If Japan have attacked Russia and not the Usa?

[Michael Emrys]

And Japan still has to go after the Dutch oil whatever else it does.

Michael

There was oil in Sakhalin.

But not enough to meet Japan's needs.

Japan does not need Dutch oil. It had enough oil reserves to fight the war one year.

Six months at the most is the figure I've heard most often. And it had pretty much used that up by Midway. If it hadn't had the Dutch oil to draw on by that time, it would have been out of gas.

That is enough time to defeat the USSR if it can be defeated.

Whether or not the USSR could have been defeated, it would have taken longer than one year. But let's imagine for a minute that a miracle occurs and the USSR does cave in by the end of 1942. Then what? Where's the oil going to come from? And how does it get to Japan?

A victory against the USSR would solve Japan's oil problems definitely as Japan and Germany could force the rump-USSR to supply Japan with oil.

Not in your wildest dreams. Any oil captured and available in the USSR gets used by the Germans. Maybe five or ten years down the road, if the Axis powers are still around, Germany might agree to sell some oil to Japan.

Michael

[ThomasG]

But not enough to meet Japan's needs.

Do you have figures of oil production in Japanese and Soviet-controlled Sakhalin during WWII?

Six months at the most is the figure I've heard most often. And it had pretty much used that up by Midway. If it hadn't had the Dutch oil to draw on by that time, it would have been out of gas.

Do you mean that Japan had six months of oil reserves left in June 1941 or December 1941?

According to the figures I know Japan had one year of oil supplies left when it went to the war (two years if it had not started the war). The reserves should be adequate for one year in June 1941.

Whether or not the USSR could have been defeated, it would have taken longer than one year.

Why? In my opinion Germany would have to defeat the Soviet Union quickly in less time than one year. And the chance to negotiated peace with the USSR would be much better after the US entry to the war. Germany also planned to achieve victory very quickly with Operation Barbarossa and Japan should trust them. This would be the best shot they have to win the war.

But let's imagine for a minute that a miracle occurs and the USSR does cave in by the end of 1942. Then what?

Japan demands that the USSR pays reparations in oil. Germany has reasons to support these demands.

Where's the oil going to come from?

The oil reserves of the USSR and the remaining Soviet oil fields.

And how does it get to Japan?

It is rail-transported to Vladivostok and then loaded to Japanese tankers.

Not in your wildest dreams. Any oil captured and available in the USSR gets used by the Germans. Maybe five or ten years down the road, if the Axis powers are still around, Germany might agree to sell some oil to Japan.

No, Germany should promise to Japan that it will get the needed oil from the USSR because otherwise it will not attack to the Soviet Union. Japan's attack to Pearl Harbor harmed Germany's strategic position enormously bringing the US to the war and it is in Germany's best interest to avoid this.

Germans could produce enough oil for their own needs in the region of Caucasus and other oilfields in German control. Keep in mind that if the war with the Soviet Union ends the oil consumption of the Wehrmacht would decrease much. Germany can also reach towards Middle Eastern oilfields.

Why do you speak of oil sales between Germany and Japan? Wouldn't it be rather ineffective to transport the oil from Germany and Japan?

Furthermore, if the USSR falls and the US is not in the war this opens the possibility of peace between Germany and Britain. The end of the war could lead to the negotiated end of the oil blockade.

In my opinion all other courses of action would lead to a worse outcome for Japan. Did Japan have the ability to win the Pacific War against the US? Attack to the Pearl Harbor was clearly a mistake. A war with the US leads inevitably to the defeat of Japan.

Another option would be to stay neutral but this would mean that Japan runs out of oil and is not able to satisfy even the demands of the civilian economy. Withdrawal from China and friendly relations with the US was not an option for Japan's militarist leadership.

[LWD]

...
According to the figures I know Japan had one year of oil supplies left when it went to the war (two years if it had not started the war). The reserves should be adequate for one year in June 1941.....

I believe when I've seen this stated it said that the Navy had 1 year supply for peace time useage. Even if this was not the case there oil consumption during the first 6 months of the war was much higher than they planned on.

According to:
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#tjeptsda

43,000,000 barrels of oil and oil products were stored in Japan

which is ~5,000,000 tons of oil.

