What if Japan does not attack the United States?

Joined Nov 2019
4,044 Posts | 2,898+
United States
I'll let this one go, as it has many permutations:
1.) Russia is now in greater threat, it is much more difficult to remove it's divisions from the Manchurian borders, making the Russian winter campaign of 1941 a much more dicey probability.
2.) America's entry into war with Germany is a much longer term event, popular opinion in the U.S. is still muddled regarding intervention, and the 1942 Congressional elections loom as a potential roadblock to intervention until 1943.
3.) Although Britain is in threat, Lend/Lease, and American support of convoy protection continues, Britain is building better fighters none the less, and enhancing it's A/S capabilities for convoy protection.
4.) Monty might win Al Alamein, but the Germans can still rebound in North Africa.
5.) Japan could still take on the Dutch East Indies with questions arising about America's response.
6.) Would Britain oppose the Japanese absorption of the Dutch East Indies, assuming that the oil received by Japan would further enhance it's militarism in Asia, or conversely be unable to respond as it is to heavily involved in Europe to respond?
7.) Japan's oil supply would still be threatened by potential intervention by the U.S. in the supply lanes through the South China Sea, but not convinced that the U. S. would attack.
8.) Could Germany have been in a position in 1942 to acquire the oil fields of Baku and keep them as the Russians are now facing a probable two front war? Or would Stalingrad still have become the foolish focus of the NAZI's?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kubis Gabcik
Joined May 2013
117 Posts | 4+
there
If Japan does not attack then the US oil embargo would cripple the Japanese economy and war machine. So its options were either find another source of oil, withdraw from China or run out of oil. Now could Japan have attacked the Dutch In Asia without the US declaring war?
 
Joined Oct 2011
839 Posts | 12+
What about the Philippines? Do they leave US troops and planes alone? What about the Brits in Singapore? If they attack and take PI with the same outcome do you think the US would sit idly by?
 
Joined Mar 2019
3,592 Posts | 2,048+
Kansas
I'll let this one go, as it has many permutations:

Some of this is going to depend on what Japan actually does. While the scenario relies on not attacking American assets. Do they still roll through Malaysia and into Burma.

If not, that makes the British position in North Africa a lot stronger.
 
Joined Nov 2019
4,044 Posts | 2,898+
United States
Just like the did with Indochina, they can ask Germany to make the occupied Dutch government allow them to occupy the Dutch East Indies. When the Free Dutch Navy fights them, they sink it, and claim that force had no legal right to resist.

The attack and take Singapore and Malaysia, and in turn Burma. They also take Hong Kong, and intere any British ships.

The Dutch East Indies takes care of the Japanese oil needs.

They do not attack the Philippines, or touch any American island or vessel.
 
Joined Nov 2019
4,044 Posts | 2,898+
United States
I'm going to guess that if the Germans hoped Japan might attack Russia, they would have been more interested in sharing technology.
 
Joined Mar 2019
3,592 Posts | 2,048+
Kansas
I'm going to guess that if the Germans hoped Japan might attack Russia, they would have been more interested in sharing technology.
'
Oddly enough they did not tell the Japanese they were going attack. Japan basically head about Barbarossa in the papers lol
 
Joined Aug 2016
12,409 Posts | 8,403+
Dispargum
At the time Japan invaded the Philippines the Filipino Army was in a state of transition. It had recently expanded from a small colonial force to an army capable of defending an independent Philippines without US assistance. However, it was still poorly trained and poorly equipped. Had Japan waited six months or a year they would have found it much more difficult to capture the Philippines due to the Filipino Army being better trained and equipped. As it was, in December 1941-May '42 Japan barely managed to accomplish the job. The Japanese commander, Homma, was criticized for the length of the campaign and after finally capturing the islands was never given a command again. He retired in 1943. The real problem, however, wasn't so much Homma as it was the small size of the Japanese invasion force and the large numbers of defenders even if they were poorly trained and equipped. The point being, that given another six months for additional training and for equipment to arrive from the US and the Philippines may have successfully resisted the Japanese invasion.
 
Joined Nov 2019
4,044 Posts | 2,898+
United States
Was the Philippines in the end of value to Japan? The only real reason to take it was to prevent America from having a forward base by which to attack Japanese shipping. No attack against the U.S., no known reason to attack it.

In the end FDR didn't want to enter the war without a casus belli.
 
Joined Aug 2016
12,409 Posts | 8,403+
Dispargum
Was the Philippines in the end of value to Japan? The only real reason to take it was to prevent America from having a forward base by which to attack Japanese shipping. No attack against the U.S., no known reason to attack it.

In the end FDR didn't want to enter the war without a casus belli.

Agreed, except that you're trusting the US to stay neutral. I think Japan was right to protect their sea lanes between Japan and the Dutch East Indies. I doubt the US would have stayed neutral forever.
 
Joined Nov 2019
4,044 Posts | 2,898+
United States
Agreed, except that you're trusting the US to stay neutral. I think Japan was right to protect their sea lanes between Japan and the Dutch East Indies. I doubt the US would have stayed neutral forever.
Actually I'm not, but I'm calculating that for political reasons, that without a casus beli, the U.S. won't enter the War till Feb 1943.
 
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
Agreed, except that you're trusting the US to stay neutral. I think Japan was right to protect their sea lanes between Japan and the Dutch East Indies. I doubt the US would have stayed neutral forever.

Japan had no right to make an all-out invasion of China in the first place, and that's what started everything. Giving Japan's reckless action in China, US had all the right to impose heavy sanctions against Japan.
 
