What if Japan never attacked the United States?

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

If the US stayed out of WW2 and assuming Lend-Lease never happened, Great Britain could have fallen. At the very least, she would've been isolated from help. British bases in North Africa and the Middle East most likely would've fallen along with the Suez Canal. All the men and materiel in western Europe could've been used to strenghten the Eastern Front. Imagine Rommel going on a rampage at the steppes of Russia instead of North Africa.

The Japanese would've been in secure control of the western Pacific with full access to the raw materials she required. Knowing the US will not be a threat, the Japanese could've been more bold with the IJN being able to send fleets of warships to the European Theater. After all, Japan was allied with Germany and Italy. I doubt the Royal Navy could've taken on Japan's well-trained carrier groups.

Who knows how bold the Japanese could've been? If Japan didn't have to keep watch on the US and were able to concentrate their efforts in China, would the Siberians (who were keeping watch on the Japanese) have been able to reinforce the armies fighting the Germans out west?

Edit:

What if Hitler asked Japan to open a second front and threaten areas like Vladivostok in order to tie down large numbers of Soviet troops?

 

sonicare

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

If the US stayed out of WW2 and assuming Lend-Lease never happened, Great Britain could have fallen. At the very least, she would've been isolated from help. British bases in North Africa and the Middle East most likely would've fallen along with the Suez Canal. All the men and materiel in western Europe could've been used to strenghten the Eastern Front. Imagine Rommel going on a rampage at the steppes of Russia instead of North Africa.

The Japanese would've been in secure control of the western Pacific with full access to the raw materials she required. Knowing the US will not be a threat, the Japanese could've been more bold with the IJN being able to send fleets of warships to the European Theater. After all, Japan was allied with Germany and Italy. I doubt the Royal Navy could've taken on Japan's well-trained carrier groups.

Who knows how bold the Japanese could've been? If Japan didn't have to keep watch on the US and were able to concentrate their efforts in China, would the Siberians (who were keeping watch on the Japanese) have been able to reinforce the armies fighting the Germans out west?

Edit:

What if Hitler asked Japan to open a second front and threaten areas like Vladivostok in order to tie down large numbers of Soviet troops?

 

sonicare

They could've been isolated. Plus, without Lend-Lease, Britain would've withered on the vine.

If Japan could've sent some carrier groups to Europe, they would've been very welcome reinforcements. The combined navies of Germany, Italy, and even the Vichy French would have the air umbrella of the Japanese carriers above them. They would've put the Royal Navy in a bad spot.

Edit:

With such a potent force, I don't think Germany would need to necessarily concentrate on the Channel Coast. They can land anywhere they please.

[QUOTE="slimjimbadboy"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] The Russians were already pushing out by D-Day. I think it's pretty likely they would have gotten to Berlin eventually. Though being able to retreat west would probably cause problems. I sort of doubt the main reich leaders would have left Germany proper though.jun_aka_pekto

That's also assuming that Germany couldn't have taken England or Germany would have kept the same forces on the Western front or the Russians would have had air superiority and managed to do the same bombing the Americans did.

The Russians air forces were similar in function to the Luftwaffe which meant they were used primarily for tactical/battlefield operations. I don't think the Russians put much credence on strategic bombing after several attempts ended up being a disaster. The Russians had a 4-engined bomber, the Pe-8. Unfortunately, only 93 were built.

Which means the factories creating Germany's war machine would still have been intact long before Russia would have made it to Germany. Can't shoot non-existent bullets delivered by non-existent supply lines. American bombs were a major reason why the Axis fell.

FDR wanted into the war badly, so there's no guarantee that the lack of the Pearl Harbor bombings would mean no American involvement.Rhazakna

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="StaticOnTV"] WWII would have lasted longer if it was only the Soviets, and more nations might have been covered by German western expansion.StaticOnTV

Wrong, the USSR liberated a fair few of the of the concentration camps, as much if not more than the U.S.

Right, the USSR wouldn't have stopped Japan with a nuke, they would've stopped it with more conventional methods, like massive waves of infantry, aircraft and Naval vessels.

Wrong again, the USSR was already fighting to save themselves, France wasn't their concern, but they did stop western expansion bu DESTROYING THE GODDAMN GERMAN CAPITAL!

If japan never attacked America, America would have attacked japan first and the war would have happened any way. 

whether the outcome would be better or worse I cannot say. 

toast_burner

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="slimjimbadboy"]

That's also assuming that Germany couldn't have taken England or Germany would have kept the same forces on the Western front or the Russians would have had air superiority and managed to do the same bombing the Americans did.

slimjimbadboy

The Russians air forces were similar in function to the Luftwaffe which meant they were used primarily for tactical/battlefield operations. I don't think the Russians put much credence on strategic bombing after several attempts ended up being a disaster. The Russians had a 4-engined bomber, the Pe-8. Unfortunately, only 93 were built.

