Operation Barbarossa - the UK is neutral and Japan attacks Siberia

Really? Funny I don't remember Churchill being PM in 39 or the British engaging in a great deal of combat during that year. On the otherhand this poll IMO indicates the concern was there:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201939.htm

How did they wage war historically? I don't see it being much different if they wait until some time in 42 to declare war except they start from a stronger foundation and more material could proabably have been sent and delivered to the allies.

Why are you assuming Britain isn't in the war? The US had considerable interest in Europe.
While the US does indeed have interest in the Pacfic so do other countries and the US certainly has interest in Europe as well.
Looking at:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/imts/Historical%20data%201900-1960.pdf
From page 53: The US exported products worth $3,064 Million in 1938 of that $621Million went to continental Europe and $810Million to the Stirling countries (i.e. commonwealth) and only $51M to China (Japan actually recieved more than 4 times as much $239M).
Looking at a number of other pages only about 2% of US imports came from China in that year which was down about .6% from 1935 and .3% from 1928.

 

On the question of Japan's ability to produce synthetic oil, this might help (they appear to have tried harder than I thought!):
Synthetic fuel production in prewar and world war II Japan: A case study in technological failure by Anthony N. Stranges:
Quote:
Japan is a country largely lacking supplies of many essential natural resources including petroleum, coal, and iron ore. To achieve independence in petroleum, the Japanese developed a dual approach: they would acquire natural petroleum sources in Southeast Asia and at the same time establish a synthetic fuel industry for the conversion of coal to oil.

Actually, the Japanese had begun research on synthetic fuel in the 1920s, only a few years after other countries, such as Germany and Britain, that lacked sources of natural petroleum. They did excellent laboratory research on the coal hydrogenation and Fischer-Tropsch conversion processes, but in their haste to construct large synthetic fuel plants they bypassed the intermediated pilot-plant stage and failed to make a successful transition from small- to large-scale production.

Unable to synthesize liquid fuels from coal, they instead derived significant quantities from the technologically simpler coal carbonization and shale oil distillation processes. In the last year of World War II, the Japanese attempted to revive their synthetic fuel industry and entered into an agreement with IG Farben for technical assistance. Germany's defeat ended this final effort.

The Japanese synthetic fuel industry presents a good case study of technological failure. It shows that high-quality basic scientific research does not necessarily translate into large-scale technological success.


PS - While it is true that Japan has little coal, Manchuria has abundant easily extractable supplies.

 

The following ate the real figures of the Japanese oil sources by year(in average barrels per day) for Japan,Brunei,Birma and DEI

1: crude oil imports
2:refined imports
3:domestic production
4:synthetics and substitutes

1940:
60411
41398
5652
3984

1941:
8576
14361
5318
5159

1942
22318
6515
4630
7345


1943
26981
12745
4970
5551

1944
4496
9334
4342
5693

1945 (1/2)
0
0
4432
4874

As one can see,the Japanaese synthetic production was meaningless:in 1942,it was some 400000 ton

Source:Japanese policy prior to the DOW(figures are from the US Bureau of mines 20th century Petroleum statistics .

 

As far as Japanese logistics, the guy is talking about an invasion and that is where the Japanese would run into problems. I know the BT was vulnerable to a 37mm. I was pointing out that the Japanese tanks were 1935 technology and already obsolete. The Germans were already starting to go to the Pz4 and the Japanese tanks were equal to the Pz2. I know the Japanese had tank divisions on paper, but they didn't use them, they broke them down in to regiments and the were probably broken down farther in combat. As you stated they were used for infantry support, not mobile operations.

 

This is interesting: not only Japan but the most of other countries lack many essential natural resources too. However, just few countries claim exclusive right to take these resources from other countries. Japan needed resources from other Asian countries to dominate them in what they euphemistically named the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Japanese version of the Lebensraum.

 

Also known as "White Man's Burden", "Manifest Destiny" and a host of other names thoughout history.

 

That of course would make the enormous assumption that large supply of broad gauge rail is captured, and they can clear the entire length of the line quickly, which is far from certain. The Germans couldn't put a large amount of broad-gauge into service, so why would Japan?

However it was solidly in support of preventing Japan from gaining control of British, French & Dutch colonies in the Pacific.

Broad gauge rolling stock was produced in large quantities in what Axis countries?

If Japan had 2 million tons of tankers on this route, assuming a 3 or 3.5 month round trip, loading times and perhaps 15% lost for repairs, they could bring about 1.5 - 1.7 million tons per year.
And just what tonnage of tankers do you think Japan has, considering that the total merchant marine was about 6 million tons?