Joined Jan 2017
11,739 Posts | 5,015+
Sydney
certainly Roosevelt needed some Pearl Harbor to drag the US kicking and screaming into WW2
by passing the Philippines is doable , its claim to US protection is resting on weak legal grounds
but for Japan , not getting in there is a safe option ( until/if they got heavily reinforced )
the oil is a sensitive spot but taking over the dutch colonies would largely solve this problem
scrap iron imports are a critical problem but not so urgent as to commit suicide

the Soviets had no choice but to let Vladivostok take care of itself , the German front was way more important
Japan didn't have any incentive to do more than wave weapons and make threatening gestures
to declare war on the USSR could or not be done , it would much matter
the soviets had to grind their teeth and wear it , no choice
by November 41 already large amount of troops had been moved to central Asia ready to be shifted further West on demand
there was a trans-Siberian restriction for transport , a one line rail link thousand of miles long was just incapable of carrying dozen of divisions in a couple of weeks
the divisions had already been relocated to the western rail network , pass the Irkutsk bottleneck , for use or send back East as the situation matured

with elections looming there was no way war could be declared in the absence of a glaring casus belli ,
isolationism sentiment was way too strong
 
Joined Nov 2019
4,044 Posts | 2,898+
United States
What is funny about the scrap iron issue is that attacking the U.S. only worsened that issue. The only two sources of iron were Siberia, the closest, or Australia.

Overall Siberia would have answered all the materials issue Japan faced.
 
Joined Mar 2019
3,592 Posts | 2,048+
Kansas
What is funny about the scrap iron issue is that attacking the U.S. only worsened that issue. The only two sources of iron were Siberia, the closest, or Australia.

Overall Siberia would have answered all the materials issue Japan faced.

Australia sold the Japanese so much iron before the war, the Prime Minister of the time got the nick name "Pig Iron" Bob
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparky
Joined May 2019
1,531 Posts | 351+
Northern and Western hemispheres
I made a similar thread called What would Japanese have done if they weren't being embargoed? It's in the speculative history forum. If Imperial Japan doesn't attack the U.S.A. it would likely have continued fighting the Chinese. President Roosevelt likely could have gotten a declaration of war from congress and joined the European Theater. Would the Americans have eventually fought the Japanese?
 
Joined Apr 2017
4,479 Posts | 876+
Las Vegas, NV USA
I made a similar thread called What would Japanese have done if they weren't being embargoed? It's in the speculative history forum. If Imperial Japan doesn't attack the U.S.A. it would likely have continued fighting the Chinese. President Roosevelt likely could have gotten a declaration of war from congress and joined the European Theater. Would the Americans have eventually fought the Japanese?

Something dramatic would have to happen to get the US into WW2. If not an act by Japan, then by Germany. If the fall of France and the London Blitz didn't do it, only some direct attack on US territory would. There were some incidents in the Atlantic but that wasn't enough. Hitler was developing a bomber that could supposedly reach New York and return to Germany. Bombing New York just might do it but some in the interior West or the South might still object.:rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kubis Gabcik
Joined May 2019
1,531 Posts | 351+
Northern and Western hemispheres
Something dramatic would have to happen to get the US into WW2. If not an act by Japan, then by Germany. If the fall of France and the London Blitz didn't do it, only some direct attack on US territory would. There were some incidents in the Atlantic but that wasn't enough. Hitler was developing a bomber that could supposedly reach New York and return to Germany. Bombing New York just might do it but some in the interior West or the South might still object.:rolleyes:
I mostly agree here. However one of our old Historum posters OpanaPointer who hasn't been active in while wrote that FDR could have gotten a declaration of war on Germany in 1942. Why do you think President Roosevelt embargoed the Japanese? Did he do so to try to provoke a response?
 
Joined Apr 2017
4,479 Posts | 876+
Las Vegas, NV USA
Last edited:
I mostly agree here. However one of our old Historum posters OpanaPointer who hasn't been active in while wrote that FDR could have gotten a declaration of war on Germany in 1942. Why do you think President Roosevelt embargoed the Japanese? Did he do so to try to provoke a response?

It depends on what Roosevelt was willing to do to provoke a declaration of war. The embargo on Japan was for invading Indochina. I don't think he was trying to provoke a war with Japan. He was more worried about Germany and had a personal relationship with Churchill. Congress would never allow a first strike by the US to provoke Germany. So what could Roosevelt do and have Congress and the people support going to war with Germany? I think Hitler would have to do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kubis Gabcik
Joined Aug 2015
4,706 Posts | 1,102+
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Agreed, except that you're trusting the US to stay neutral. I think Japan was right to protect their sea lanes between Japan and the Dutch East Indies. I doubt the US would have stayed neutral forever.

"The warg that one hears is worse than the orc that one fears". Boromir, in The Lord of the Rings.

A present threat is worse than a potential future threat. By invading the Philippines and attacking Pearl Harbor, Japan converted the potential future threat, the USA, "the orc that one fears", into an actual present threat "the warg that one hears". That does not seem very rational to me, especially when the potential future enemy turned into actual present enemy has many times one's war making potential. Hasn't anyone ever learned any lessons from the War of the Triple Alliance of 1864 to 1870?

And if war with the USA was inevitable, delaying starting it as long as possible would delay the deaths of many Japanese soldiers and sailors, the devastation of Japan, and total defeat for Japan's war goals, as long as possible. Thee is no advantage in gettng killed a year earlier than one would otherwise be killed.
 

Trending History Discussions

Top