By mid 42 the navy was using about 300,000 tons a month.
According to:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/guadoil1.htm

the Imperial Navy alone was consuming about 305,000 tons of heavy oil (in the form of fuel oil) per month by this stage in the war (Parillo, p. 237).

But the above had to supply the army, aiforce, merchant marine, and industry as well.

[ThomasG]

I believe when I've seen this stated it said that the Navy had 1 year supply for peace time useage. Even if this was not the case there oil consumption during the first 6 months of the war was much higher than they planned on.

According to:
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#tjeptsda

43,000,000 barrels of oil and oil products were stored in Japan

which is ~5,000,000 tons of oil.

By mid 42 the navy was using about 300,000 tons a month.
According to:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/guadoil1.htm

the Imperial Navy alone was consuming about 305,000 tons of heavy oil (in the form of fuel oil) per month by this stage in the war (Parillo, p. 237).

But the above had to supply the army, aiforce, merchant marine, and industry as well.

43.000,000 barrels in December 1941. right? Japan had substantially larger oil reserves in June 1941 as the blockade had not reduced them. The Japanese plan would be to invade the Soviet Union with the Germans and hope that the Germans can force the Soviets to peace before the end of 1941. This is the best chance both Axis Powers have to win the war.

Japan could easily sink the Soviet Pacific Fleet which was very weak. The Soviet Union is much closer to Japan than Indonesia. It would be logistically far more easy to support an invasion to the Soviet Union as the Soviets would not have ability to intercept Japanese convoys effectively unlike the US.

How much could the Japanese invasion decrease the Soviet strength in Europe?

Furthermore, if the war goes badly and oil supplies are exhausted Japan can simply make a separate peace with the Soviets. There is no risk that the Soviets could invade Mainland Japan unlike during the last months of war with the US.

[Jon G.]

Sakhalin's yearly oil output was set at 4 million barrels/year in 1940. According to a 1925 Soviet-Japanese accord, Japan already had access to the oil and coal of northern Sakhalin - an agreement which, interestingly, was in effect until 1944.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 66#1066466

There's no way that even all the oil of Sakhalin could have covered Japan's needs. The Dutch East Indies had a yearly output of about 60 million barrels/year in 1940.

[Jon G.]

By the way, barrels-to-tons and vice versa is not a straightforward calculation - oil output, whether measured in barrels or in tons, is usually crude, whereas oil stocks and oil needs are usually measured in refined products. See these links:

Energy Kids' Page

Crude Converter

Energy Glossary

[Christian W.]

a massed Soviet attack is likely to succeed and likely cuts off a large number of advancing Japanese troops. Then what?

I beg to differ. First, why could the Japanese not be able to suprise the Soviets - especially if their invasion commenses the same day as the rest of Operation Barbarossa? Stalin did after all dismiss reports about Axis armies massing on the border as nonsense.

The Soviets partial technological advance would not help them much. There were not many T-34 and KV-tanks around in 1941 and most of them were in the west. Japanese tanks and anti-tank guns of the period were matched agains't early T-model tanks and BT-tanks, which most of the tanks in the east were.

I would also like to point out that as in the west, Stalin's purges would have their toll in the east. Japanese soldiers at the time were well trained - and not a bit less willing to do the ultimate sacrifice for the Emperor and homeland. The Japanese Air Services were much more professional than the Soviet Air Force (which would not even be present in such numbers as in the west); I would bet for the Japanese destroying plenty of planes during first day of the invasion while still grounded with massed air attacks, and superbly trained Japanese pilots shooting down those that manage to get airborne. Imperial Japanese Navy would have total advantage agains't the Soviets.

With a man like Tomoyuki Yamashita leading the Japanese "blitzkrieg" (no doubt the Japanese would do their best do have their force as mobile as possible), who decisively defeated British and the Commonwealth at Singapore, I do have optimistic views of Japanese ability, despite their certain limitations.

[Jon G.]

...First, why could the Japanese not be able to suprise the Soviets - especially if their invasion commenses the same day as the rest of Operation Barbarossa? Stalin did after all dismiss reports about Axis armies massing on the border as nonsense.

Stalin dismissed reports about German armies massing on his western borders. Given that he had been at war with Japan as late as 1939, who is to say that he would have dismissed reports about Japanese armies on his borders in 1941? His spy Sorge in Tokyo would probably have been able to give advance notice of Japanese plans.

