What if japan attacked russia

Would we have cared about Japanese expansionism? No, not at all. Ithkral is right on every point. Japan did try to advance in to the Soviet Union in in a border dispute in Mongolia. The Kwangtung army was massecred, by, you name it, Georgi Zhukov. Stalin sent him there to dispel the Japanese past the Khalka River. The defeat was such a set back it completely altered Japanese motive to even engage the Russians again. The result of this battle turned japanese war planning toward the US and the eventual attack on Pearl Harbor.

Japan wanted China to be their India, a large colony they could exploit for wealth. They fought in Mongolia for the same reasons the British fought in Afghanistan. They wanted a secure boarder for the crown jewel of their empire. War with the Soviet Union and the United States would have been equally stupid. The only difference was that the Soviets were not in the way when the Japanese needed oil, where as the US was, both geographically the Philippines economically, the embargo , militarily the fleet at Pearle Harbor , and politically threat of intervention.

However i am not sure I quite agree with you. As soon as the decision was made to strike the US, the top soviet spy in tokyo cabled Moscow that the Japanese were moving into the southern Pacific.

At this moment Stalin was able to move Fifteen Divisions, three cavalry divisions, 1, tanks, and 1, aircraft to the European theater. It was these powerful reinforcements and Zhukov that turned the tide against Germany.

You make an excellent argument. It certainly does make sense as well that the German halt in Russia would somewhat coincide with the strike against Pearle Harbor.

You are well learned for a shrubber. In that case I must concede the argument that had Japan at least threatened the USSR, it could have turned the tide in the war.

The Japanese Empire needed oil to run, and the only way to get it was in the South Pacific, and the only way to attack the South Pacific was to eliminate the threat of the American Fleet at Pearle.

Your points are without a doubt valid. I think what needs to be taken from the Nomonhan Incident is what it shaped for the future.

Win or lose Japan probably would not invade like you said, because their interest was oil. Nomonhan was, after all, only a border dispute that started out as skirmishes with Mongolian mounted cavalry. But it grew to an escalated engagement with many History shaping individuals like Zhukov and Masanobu Tsuji Who was the architect of the engagement, and would later lead campaigns in Malay-Singapore, lead the Bataan Death marches in the Philippines, but would later lose horribly in Guadalcanal.

I think the focus is on the battle itself and the future reprocussions it would have. I know it is in fact true, but I am going to have to go back and do some more researching and I will be sure to get back to you when I have the facts. I think the idea of helping Hitler and reaping some of the spoils, they felt he would still be their aid and ally in the end Which probably would not be the case, I would assume Hitler would drop Japan as an ally either way after he completed Lebensraum.

Yes, I love history. I spoke with her, and she has agreed to help me start an Axis and Allies Club!!! Another interesting note is that the embargo was almost lifted in In exchange, the US would lift the embargo. I forget the exact details. KurtGodel7 :. Octospire :. Chamberlain could of been bigger than Churchill in the current popular imagination if he had of engineered a successful alliance with the Germans and then defeated the Soviet Union.

You are very much correct that forging an alliance would of been very difficult considering the Pro-Soviet sentiments amongst the worlds elites, however I think with the right propaganda they could of turned the tide.

In reality it wouldnt even have to be propaganda just the truth about the Soviet Union under Stalin, the labour camps and purges that were reality long before exterminating the Jews was even a thought on the Nazi parties planning table. Germany and Britain had ties going back centuries that could of been rekindled in spite of French protests, the Soviets werent going to sit within their borders forever especially with their massive advantages in manpower and industrial capacity.

What is facinating about this whole era is how accomodating Hitler tried to be with the British at least at first, he wanted an Anglo-German alliance so badly just like the alliance between the Prussians and the British during the Napoloeonic era.

Had the British been receptive to these offers or at the very least not signing their way into world war 2 by alligning themselves yet again with the French things could of been very different. There was already communist uprising in China undermining the Nationalist government, how hard would of it been to demonise the communist way of life and show the world what life in the Soviet Union was really like.

From a purely ethical standpoint, several differences between the Nazis and the communists occur to me. And added considerably to that total both during and after the war. Conversely, the Nazi government did not begin killing large numbers of people until its food situation precluded feeding everyone within its borders. The Soviet government was bent on world revolution.

Outside of communist-controlled areas, their focus was primarily on tearing down the existing social order and anything which supported it. He went on to add that within a year, every woman who chose to continue attending those meeting had had her marriage end.

Communists felt that stirring up trouble between the sexes was a good way to harm the existing social order. In contrast, the Nazis were generally pro-family, and even brought Mothers Day to German-occupied France. Recently, a relatively well-known Canadian journalist decided to quit her career, and become an artist instead. She went back to school to obtain her art degree. She was successful in obtaining that degree, but she said it nearly killed her as an artist. Consequently, no effort should be made to make art beautiful.

This journalist chose, as her subject matter, to paint the people who cleaned up the art room after the art students were finished using it. She felt such people were too often unnoticed. Her postmodernist professors harshly condemned her for this, and asked her what she, as an educated and well-off white woman, could possibly know what it was like to be a poorly paid racial minority. While the politicization and perversion of art to suit a twisted and evil political agenda may seem like a minor thing in comparison with the mass rapes and mass murders for which communists are responsible, I still see this as significant.

