What if Japan Never Attacked Pearl Harbor? By Alternate History Hub | A History Teacher Reacts

You can support the channel through:

[azorahai]

Big flaws in this alternative history. 1)Japan would hardly lose its navy without US involvement. Soviets can't invade Japan without dealing with Japan navy first. The thing is, Soviets simply had nothing to counter the Japanese navy. No ships, no subs, no carriers.
2)Soviets hardly had enough transport ships to invade Japan. If you think that German invasion of UK was a very hard task, USSR invading Japan is near-impossible; especially when US keeps supplying Japan with oil and their navy is still afloat! The only remaining option is to use planes to drop troops, but how can the soviets supply their men or how can they send tanks and equipment there? No-how!
3)Soviets hardly had sufficient long-range bombers to burn Japanese cities; US were successful since 95% of Japan airforce was lost in the east and the US had total air dominance. Soviets would have a very hard time.
3) Russians would have to invade Korea too. Not an easy task as well, considering how Japanese can supply this front faster than the soviets.
4) Japan would not capitulate even when invaded. It would be insanely bloody and i have doubts that even russians would break from constant kamikaze charges and overly fanatical enemy. Even though both soviets and Germans had fanatical troops, Japan is arguably the most fanatical of them all, and Russians, fighting a totally different enemy, so far from home, would lose moral quick.
5) Soviets might actually succeed, but the war would drag on for 10-20+ years! And cost soviets a ridiculous amount of men! The bigger question is, would soviets actually care this much, considering they own Europe already?
6) Soviets can't actually control central Europe while at the same time losing millions of soldiers on the Eastern front. Instability in occupied regions results in revolts, and hundreds of armed grouos conducting sabotage, ambuashes and so on. Soviet union might even collapse sooner! Unlike land invasion of Germany, invading Japan would cost just too much money, time and resources and what would Russia gain from it?
7) Japan wasn't worth it! Soviets declared war on Japan because the Japanese were already beaten and just like US took a slice of europe and Germany from the soviets in our timeline, Soviets wanted a slice of Japan/Koreas from US too. Stalin wanted to grab as much land as possible. Japan has no natural resources and is very far from the most important parts of Russia. I believe that Stalin would gladly accept peace with Japan, perhaps after beating them in Russia and Korean soil, but never invade, preferring to divert troops and resources towards ubstable west instead.
8) Without US involvement and Dday, Russians would already be quite weak and exhausted fighting much stronger German forces, so it is, in total, quite unlikely that soviets would succeed in defeating and conquering Japan. Russia wasn't a OP powerhouse with unlimited resources. It's not possible for them to win so big on both fronts, especially when both Japan and Germany aren't weakened by US and are much stronger and better fit to wage a long and deadly war against them.

[simohayha]

honestly a battle between Imperial Japan and the U.S.S.R would’ve been probably the deadliest battle in history

neither of them hesitated to sacrifice their own soldiers or civilians and are some of the major powerhouses during this era

[Arthion]

I'd assume it'd take years for the USSR to pacify Japan. Given how hard they dug in and fought to keep their archipelagos the struggly to take control of the mainland would be a meatgrinder unlike any other.

I also heard some statistics suggesting that up to 30% of USSR's arsenal of vehicles consisted of lend-lease aquired from the Allies (mainly the US of course), I'd assume the US would take notice and possibly stop further weapon deliveries seeing Communism potentially dominating most of the world. Not to mention with the neccesity to devote equipment to man both fronts this would have taken a far higher toll on the Soviet industry, in particular the air force having to contend not only with the Luftwaffe but also the Imperial Japanese Air Force.

And without a hostile Allied navy I'd assume the Japanese would have had a far easier time trading with Germany and potentially aquiring technology developed by the Germans in a much more complete state than what could be smuggled in submarines

[TheSentientsix]

I really like alternate history hubs videos. But i wasn't so sure about this one. Thanks for your input though. Great as usual! :)

[ccdsah]

Soviet Navy was crap. Japanese Navy would prevenit them from invadind exactly as British Navy prevented Sealion

[DaGreatRV]

I can accept japan being defeated in Asia, but without the war with the US they have their huge navy intact and it is fueled. It would take years before the soviets could build a navy that is large enough to take on the japanese navy and preform a massive amphibious invasion of the home islands.
Also in this scenario, is the US still lendleasing to the USSR? Probably as they started doing that even before pearl harbor. They would need it, a USSR fighting a two front war without lend lease sounds like a tall order.

[przemekkozlowski]

The Soviets would have defeated the Japanese in mainland Asia but would have to deal with the Japanese Navy if they wanted to invade Japan. When the Americans were planning on invading Japan in 1945 they had already destroyed the Japanese Navy and Airforce. The Soviets would need to bring a powerful Navy into the Pacific and wreck the Japanese Navy before they could invade. Alternatively they would have to build airbases in Siberia with the hopes of bombing the Japanese Navy into oblivion. Without that they would be facing the same issue that the Germans had with Sealion.