 

Neither of which is particularly applicable, in 1945 the Soviets had been given a large amount of US-built locomotives & rolling stock, and were getting supplies THROUGH the far east, which made supplying the armies there much easier.

The Russian capability in modern times is so far removed from 1941 you can hardly use it as a benchmark.

Here we go again with the snide comments.

British-Empire, if you want to make derisive comments about others looking "ridiculous" then you better be damn sure of your facts before you post them otherwise it will be you with egg on your face.

There was NO NATION in the war that ever produced an average of 600,000 per month except the USA, which exceeded this from 1943 onwards.
600,000 per month is 7.2 million tons per year

In 1942:
the British Empire produced 1.8 million tons.

The USA produced about 5.5 million tons
Japan produced somewhere between 110,000 to 660,000 tons for the whole year depending on the source.
And this of course was the TOTAL tonnage produced, of which tankers would be 40% or 50% of that.

Your estimate of Japan producing an average of 7.2 million tons of tankers per year is completely divorced from reality.

 

I was actually referring to the period from Sept '40 to Dec 1941, when the Gallup polls indicated increasing US concern over events in both Europe and the Pacific, however the point that I was making was that without the British Empire in the war the US public opinion would very likely have been very different.
If Britain, France, Netherlands were all neutral and Germany had an agreement with them to allow Hitler to concemntrate on the East, why would the US be any more concerned than in the OTL?
Germany & the Soviets have occupied Poland (which was part of Russia anyways before WWI) and Germany has re-occupied some parts of Germany & the former Austria-Hungarian Empire.

With both the British & French fleets intact and Germany not involved in actions in the Atlantic the USA has far, far less concern that in the historic model

Sorry, there seems to be some misunderstanding here, the OP's scenario assumed that the British are neutral.
Even if the British re-enter the war sometime in '41 or '42, the US will not be ready for significant combat until the end of 1942, at which point "British-Empire" has postulated that the Soviets will have already collapsed.

I would actually assume the exact opposite, without British orders to jump-start the British rebuild, the US industrial capacity would be lower than historic. Without the US & British preparations in 1940 & 1941 expanding bases & transport capacity the eventual US entry into the ETO (if it happens at all) would be much delayed

 

As I asked why would the Germans give the Japanese oil when they wanted it for their empire? How would Japan pay for the oil if they did get any?

 

Steve, you might want to re-read post 146 again. Take a good look at the location of Japanese rail lines and the proximity to the Transiberian RR and Vladivostok. http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/21f/21f.027/asia_rising/image/trans_siberia_rr.gif

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kernbeisser/4156904688/

Once the Japanese cut the rail line East of Lake Baikal, Vladivostock is isolated. The Japanese fleet in conjunction with the IJA will reduce Vladivostock. Look at where the Japanese RR's intersect the Transiberian... What exactly do you thik the Soviets can support East of Lake Baikal after the rail line is cut and Vladivostock cut off? Like I said, take a look at post 146 again if you get a chance. The Japanese have the advantages of strategic initiative, pre-positioned stocks and choice of ground to defend East of Lake Baikal. The Soviets were not very good at the type of response required in this scenario (not in 1941 anyway).

 

What you were trying to keep the conversation on topic!!!!
We had diverged from this enough that I forgot about it.

I think those poles as well as the earlier ones show that there was a lot of concern and interest over what was happening in Eurpope. What there was not was a consensus that the US should take an active part in it. I think you are correct that if Britain stays out of the conflict in Europe the US is unlikely to take part either. A conflict in the Pacfic also as you have pointed out a different matter. This would likely see a considerable shift in US priorities as far as equipment goes. Ships and aircraft particularly carrier and long range aircraft would likely see increased priorities and ground equipment a decrease. DE's might not even be built though.

 

First of all I said the Japanese could take Vladivostok and it would not cause the Soviets to quit fighting. What I am asking is , if the Japanese started marching west, how would they supply their armies and what use to them would be the miles and miles of empty plains and forests.
The whole concept is the guy thinks the Japanese and Germans are going to be able to fight the Soviets with out interference. The Japanese had already made up their mind about going south in 1940 when they took Indochina. The only reason they need Indochina is as a base to go after Malaya. When the Japanese were cut off from oil it was guaranteed they would fight the west since the fleet needed oil and that was found south. The navy would not agree to fight the Soviets and that was the end of the conversation.

