatic agreements.

If you stop at 1 I'll agreee with you. Indeed negotiating some sort of settlement while throwing in with the allies would probably have been a significantly better alternative for Japan. If they do that in late 39 or 40 it might also allow them to attack the Soviets if that's really that desireable.

 

Iwd:

But remember the title of this thread. The UK is neutral. Churchill is not in power. So when Germany invades the USSR it is just the Axis against the Soviets. Japan has now withdrawn from China according to my scenario.

Now we have to put our selves in the shoes of the Japanese. Would the Japanese anticipate A US embargo if Japan invades a Soviet Union that is not allied with the UK? Remember the Japanese didn't think the U.S. would be too concerned about the Indochina take over. I don't think the Japanese would have thought the U.S. would lose much sleep over their invading the Soviet Union, given that the UK is neutral and therefore not an ally of the Soviet Union.

Whether or not the U.S. actually would have embargoed Japan after an invasion of a Soviet Union that is not allied with the UK is another question. My point is I don't think the Japanese would have anticipated an embargo. Therefore they would not have been that worried about losing their source of oil.

Japan also might have simultaneously taken over or used gunboat diplomacy against the Netherlands without actually attacking the U.S. The actual Japanese plan was to run up a string of naval victories, and then negotiate a favorable peace with the Allies on the assumption that the US would not want to expend the blood and resources to liberate some pacific islands. None of the Japanese leaders expected to "beat" the U.S. They just assumed the U.S. would tire of the war and not think it worth the trouble. In my opinion this assumption is much more plausible, not necessarily true but plausible, if the Japanese don't DIRECTLY attack the U.S.

 

It's been a while since I looked at the OP. It proposed a rather extensive peace settlement in Europe in between the fall of France and August of 40. Given this I see an even stronger stance by the commonwealth, Dutch, and US in regards to Japanese aggression in China (as the OP suggested). Still not sure it's enough to get the Japanese to withdraw from China which is very likely to be the demand.

The Axis attack on the Soviets is even more problematic. Given the fact that Germany isn't at war in the West will Stalin be more prepared for war with Germany and coincidently the other axis powers? I would certainly expect so. I'm not sure just what the US position would be in regards to the Soviets. There's also the question about the western front opening up again.

In the case above it's possible the Dutch would be willing to sell oil to the Japanese even if the US and Britain weren't keen on it. I'm still not sure the Japanese have much to gain by attacking the Soviets but in this senario more of a case can be made for it.

*** in threads like this I really should force myself to look back at the OP every few pages ***

 

Realistically, no, Japan should not have invaded the Soviet Union. The debit side of the ledger far outweighs the credit side. But, that is speaking pragmatically. And as we all know the Japanese Miltary "junta", at the time, did not have both oars in the water...So to speak.

Was a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union inconceivable? No, not by any means. As I stated earlier, the Japanese plan was for a "smash and grab" of resources to the South. The Allies would cower in fear and surrender. Thus allowing Japan to move against the Soviet Union in mid-1942. Further, the Imperial Japanese Army saw the Soviet Union as it's main enemy, and they held this belief until 1943 - The Pacific and the Americans were an Imperial Japanese Navy problem.

No argument there. However, the politicians were not in charge, and were in no position to make such a decision. After the war, the military had been disgraced, and the politicians were once again in charge of Japan.

Well, the Kwantung Army was camped on his rear doorstep. They were a force not easily ignored, especially since they had instigated most of the actions against China and the Soviet Union. Even with the partial purge of the Kwantung Army from 1939-41, there were still plenty of troublemakers who were itching for a rematch.

The problem with that is...

French Indochina was a stepping-stone to the South and the DEI. If you are going to capture oil fields that can supply all your oil needs, then an embargo is not much of a threat. However, by striking out into Siberia, where there is little oil, an oil embargo commands much more power in the decision making process.

 

1 - Is pretty much impossible. The Japanese would know, as they tried it. This problem has two sides, Chiang Kai Shek & Japan. Chiang is receiving a vast amount of American aid, and Chiang knows that if he reaches an agreement with Japan to end the war this aid will dry up. Thus, Chiang has no motive to agree to peace with Japan. Now, the Japanese...Well, the have nothing to offer Chiang that comes close to what the Americans are supplying to China. They kept offering Chiang better and better terms, but Chiang always refused them. Outside of the Japanese completely packing up and going home is going to end the war in China.

2. The IJA could invade the Soviet Union, but what are they going to gain that they do not have already - outside of a "face-saving" rematch with the Soviet Union. Any invasion of the Soviet Union is going to cost Japan more than she will ever see in returns.

3. Japan could invade the DEI, but very likely would be unable to without attacking the United States directly. As we have seen, US naval forces were quite active around the DEI oil fields in 1941. Further, the Philippine Islands sit right astride the sea routes that Japanese shipping needs to take to return with captured natural resources. By leaving the Philippines alone, the US can continue to build up her forces there. Such a preponderance of US military forces makes the Japanese position in the DEI untenable.


There are no easy answers on how the Japanese can "win" a war with wither the United States or the Soviet Union.

 

Having looked back at the OP...It is quite ridiculous and contradictory.

Britain cannot "focus itself more on their Pacific holdings than they did in OTL." - The whole idea behind the "peace treaty" is that the Royal Navy is the lynch pin to keeping Germany in check. Now, if the Royal Navy(and the British Army) suddenly packs it in and hightails to the Pacific, there is nothing keeping Germany in check. A British declaration of war will mean very little to Germany, if the majority of the British forces are fortified thousands of miles away in the Pacific.