The Soviets partial technological advance would not help them much. There were not many T-34 and KV-tanks around in 1941 and most of them were in the west. Japanese tanks and anti-tank guns of the period were matched agains't early T-model tanks and BT-tanks, which most of the tanks in the east were.

The Soviets didn't have T-34s or KVs in 1939 either; BT-7s (while considered inadequate and too prone to catching fire by Zhukov) were adequate for the Khalkin Gol clash...

I would also like to point out that as in the west, Stalin's purges would have their toll in the east. Japanese soldiers at the time were well trained - and not a bit less willing to do the ultimate sacrifice for the Emperor and homeland. The Japanese Air Services were much more professional than the Soviet Air Force (which would not even be present in such numbers as in the west)...

See Khalkin Gol again; it was a post-purges, pre-Barbarossa event which was a major reason why Japan decided to shelve all plans for striking north, instead deciding to aim south for European colonial possessions...

[Christian W.]

His spy Sorge in Tokyo would probably have been able to give advance notice of Japanese plans.

Sorge's mates were doing exactly the same in the west - and we all know how Stalin responded to them. Stalin was well aware of the pact Germany, Italy and Japan had signed. He himself did not want to even seem reactive to Axis moves because he belived that it would be he who was provoking war.

Khalkin Gol clash...

The battle was a small fish, a border battle that started when simple Japanese soldiers entered territory they were not supposed to enter. The Japanese were not aiming towards the Soviet Union seriously. That would obviously not be the same case with full scale invasion. The battle wasn't either black and white, with the Soviet forces suffering higher casualties than Japanese.

[ThomasG]

It is actually not important how much success the Japanese would have. The Far East is of secondary importance in the war. In any case Japan could tie many Soviet divisions which could not be used in the west and this would be their main contribution to the Axis war effort.

[LWD]

It is actually not important how much success the Japanese would have. The Far East is of secondary importance in the war. In any case Japan could tie many Soviet divisions which could not be used in the west and this would be their main contribution to the Axis war effort.

You are assuming your conclusion. It is far from clear that the Japanese could have tied down more troops long term than the historical case. Indeed if the Soviets counter attack with any significant success they may actually be able to send troops west sooner and possibly in more numbers. While even a failed Japanese attack would consume some Soviet resources it's far from clear that it would be enough to have much effect.

[LWD]

His spy Sorge in Tokyo would probably have been able to give advance notice of Japanese plans.

Sorge's mates were doing exactly the same in the west - and we all know how Stalin responded to them. Stalin was well aware of the pact Germany, Italy and Japan had signed. He himself did not want to even seem reactive to Axis moves because he belived that it would be he who was provoking war.
..

There's also the possibility that Sorge and crew report that the Japanese are planning on attacking in conjunction with the Germans and that's enough extra info that Stalin puts all his forces on at least a higher state of alert if not war readiness. This could be extremely counter productive for the Germans.

[ThomasG]

You are assuming your conclusion. It is far from clear that the Japanese could have tied down more troops long term than the historical case. Indeed if the Soviets counter attack with any significant success they may actually be able to send troops west sooner and possibly in more numbers.

Why? There is absolutely no reason to assume that the Soviets could send troops west sooner or in more of them if it was in war with Japan.

In fact, the historical reality is that after Stalin was informed by Richard Sorge that the Japanese would not attack he was able to transfer many divisions from the Far East and they played an important role in the 1941/1942 counter-offensive. Thus, a Japanese invasion would have a large impact on the course of the war.

[Andreas]

The battle was a small fish, a border battle that started when simple Japanese soldiers entered territory they were not supposed to enter. The Japanese were not aiming towards the Soviet Union seriously. That would obviously not be the same case with full scale invasion. The battle wasn't either black and white, with the Soviet forces suffering higher casualties than Japanese.

You do not want to seriously argue that the battle was anything else than a serious Japanese defeat?

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources ... a2.asp#86a

All the best

Andreas

[ThomasG]

You do not want to seriously argue that the battle was anything else than a serious Japanese defeat?

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources ... a2.asp#86a

All the best

Andreas

In Khalkhin Gol the Soviets had numerically superior forces. This wouldn't be the case in 1941.