 

I

Well I am sure you are correct.

But if you read the article, it makes the distinction between Shale/ Coal Carburation and the IG Farben type product made by High Pressure Hydrogenation of Coal (a very different, very difficult and very dangerous process)

- as it mentions japanese succeeded in the Laboratory but failed to scale up the process - this was a very common problem with the high hydrogenation process at the time and Carl Bosch of IG Farben gained the Nobel prize not for laboratory work on this process but for engineering the plant required which requires a double skin of two quite different steels to tame the temperatures, pressures and corrosion (worst chemical accident of all time was when the IG Farben Plant at Oppah exploded).


The synthetic oil you refer to in your figure is derived from simply heating up shale (or some forms of coal) and collecting the distillate - rather easy, just use a Liebig Condenser as I am sure you used in the Chemistry Lab. The process is described below - Japan's production of the hydrogenated coa product was zero in every year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil

So I am talking of what might have been if Japan had licensed the IG Farben process earlier.

By the way, the synthetic IG Farben product is very pure and hence the reason why the luftwaffe had first claim on the German stuff.

I think we have probably bored the audience totally to death by now - so I will stop my musings on this subject.

 

The problem is not only the production,but also the available transport possibilities (=tankers),and,what had Japan ,was insufficient.
The following figures are from the AHF:
the Japanese tanker fleet (in GRT)

1940:584000 with 57 ships
1941:532000 with 59 ships
1942;54000 with 61 ships
1943;548000 with 62 ships
1944:503000 with 59 ships .

If Japan could produce more synthetic oil (I know that there were 2 processes),,which they couldn't (for 2 barrels,one ton of coal was needed),they would need more oil tankers,which they could not build .

 

Once Japan declared it ended up with a net loss of tanker capacity because a good portion was carried by the Dutch and British. Japan actually ended up with less imports even with the production centers.

 

Actually no, their first priority was to complete the conquest of China, and they decided in July 1941 to go to war with the Western powers ONLY if they could not source oil from the Dutch or elsewhere by Nov 1941.

In this scenario there are quite a few major changes. Personally I don't think Japan is going to move against a supplied & robust French Indochina, which would also remove the reason for the US embargo.
With the Dutch goovernment still in Holland and somewhat under the thumb of Germany (instead of in exile in Britain/Canada) they are much more likely to bend to Axis demands to sell oil to Japan, as they are not dependant on the US/UK to liberate their country. They have major reparations to pay to Germany (If I understand the OP correctly) so selling oil for $$$ is certainly something they'd like to do.

 

It hardly removes it although it will likely kick it down the road a ways. There was a growing unhappyness with Japan in the US due to the events in China and nothing in this scenario is going to improve relations between the two.

If they have it to sell. Germany may well prefer to be paided in oil itself. The Italians are not overflowing with it either. Then there's the quesiton of how much foreign exchange the Japanese have.

 

Freebird, the army wanted to finish off China yes, but when the navy lost it supply of oil there were two alternatives, give up most of China or go to war. The occupation of Indochina was the tipping point I believe. With the oil crisis there was no chance of war against the Soviets.
By the way the Dutch government was not under German rule the queen fled to Britain.

 

Hey Steve, the Dutch government and the Queen are still in the Netherlands. (In the alternate time line of course)
Take another look at the OP, I'm basing my extrapolation on his scenario.

Correct, however I'm questioning the likelyhood that Japan will be cut off from oil. The US embargo would have been ineffective unless FDR could convince the Dutch & British to support it. In the OTL, Britain & the Dutch wery very much in need of US material assistance, so were willing to support FDR's Pacific policies. There was however, some questioning the wisdom of this policy towards Japan and what the effect it would have.

I'm also very much in doubt that Japan would ever dare to move against France, with both the French & British far better able to deploy forces to the Far East. (without the European war of course)

Indeed, however would Britain, France & the Dutch still support FDR's anti-colonialism efforts? There are significant problems for the Europeans with supporting China, in some ways allowing Japan to bleed itself in Chinese stalemate is the best alternative.

True, but they would probably ship it from the Netherlands Antillies (Aruba) rather than the much longer voyage from Indonesia. There is limited shipping capacity, so selling Japan oil from the Far East (which Japan could carry in it's own ships) would be profitable, while selling oil from the Middle East & Aruba to Europe would maximize profits while using less shipping.

Your question about Japanese foreign exchange is a good one, although they did in fact have funds in British & Dutch banks. (which was also frozen in the OTL at the same time as it was in US banks)