Personally, I'd go with Option #5
- Japan makes a deal with Germany to attack the UK. Japan will "rattle it's sabre at the British". Once, the British have sent their forces to the Pacific, Germany attacks France & the Low Countries. As the British forces repack to ship back across the UK, Japan will attack them in their unprepared state. Britain is caught with it's pants down, and it's forces in a state of flux between the Pacific and Atlantic.

 

The time frame is now past mid-1941 if Germany has invaded the Soviet Union. So, yes, the US-USSR relations have thawed, and the Soviets are now in their period of "Cash and Carry"(they pay for what they receive), Lend-Lease will soon follow.

The oil embargo did not worry the Japanese, because they knew that they would soon be capturing a good source of oil.

By striking the Soviet Union, there is no major source of oil like the DEI. There is Northern Sakhalin Island, but the Japanese are already importing 1,000,000 barrels of that production.

US naval forces are patrolling around the DEI and using their oil ports to refuel. Not to mention that US ships will be carrying Cash-and-Carry & Lend -Lease cargoes to Vladivostok. The Philippine Islands sit directly astride the sea routes from the DEI to Japan.

Looks like a direct attack on the US is neigh unavoidable.

 

Takao:

I agree with several of your points. But here's where I disagree:
1. The Japanese would be motivated to invade the Soviet Union to get rid of a historical foe and an ideological enemy. Nations go to war for reasons aside from a quest for natural resources. The Japanese saw bolshevism as a mortal threat to the Japanese nation. The Japanese would thus have much to gain if they could win a war against the Soviet Union.

2. If the UK is neutral does Roosevelt propose a lend lease plan to help Stalin? The US and UK share a language, similar political culture, somewhat similar diplomatic aims (open trade among nations) and Churchill and Roosevelt had great personal rapport. This all helped convince Roosevelt to help the British as much as possible and to sell this aid to the American public. If it is just the Nazis against the Soviets, it is debateable whether Lend lease would have come into being.

3. In arguing that Japan could have decided not to attack the US, my point is that Japan could have developed an alternative strategy to the one they actually took. The alternative strategy would have avoided attacking the US. It is possible the US would have went to war if Japan invaded the Netherlands East Indies. But maybe not This seems like a gamble the Japanese should have been willing to take. The US did nothing when Japan invaded, Manchuria, China and had border clashes with the USSR, The US did nothing when Germany gobbled up, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc. If the Japanese said to themselves, we will invade the Dutch East Indies, the US will protest, but the US won't do anything about it, this seems a reasonable assumption. Or they might assume that the US might engage in some skirmishes, but the US will not fully mobilize to liberate the Dutch East Indies.

Again, my argument is not that Japan should have done these things. I maintain they shouldn't have invaded anyine and simply traded to get the resources they needed. But I am crafting alternative scenarios that from the vantage point of the Japanese themselves in 1941, seem plausible and perhaps even more plausible then the course they actually took--attacking the world's greatest industrial power.

 

One can also point out that the Japanese felt the same way about the Americans. Even more so with the signing of the Soviet Japanese Neutrality Pact in April, 1941.

The Japanese have little to gain with invading the Soviet Union - with the exception of the Imperial Japanese Army, which would be attempting to salvage it's tarnished reputation from the previous border wars.

With France defeated and Britain cowed by Nazi Germany, I would say that there is a pretty good chance for Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union.

1941 is not 1932, 1937, or 1939. As to drawing any lessons from US reactions to Germany's pre-war maneuverings, there are no realistic lessons to draw - America could not reasonably threaten Germany by any means, military or economic. However, American could threaten Japan both economically and militarily.

Further, I believe that you are approaching this with the wrong perspective.

Japan did not strike because they were gambling on whether or not the US would come in. Japan struck because they knew that they were in a militarily superior position. They also knew that the US had embarked on several programs to rapidly strengthen it's military - specifically the United States Navy. The Japanese further knew that the longer they waited, the stronger the United States became, and the weaker the Japanese military position became. In essence, Japan struck "because the iron was hot."

Unfortunately, your argument falls flat.

Japan has very little to trade with...Back then, "Made in Japan" did not conjure the same connotations that it does today. The Japanese politicians might have been able to quite China(although with the IJA firmly in control, that is suspect) with relatively negligible effect to it's military, but quitting Manchukuo would be an entirely kettle of fish. The Japanese were rapidly approaching bankruptcy, and outside of scrapping their military or going to war, nothing was going to save them from that in the near future. Now, with the military firmly in control, Japan certainly is not going to scrap it's military. Therefore, that leaves only one option.

The only way for the Japanese to achieve a peaceful solution would require turning the clock back to the late 1920's through mid-1930's when the Japanese military began to exert it's new found powers till the Japanese military finally took over the Japanese political system.

 

I disagree with two of your assumptions.

1. While Japan was certainly resentful of the Western powers and felt they were not treated fairly because of racism, I don't think they loathed the Americans the same way they loathed the Bolsheviks. They were very much anti-communist and saw the Russians as their principal threat in the Northeastern Asia.
2. Your description of Japan's trading options is incorrect. Historically, nations have industrialized by starting in a low-tech industry (e.g. textiles). The product they have to trade is cheaper labor. Their cheaper labor allows them to make the low tech manufactured goods more cheaply and gain comparative advantage that way. After mastering textiles they might move to something slightly more sophisticated like toys, and so on up the food chain so to speak. Only in the later stages of industrialization would they make luxury cars, cameras, computers etc. This is the path Japan took after WW II, the path South Korea, Signapore took in the 1960s, 1970s and later and most recently China is taking. I don't see why Japan couldn't do this in the late 1930s and 1940s?

Japan did not have to use force to get the materials they needed. Trade could have worked then and it worked after World War Twi.