Which means the factories creating Germany's war machine would still have been intact long before Russia would have made it to Germany. Can't shoot non-existent bullets delivered by non-existent supply lines. American bombs were a major reason why the Axis fell.

There were successess and failures with the US strategic bombing of Germany. After German aircraft and armored vehicle factories were bombed, the production was decentralized which spread out assembly to many subcontractors which allowed production to continue. 

  On the other hand, targeting fuel and synthetic fluid refineries were very effective. That's why there were large numbers of Luftwaffe aircraft found on captured airfields. But, there was no fuel for them. 

There's so many things to consider if the US of A was taken out of the equation completely.

• Who would've developed nukes first?
• What if Germany captured the Suez Canal? It would've been much harder to resupply India. It would also make it easier for Japan to join the fight in Europe.
• What if Japan was able to consolidate the western Pacific and turn its attention to India and then Australia?
• With full and unhindered access to raw materials and oil, how many Yamato-class battleships could Japan have built (beside the Yamato and Musashi)? Imagine a battlefleet with a squadron of Yamato-class battleships as its core. 
• What if Japan benefited a lot more from a technology exchange with Germany such as radar, tank and aircraft designs, submarines, jet engines, manufacturing methods, etc?
• What if China fell? Without US assistance, it probably would've fallen too. 

So many things to consider.

Hard to say.  There's no guarantee the States would have stayed neutral in Europe; the naval situation before their declaration of war suggested the two sides were already treating each other with hostility before the formal declarations of war.  However, assuming the US didn't get involved in combat at all, the situation in Asia would have turned out very differently.  For at least some period of time, Japan would have ruled uncontested.  Whether or not they could maintain their new empire would be a different question.

In Europe, the US would have likely continued to supply the UK and Soviets with supplies, and so the war would have continued on, and I think Germany would still not have had the ability to finish off the Soviets.  Powerful as their military was, they simply didn't have the resources or manpower available to the Soviet Union, and as the war progressed, Soviet technology improved dramatically, which removed perhaps the only real advantage the Germans had over them after they failed to take Moscow in their surprise attack.

The war probably would have been prolonged, but in the end, we'd probably end up with a situation similar to what really happened.  The Soviets would likely have ended up with more territory, but it's unlikely the Western Allies would have sat back and let them take all of mainland Europe.

link

Blablablablalba

I am pretty sure Japan needed to escalate an attack soon because their oil resources among others were being cut.

It's not as if Japan was at 100% power when they attacked.

I could be mistaken though. I'm no WWII expert.

Japan might have taken all of East Asia.

America didn't win WW2, or help win WW2. The Soviets did. WW2 wasn't about D-day or battle of the bulge; it was about getting Nazi Germany out of Berlin. Which is what the Soviets were doing, and would of eventually accomplished without Roosevelt intervention. Fightingfan

Germany could never have beat the Russians so it doesn't really matter.

If the US chickened out of WW2, it'd be the Soviet Union who would probably be facing a multi-front war. Pressure from the Germans from the west, Japan to the east. 

I'd also say Hitler's policies toward the Jews would've won him a lot of favor among Arabs in the Middle East. Assuming the Brits lose North Africa (without Lend-Lease, there would be no British build-up towards the decisive El Alamein battle). The Germans could also end up threatening the Soviet Union from the south and capture Soviet oil production in the Caucasus.  

Soviets still would have crushed the Nazi's, it just might have taken another 6 months. The Russians had already turned the tide of the war long before D-day and I doubt the African and Italian campaigns were deciding factors in the Soviet victory.

Soviets still would have crushed the Nazi's, it just might have taken another 6 months. The Russians had already turned the tide of the war long before D-day and I doubt the African and Italian campaigns were deciding factors in the Soviet victory.

redstorm72

If Japan didn't have to worry about the US, she could have concentrated attention on being Germany's ally and distract the Soviet Union by making a mess out east. A big factor for the Soviet victory was reinforcements from Siberia. If Japan tied down those reinforcements back east, do you really think the Soviet armies out west could've held on against the Germans? You also have to consider Rommel will be doing his thing in western Russia instead of North Africa.     

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

Soviets still would have crushed the Nazi's, it just might have taken another 6 months. The Russians had already turned the tide of the war long before D-day and I doubt the African and Italian campaigns were deciding factors in the Soviet victory.

jun_aka_pekto

If Japan didn't have to worry about the US, she could have concentrated attention on being Germany's ally and distract the Soviet Union by making a mess out east. A big factor for the Soviet victory was reinforcements from Siberia. If Japan tied down those reinforcements back east, do you really think the Soviet armies out west could've held on against the Germans? You also have to consider Rommel will be doing his thing in western Russia instead of North Africa.     