In contrast to this, the Nazis tended to prefer traditional to modern art, and believed that it was perfectly appropriate for art to be beautiful or visually pleasing. They sometimes censored depictions of the nude human form, which they saw as decadent. If the common people could be made to see these and other difference between the Nazis and communists, I firmly believe that most people would respond by becoming significantly more anti-communist than they were anti-Nazi.

Outright lies were told, and believed. For example, Walter Duranty of the New York Times told a number of pro-Soviet lies, including the whitewashing of the Ukrainian famine.

A forced famine that the Soviets committed in the early '30s, which resulted in deliberate starvation and death of 7 million innocent people.

Against such a backdrop, it is possible to tell the truth without necessarily being believed. While these things would have represented an obstacle to a NATO-style Anglo-German alliance, they were not necessarily an insurmountable one. But it would have been an uphill battle, even if both Hitler and Chamberlain were both fully committed to the idea, and even if the Nazis had been as good at understanding political considerations outside Germany as von Bismarck had been.

The fire bombing of Tokyo killing up to , a single night is just a preview of what the allies were capable of when faced with the massive casualties possible with an Invasion of mainland Japan.

Had the Germans had alliance to maintain with the British they couldnt take the hard line with ethnic minorities and under take the actions they did in reality, I think carving up the Soviet Union would of been seen as more than worth the trade off of not so publicly persecuting ethnic minorities in the eyes of the Nazi leadership.

I agree that it would of been difficult for Chamberlain and Hitler to forge a NATO style alliance but as you say it wasnt entirely impossible and looking at the reality of World War 2 in a lot of cases the highly improbable did actually end up occuring.

For instance the quick fall of France and decimation of Allied armies and also the suprisingly successful early U-boat campaign against Allied shipping in the Atlantic.

Of course had the Alliance materialised the peoples of the Ukraine and Soviet Union been treated fairly and with compassion as the invasion continued its likely that the Soviet Union would of crumbled under the weight of internal revolution and Anglo-German attack.

But as in Finland, the russian help was not very effective. And unlike the Germans, the russian officers never learned any lesson in Spain. Besides anyone with knowledge knows that Kam. Pilots were all volunteers and only existed out of desperation. Most of the transports and escort ships used to ferry men and supplies were Italian ships or in some cases captured French and Greek freighters.

Oh yeah, I bet you can find tons of Axis equipment with Allied origins. I remember reading a book talking about Sea Lion and the Germans put together what very little landing craft they had and it turned out these craft in origin were all US and British that was sold prior to WWI.

Worsham: I noticed it was today in that Polish troops under General Rydz-Smigly held a victory parade up the main road in Kiev, celebrating their 7th May capture of the city. Their tenure of Kiev only lasted a few weeks.

Diving into the world of alternate history is a fascinating and explorative endeavour that opens up a multitude of possibilities. However, there is a gleamingly obvious tether surrounding our question, limiting the number of realistic avenues that we can consider when it comes to answering this particular question. So for us to consider a world where Operation Barbarossa never happened, it would have to be one that didn't include Hitler. A more realistic approach to this question should therefore contemplate the scenario of Barbarossa being delayed and how things might have turned out had that occurred.

Read more about: Hitler What if Stalingrad had fallen? Where might he turn his attention to instead? By mid, Hitler had all but given up on any plans to conquer Britain after losing the Battle of Britain. Could he possibly turn his attention back towards Blighty?

The argument 'for' is a strong one considering the amount of manpower and resources that went into the Eastern Front. Without such a drain, efforts could be effectively piled into Operation Sea Lion, Germany's codename for the planned invasion of Britain.

However, the argument 'against' is perhaps even stronger. Germany's military might was in its army; it was a land-based force that could not compete against the might of the Royal Navy. For any invasion across the Channel to be successful, Hitler needed to not only control the skies but also the waves. Hitler would have had to significantly bolster and upgrade his navy the Kriegsmarine if any amphibious assault on Britain was to occur.

Hitler also had no real drive to conquer and invade Britain. Ultimately, he just wanted Britain out of the war so he could focus his efforts eastwards. He never intended on fighting a two-front war, in fact, he always hoped Britain and Germany could be allies.

So after postponing Barbarossa, Hitler would be more likely to use the time to squeeze Britain further, tightening the noose and forcing them into a peace treaty. To do that, Hitler would probably turn his attention to the Mediterranean and North Africa. Read more about: Hitler What if D-Day had failed? In our reality, Hitler didn't give the North African theatre the kind of attention and resources it required to secure a Nazi victory.

However, in our altered timeline resources are now not going east, in fact, supplies are flooding in from that direction as agreed in the Nazi-Soviet nonaggression pact signed in With the Suez now under Nazi control, the British have lost a major logistical supply route and their position in the Middle East has been compromised.

With his economic and military might still in the west, Hitler then conducts successful invasions of Malta and Gibraltar putting further pressure on the British.