Why Didnt Japan Invade Soviet Union First?

[jankren]

If Japan opened a second front during Operation Barbarossa, Soviet Union would be history before 1945. And with Soviet Union neutralized, Germany would be able to aid Japan more in handling the Americans in its regional conquest in the East later on.

[Farnan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-...se_Border_Wars

And by 1941 they were running out of resources which led to their invasion of British Asia, Indochina, the Philippines and East Indies.

[Keravnos]

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

[bushbush]

i think they tried, but they were defeated pretty bad so the japanese decided to focus on the easier targets first, china, and south-east asia before touching the big tiger USSR. Japanese and USSR signed a pack of non-aggression after their brief war. It suits both countries' needs. USSR doensn't wanna fight germans and japanese at the same time. Japanese wanted to focus on east and sout-east asia for now.

[Lysimachus]

Besides, what is there in the Soviet Union to take besides Sakhalin, Vladivostok and the Mongol satellite state? Yes, perhaps you could go as far as the Trans-Siberian railway but it would be a logistical nightmare. No, it wouldn't be worth it.

[jankren]

Japan lost because Soviet Union was able to fully focus on them during the war, but in 1941 they were bleeding heavily on the Western Front and the Eastern Front would be much much weaker by that time.

Moreover, conquest of Sovet Union wont bring USA into the war.

[Farnan]

Japan lost because Soviet Union was able to fully focus on them during the war, but in 1941 they were bleeding heavily on the Western Front and the Eastern Front would be much much weaker by that time.

Moreover, conquest of Sovet Union wont bring USA into the war.

Actually the Soviet Union only played a small part in the loss of Japan. They ran out of stuff (soldiers, resources and equipment), that is why they lost the war.

And they brought the US in the war because the Philippines has stuff, as did British, French and Dutch territories in Asia. Also, they believed that the people of the European colonies would be happy and grateful. Probably thought they could recruit from them along with using their resources. They didn't factor that they were as foreign as Europeans to many, and many Filipinos liked the US or at least didn't hate them (along with the fact that they were supposed to get their independence in 1945 and already basically ran the country minus foreign policy).

[jankren]

And they brought the US in the war because the Philippines has stuff, as did British, French and Dutch territories in Asia. Also, they believed that the people of the European colonies would be happy and grateful. Probably thought they could recruit from them along with using their resources. They didn't factor that they were as foreign as Europeans to many, and many Filipinos liked the US or at least didn't hate them (along with the fact that they were supposed to get their independence in 1945 and already basically ran the country minus foreign policy).

Actually the Japanese were widely welcomed in European colonies in Asia as the Germans were widely welcomed in Soviet territories in Eastern Europe. But their following brutality was what made the locals change their mind quickly.

And I dont think average Filipinos liked US occupation.

I would argue that an invasion by japan might have been more critical then you think. One of the reasons why German lost was because when stalin realized the threat of a Japanese invasion was not real, he diverted all those resources he had on his eastern front to be used in a counterattack. Had the Japanese attacked, whether it was successful or not, might have tied up enough soviet resources that the germans would have been able to punch through and hit Moscow.

That is exactly my thought.

But then again that way the Japanese were just going to be nothing but cannon fodders and maybe they didnt trust the Germans enough that they would help them with their own goals after Germany reached theirs. Much like what happened with Franco's Spain.

[Farnan]

Actually the Japanese were widely welcomed in European colonies in Asia as the Germans were widely welcomed in Soviet territories in Eastern Europe. But their following brutality was what made the locals change their mind quickly.

And I dont think average Filipinos liked US occupation.

They were split, but the Filipinos were/are more European than Asian. As Erwin once said, they are the Mexicans of Asia (as they are mostly Mestizo, spoke Spanish, were heavily Catholic and lived a very spanified culture). However, the US pretty much gave the Filipinos independence in 1935 except for foreign policy which was on its way to happen in 1945. The Filipinos saw themselves as pretty much their own country so the Japanese Invasion was seen as an invasion not a liberation. Just look at how many Filipinos resisted from day one.

[hellheaven1987]

They were split, but the Filipinos were/are more European than Asian. As Erwin once said, they are the Mexicans of Asia (as they are mostly Mestizo, spoke Spanish, were heavily Catholic and lived a very spanified culture). However, the US pretty much gave the Filipinos independence in 1935 except for foreign policy which was on its way to happen in 1945. The Filipinos saw themselves as pretty much their own country so the Japanese Invasion was seen as an invasion not a liberation. Just look at how many Filipinos resisted from day one.

No, the reason was the Philipino already got the promise of independance from US government before the war - so if Philippine was going to independant soon or later, why accepted Japanese's offer??

And half of Philippino did support Japanese, but then gave up due to the brutality of Japanese troops (it was notabel that Japanese treated Philippino more harsh than most South-East Asia people).