Japan was having a hard enough time with China, I doubt they could have launched a full scale invasion of Russia. Besides, why would they? Attacking a vast stretch of nothingniess with little in the way of easily obtainable resources, would only cost the Japanese valuble resources and piss off Russia. Sure, if the Japanese focused all their resources on Russia it could have effected the outcome of the war, but I find it hard to belive they ever would have.

We would have been eventually dragged into the conflict, it was only a matter of time. That said I don't think there would have as much zeal for the war. Certainly there wouldn't have been as much xenophobic hate for the Japanese. 

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

Soviets still would have crushed the Nazi's, it just might have taken another 6 months. The Russians had already turned the tide of the war long before D-day and I doubt the African and Italian campaigns were deciding factors in the Soviet victory.

redstorm72

If Japan didn't have to worry about the US, she could have concentrated attention on being Germany's ally and distract the Soviet Union by making a mess out east. A big factor for the Soviet victory was reinforcements from Siberia. If Japan tied down those reinforcements back east, do you really think the Soviet armies out west could've held on against the Germans? You also have to consider Rommel will be doing his thing in western Russia instead of North Africa.     

Japan was having a hard enough time with China, I doubt they could have launched a full scale invasion of Russia. Besides, why would they? Attacking a vast stretch of nothingniess with little in the way of easily obtainable resources, would only cost the Japanese valuble resources and piss off Russia. Sure, if the Japanese focused all their resources on Russia it could have effected the outcome of the war, but I find it hard to belive they ever would have.

You don't need a full-blown invasion to tie down large numbers of troops. An example is Japan posing a threat to the Soviet Union's eastern ports like Vladivostok. With Japan's navy unrivaled in the east, that could be easily done. With the US a non-factor, Japan wouldn't need to waste time building a line of island defenses in the Pacific. If Hitler requested Japan be more involved as an ally, keeping the Siberians tied down would be one of the things he'd ask.  

Edit:

Even in the real Battle for Moscow, Stalin had to be absolutely sure (through a spy) the Japanese weren't going to try anything before he was able to release the Siberians. 

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

If Japan didn't have to worry about the US, she could have concentrated attention on being Germany's ally and distract the Soviet Union by making a mess out east. A big factor for the Soviet victory was reinforcements from Siberia. If Japan tied down those reinforcements back east, do you really think the Soviet armies out west could've held on against the Germans? You also have to consider Rommel will be doing his thing in western Russia instead of North Africa.     

jun_aka_pekto

Japan was having a hard enough time with China, I doubt they could have launched a full scale invasion of Russia. Besides, why would they? Attacking a vast stretch of nothingniess with little in the way of easily obtainable resources, would only cost the Japanese valuble resources and piss off Russia. Sure, if the Japanese focused all their resources on Russia it could have effected the outcome of the war, but I find it hard to belive they ever would have.

You don't need a full-blown invasion to tie down large numbers of troops. An example is Japan posing a threat to the Soviet Union's eastern ports like Vladivostok. With Japan's navy unrivaled in the east, that could be easily done. With the US a non-factor, Japan wouldn't need to waste time building a line of island defenses in the Pacific. If Hitler requested Japan be more involved as an ally, keeping the Siberians tied down would be one of the things he'd ask.  

Japan and Germany were more allies of circumstance. I doubt Japan would have thrown away forces and resources to aid Germany if there wasn't something significant in it for them.

Soviets still would have crushed the Nazi's, it just might have taken another 6 months. The Russians had already turned the tide of the war long before D-day and I doubt the African and Italian campaigns were deciding factors in the Soviet victory.

redstorm72

As I have no way to know for sure, as you don't, I don't believe the Soviets were as powerful as you make them out to be, especially not in late 1942 early 1943. The reduced pressure from the campaigns in the west contributed quite a bit to give the Soviets a chance to recoup and counter attack.

There was also a lot of over zealousness with the German high command (especially Hitler with Soviet campaign that contributed quite a bit to their lucky breaks. 

If the US never entered the war and never ramped up mass production of supplies that were sent to the USSR, it would have been extremely different. If Hitler would have stabilized the western fronts and organized an invasion to take place in 1942, instead of 41, it would have been a mess for the Soviets.

If anything, the Soviets would have probably stoped the Nazis somewhere in Russia but never would be able to push them out. They wouldn't be destroyed, but they wouldn't have been able to counter attack so effectively. Russia is a very easy place to defend. 