[efancording]

Really don't think the Soviets could do everything they do in the video. They could defeat the Nazis without help, but it'd probably take a couple more years, meaning they'd be even more drained. And if the Japanese were attacking the East, with their superior Navy at the same time, I just can't see the Soviets winning. Even if they did the war would probably have gone on until the early 50s, and the Soviets would have uncountable casualties which would probably take a decade to recover from, as well as the enonomic strain. But an invasion of Japan? Very silly, especially with no atomic weapons. Japanese Navy would obliterate any invasion attempt.

[trathanstargazer]

This Alternate History video is mis-titled. It should be, What if America never embargoed Japan?

[brianheyn]

First, the Japanese would likely have focused more south than on invading Siberia. That is more where there interests lay.

Second, any attempt by the Soviets to invade Japan would have been doomed. They showed paradrops while mentioning it, but they would have needed a lot more troops than paradrops would have allowed for. Any naval invasion attempt would have led to another Battle of Tsushima. Japan had and would continue to have absolute naval dominance in the Sea of Japan. In an imagined war with the Soviets, Japan would potentially have lost Korea and their other holdings on the mainland(though even that is pretty questionable), but that is as far as the Soviets would get. A Japanese navy/airforce without being ground down by the US would be really formidable.

[XCutie]

How the hell was the soviet supposed to invade japan if japan's navy is a thing

[PuckishAngeI]

The main reason Soviets pushed nazis back was reinforcements from the east, if Japan attacked they couldn't send those troops and would need to send more to the east to defend against Japan, the success of ussr seems unlikely

[henryquecabral]

I hope Mr. Terry reads this so here goes my ten cents:
I do not belive that the soviets could have invaded Japan, I mean, sure they could have defeated Japan(remember that japan never capitulated China they were losing to poor and divided China) and yes they have a good shot at defeating Japan and Germany at the same time.
But invading Japan takes one thing that the soviets didn't have A NAVY.
Yes nowadays with helicopters and giant planes we think of parashooting as some easy task, but, by 1945 you couldnt move heavy equiment usying planes, how would the Soviets invade japan if they lacked a navy to carry their tanks, AA, AT, Food, ammo etc...
No matter how big is your airforce by 1945 relaying entirely on a airforce to move such a huge amount of troops was impossible.
By 1941 Japan had 10 battleships and 6 large fleet carriers(large aircraft carrier) while Russia had 3 Battleships and no fleet carriers, soviets had half of the Destroyers and one third of japanese cruisers.
I dont see a landing in japan without a Navy and Japan was YEARS ahead of Russia navy-wise, ships dont take just expertise to build but time some battleships may take up to five years to be build...

[ellaser]

The problem I generally have with these sorts of videos is that it is predicated on two things:
1. That the Soviets had virtually unlimited manpower and resources. It's the idea that they absolutely always have more than enough soldiers and stuff to throw around anywhere they want.
2. That the Soviet military was mobile and agile enough to be where it is needed. They may have had great supply chains, but it still takes time to transport stuff from one part of that country to another.

[GavinTheGrape]

I think they forget that Japan would still have a very large navy to defend against the Soviet’s

[athom]

12:50 My issue is that it is assuming the US is still supplying the Soviets to the same extent as we have in our own timeline. One key issue that I have with this alternate history is that it assumes wartime production and export of equipment in the US ramped up its industry the same way it did when we entered the war. A full quarter of the Soviet armored force and a full third of their air force was US built (why you see the Soviets rolling into Berlin with M4 Shermans and their top aces piloting P-39s and P-63s), not mentioning how much of their ammunition or industrial capacity was given by the US. Stalin, Kruschev, and several Soviet generals (including the one that defended Stalingrad and planned the Kursk offensive) have stated that without US intervention they would not have been able to push the Germans back. Some were of the opinion they might have stalemated them, like in the first world war, while others were adamant about a full defeat of the Union.
Against the Germans and Japanese without that level of military aid however... I highly doubt the Soviets could have pushed Germany all the way to France or be able to invade the Japanese homeland.

[hiredgun]

the Soviets did not have resources to invade Japan by this Time, i think if the Yanks had not got into it by this time, I believe the Map of Asia will have had to be redrawn

[matrixphotodesign]

9:46 It was a Navel defat, but later border conflicts taught the Japanese that Soviets were difficult to defeat on land .

[deanwillis]

If I remember correctly Stalin actually was going to invade japan and it influenced the use of nuclear weapons. Don’t remember for sure though.

[davidfuller]

I think the Soviets would have had a real bear of a time getting to Japan. As of Pearl Harbor, the only navies larger than the IJN were the USN and the Royal Navy (and even then, it wasn't a huge gap). Unless they could've done something about those ships... There wouldn't have been anything they could do to get there, not without exceedingly heavy losses even by Soviet standards.