[Tiberius Tosi]

The Japanese were losing steam even in Manchuria by that point, as they needed more resources. After the embargo by America they were not even concerned with the Soviet Union whatsoever, they had to focus their main effort on continuing the fight in Manchuria and convincing America to lift the embargo (which led to Pearl Harbor) as well as capturing Pacific islands from which to gather more natural resources which could be easily and safely transported by sea back to Japan.

It is arguable that an eastern invasion by Japan may have been the convincing blow that would bring Stalin to the table, but it was an unrealistic option for Japan who would have little to gain by it and a lot (Manchuria) to lose.

Japan lost because Soviet Union was able to fully focus on them during the war, but in 1941 they were bleeding heavily on the Western Front and the Eastern Front would be much much weaker by that time.

A day after Barbarossa started, Stalin ordered entire divisions to mobilize and head for the Eastern Front (Source: The Road to Stalingrad, complicated but good read) as a Japanese attack was assumed to follow. The USSR did not declare war on the Japanese until early August of 1945, by that time Japan was all but defeated. The USSR played little role in toppling the Japanese.

[conon394]

If Japan opened a second front during Operation Barbarossa, Soviet Union would be history before 1945. And with Soviet Union neutralized, Germany would be able to aid Japan more in handling the Americans in its regional conquest in the East later on.

As already noted Japan did not really have the army for it.

What it could have done if willing to accept some temporary defeats in Manchuria is A: deny any imports to the USSR via the Pacific once the USSR was at war with Germany.

While Stalin could have lashed out at Manchuria he could hardly afford more than to bother Japan given how close things were in the west and loosing a huge LL channel would have hurt the USSR badly.

Second Japan should have glad handled the US for as long as possible and declared war only on the UK in December (and any other rump German occupied state as well). The main thrust of Japanese activity should have been in the Indian Ocean with particualr emphasis on establish a base on obligingly Vichy controlled Madagascar.

[Boyar Son]

OOoohh you guys... all you had to say was that they both signed a neutrality act in '41. that's why no invasion when operation Barbarossa was launched.

[Farnan]

OOoohh you guys... all you had to say was that they both signed a neutrality act in '41. that's why no invasion when operation Barbarossa was launched.

That explains nothing.

The Soviets ignored it in 45 and the Japanese would have ignored it earlier if it was in their advantage.

[Boyar Son]

That explains nothing.

The Soviets ignored it in 45 and the Japanese would have ignored it earlier if it was in their advantage.

bwahaha the difference is that i provided the fact (neutrality act) of why JAPAN didnt invade.

Farnan thought it was cool to diss the post, said the USSR "ignored"- more like broke it nice play on words- the act LATE ww2, (what does that have to do with what japan not invading i don't know.....), and then took his 8 ball and predicted that if the japanese had the advantage they would invade. proof?

farnan !! seriously!! a nuetrality act right after fierce fighting with said nation does not explain..why they did not invade?

Except of course operation Barbarossa kind of shows what NA pacts are worth?

yea, japan can expect an invasion from germany any second now lol!!

[conon394]

all you had to say was that they both signed a neutrality act in '41. that's why no invasion when operation Barbarossa was launched.

Except of course operation Barbarossa kind of shows what NA pacts are worth?

[Dodge]

Because they already got one ass whooping from Zhukov, and didn't need another until '45.

[Farnan]

Umm...

You didn't prove anything.

And I provided the facts earlier, the border wars (which I don't only know due to wiki) proved the weakness there, but mostly the Japanese didn't have the stuff (men, equipment and resources) to invade the Soviet Union. Neutrality Acts explain nothing as no nation follows international law unless its in its best interest (one of the basis of the Realist Paradigm on International Relations).

[Boyar Son]

Umm...

You didn't prove anything.

And I provided the facts earlier, the border wars (which I don't only know due to wiki) proved the weakness there, but mostly the Japanese didn't have the stuff (men, equipment and resources) to invade the Soviet Union. Neutrality Acts explain nothing as no nation follows international law unless its in its best interest (one of the basis of the Realist Paradigm on International Relations).

UMMM in the late 30's yeah they DID, this was before midway and guadalcanal and the occupation of US held islands.

oh wow, neutrality act after fierce fighting from the russians is not considered proof of no invasion. farnan what will you think of next...................come off it. just go somewhere else.........

[Gelgoog]

I would argue that an invasion by japan might have been more critical then you think. One of the reasons why German lost was because when stalin realized the threat of a Japanese invasion was not real, he diverted all those resources he had on his eastern front to be used in a counterattack. Had the Japanese attacked, whether it was successful or not, might have tied up enough soviet resources that the germans would have been able to punch through and hit Moscow.