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

Japan was having a hard enough time with China, I doubt they could have launched a full scale invasion of Russia. Besides, why would they? Attacking a vast stretch of nothingniess with little in the way of easily obtainable resources, would only cost the Japanese valuble resources and piss off Russia. Sure, if the Japanese focused all their resources on Russia it could have effected the outcome of the war, but I find it hard to belive they ever would have.

redstorm72

You don't need a full-blown invasion to tie down large numbers of troops. An example is Japan posing a threat to the Soviet Union's eastern ports like Vladivostok. With Japan's navy unrivaled in the east, that could be easily done. With the US a non-factor, Japan wouldn't need to waste time building a line of island defenses in the Pacific. If Hitler requested Japan be more involved as an ally, keeping the Siberians tied down would be one of the things he'd ask.  

Japan and Germany were more allies of circumstance. I doubt Japan would have thrown away forces and resources to aid Germany if there wasn't something significant in it for them.

A weakened Russia would be one less dagger pointed at both. That's benefit enough.

I think its entirely possible.

People act like they know everything in this thread going on and on about how the Germans couldn't defeat the Soviets.

Oil was everything.  Germany needed it to fuel their war machine, without it their industry and mechanized war machine would not function.

1941

Barbarossa was primarily for oil.  Russia had vast oil reserves.  And in 1941 when it began, yes Germany was stopped, but they also inflicted 400% casualty rates on Russia they themselves sustained. 

1942

US in the war now.  UK+US focus on the war in North Africa/Middle East, cut off the ONLY source of oil Germany had at that point.  Wipes out large portion of Italy's forces/Navy.

Also from 1942 onwards, US+UK Strategically bombing Germany continuously through 1945.

1943

US+UK Opens a front in southern Europe, wipe's out what remains of Italy's forces.  Takes Italy out of war.  

1944

US+UK Open a front in Northern Europe.

1945

War ends.

Now lets go back.

1942.  

US never starts wiping out German industry.

UK+US never cut off German oil.

Russia turned the tide because the longer the war went on, the stronger their industry got and the weaker Germany's got.  Now imagine a German war machine unimpeded by strategic bombing and oil shortages continuing to rebuild operation after operation.  That changes everything.  From 1942 onward, a lost German tank brigade was lost.  It wasn't getting replaced.  While the russians turned out thousands of tanks per year.  German production was simply destroyed and continually destroyed over and over until unconditional surrender.

By 1942-1943 Russia was just throwing people into a meat grinder.  But it didn't matter if they lost 500,000 men in an offensive, the 100,000 germans they killed and 300 tanks weren't getting replaced/repaired.  German infastructure/industry was in ruins because of US bombardment.

Not to mention Japan and Germany were allied.  Had the US never entered the war, where do you think Japan would turn after(possibly during) China (what did they need more than anything, hence why they attacked the US/Philippines in the first place) OH YEAH OIL.  Who had oil? Russia. You see the casualties Japan inflicted on the cautious, well trained, well equipped US Army/USMC.  Now imagine that war-fighting ethic turned against untrained conscripts sent in massed human wave attacks.

Hell the only reason Japan was defeated at all was because of the US Navy.  After their surface fleet was destroyed the war was over for them. Battle of Midway, Battle of Leyte Gulf.  With no fleet every action was a retreating action.  Now imagine that never happened.

Soviets still would have crushed the Nazi's, it just might have taken another 6 months. The Russians had already turned the tide of the war long before D-day and I doubt the African and Italian campaigns were deciding factors in the Soviet victory.

redstorm72

No, if the U.S. did not enter the war and provide supplies to the Russians, Germany would have won there. Also, Italy, however weak, would have remained an Axis power to the end.

American daytime bombings of Germany, the march of Pattons 3rd Army through Italy and Germany, and thousands of American troops pushing through Germany's Western Front would not have happened, and Germany's resources would have not been so severely depleted, leaving Germany free to mass produce more and better planes for the Luftwaffe and superior tanks or simply more Panther and Tiger tanks.

Germany would merely be fighting on 1 front, as British night-time bombing would have been held in check without American day-time bombing providing the rest of the 24 hour raids. Also, the U.S. had the supreme version of WW2's finest escort fighter for long-range bombing raids and Luftwaffe killing, the P-51D Mustang, some of which had actually shot down Me-262's and their rocket engines!

...and then there's Japan without U.S. involvement. I won't even go there ;)

I would like to say the Soviets would have taken care of business... but the US cutting off oil supplies from the Middle east/stalling Italy/Western Front, gave Germany too much to handle; there by ending the war. 

Germanies field marshalls were brilliant.  If they had been in charge instead of hitler then they would've won no matter what.

Germanies field marshalls were brilliant.  If they had been in charge instead of hitler then they would've won no matter what.

GOGOGOGURT

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

Germanies field marshalls were brilliant.  If they had been in charge instead of hitler then they would've won no matter what.

WhiteKnight77

Very true.  The field marshalls even wanted to ally with britain and the US to attack russia.

Really, after we defeated germany, we should've pushed russia back into their country, would've spared a lot of sorrow.  Patton had the right idea.