I am not normally an alternate history kind of guy, but I agree with your assessment. Making theories about alternate history helps us to better understand the events surrounding the event.
I really wanted to enjoy the alternate history show "Man in the High Castle" because the book was great. But like so many American shows, they turned it into a soap opera which moves at a snail's pace, and discarded the intellectual core. They did the same thing to "House of Cards". A brilliant 4 episode show in the UK, and then morphed into a multi-season slogfest in he US. It started well, but was ultimately cancelled before it even told the whole story (for various reasons).
I LOVE For All Mankind, which is a show depicting a Soviet lunar landing. I love the first season, but the second quickly became some drama BS show trying to be “politically and socially correct.” And at the end, they hinted at a landing on Mars, which is cool and all, but the show really isn’t the same, whether it be better or not. The first season was more like “What if...” while the second season became more of a fictional story.
It's one of the reasons I was a big fan of the first two C&C: Red Alert games. The concept of the Soviets becoming a Super power pre-WWII and replacing the Nazis as the antagonist was interesting. It let you see how the cold war may have played out if it was an actual conventional war.
The Soviet Navy was one of the weakest navies in the entire war. They might build it up over time after defeating Germany, but it would be slow going and they wouldn’t be able so easily cross the sea.
They would have definitely have gone to war with the Soviets, because there was a faction in the Japanese gov that wanted war with the Soviets but they fell out of favor in favor of a faction that wanted to go south and take the "southern resource area". Thus, eliminate the main competitor there, the U.S.
To be fair that's because the main driving force of Hokushin-Ron was the Kōdōha faction of government which was purged after the failed coup in 36, combined with the defeats at Lake Khasan and Khalkhin Gol as well as external and internal pressure from foreign governments, the imperial navy and zaibatsus, the faction basically crumbled with members either being killed off, forced into retirement or siding with the new policy of striking South
@@Azraeltheangelofdeath And also the fact that even after the Soviets sent many divisions from the Manchu-Siberian border to fight in Europe they still had a ton of troops there (outnumbering the Japanese), with superiority in artillery and armoured units.
I can't shake the feeling that by the time the Soviets hypothetically invade Japan, that the US would've still sat by at this point. I know this scenario is supposed to exclude the US, but I think Congress would've been shaken up by the Soviets taking over so much land mass. I'm very strongly inclined to think the US would've found an excuse to invade Japan b4 the Soviets could.
Possibly getting involved in the Pacific theater, but you make it sound like invading Japan would have been a simple and quick thing to do in the 1940s with the world's largest ocean separating the two.
I dont think the soviets could have taken that much land he kinda ignored the fact that even with resources provided by the west The Soviet Union was starving and was at its limits now combine a unfettered Japanese with enough oil attacking them from the other side i dont see the soviets somehow overcoming everything and even taking over eastern europe and japan
@@draggy6544 I've since thought exactly that. Totally agree w/ you. The Soviets did invade a portion of northern China post-war, but Japan would've been a different story. The Japanese navy (unfettered) would've been .... well....a kind of Great Wall let's just say.
@@draggy6544 the Soviets wouldn't need to invade right away they could've waited till enough Troops come from teh west without worrying and I doubt Japan would've Been able to Invade Sibera cuz of Russian Weather
@@VloggingThroughHistory russians had times where they were about to fall and the message that japan is focusing on the south leads to the USSR moving troops from the east to the west just in time to defend moscow. Without US material, and with Japanese pressure to think russia would have won anyway isnt plausible to me
The naval side of this scenario is interesting to consider. The Soviet Navy is going to face serious issues when trying to invade Japan. Historically, by 1945 the Soviet’s had lost 98 of its 218 submarines, and 29 of its 59 destroyers. However they did not lose any heavy surface units, 6 heavy cruisers and 4 battleships (I added the Soviet casualties because they should occur regardless of US involvement). This does not leave them many units to fight the Japanese with. If we are assuming that the USA does not get involved I do not see the IJN taking many losses until the end of the war. With the loss of British force Z and the later losses due to the Indian Ocean raid, the Royal Navy would not come back to the South West Pacific until they can free up resources from the Mediterranean and Atlantic theaters. The IJN would have no one to fight, giving them time to save fuel, and resources. I do not see the Navy General Staff giving many or any ships to help the other Axis forces. Which should leave a fairly intact Navy to face the Soviets for an invasion. Assuming no Japanese casualties the Soviets could be facing: 30 Aircraft Carriers of various sizes (they may or may not have planes and pilots left on them at this point if given to land campaigns), 12 battleships, 26 Heavy Cruisers, 26 light cruisers, around 150 destroyers, 178 submarines. Again these numbers are all questionable but even if Japan lost half of these units they would still be able to win in their home waters. Even on a ship per ship basis the Japanese have the edge on the equivalent soviet ships. If the Soviets do get a chance to invade they would still have to execute it via amphibious assault. They lack the experience or machinery to pull it off. If the Royal Navy were to help the Soviets this would at least give them the ability to possibly defeat the IJN but I won't continue since this is already too long for a TH-cam comment.
Even worse, all those soviet ships, they're in Europe! They have 0 ways of supporting an amphibious assault of japan for at least a few months, while the navy makes its way over from the Black Sea and the baltic, depending on when this mobilization starts, they could cross the arctic ocean, however that route is frozen over by the time this happens, so they go through the Suez Canal (I don't the Americans will let the Soviets through Panama) and if they use that route there is a chance the Japanese would destroy them on their way to the siberian coast, they wouldn't even have the fuel to retreat if that happens. This would leave the Soviets with the small garrison of destroyers stationed in siberia as a purely defensive fleet, thus leaving Russia in a similar position to Germany and the battle for Britain.
Cody thinks that the Soviets alone defeated the axis, instead of the correct term of the Soviet forces were mostly responsible for defeating the German led forces on land, while Americans and British defeated the Axis at sea, on the air, and in economics. In short, the Allies worked together to defeat the Axis. In the case of the Kwantung Army, by 1945 they were already stripped off their best soldiers and equipment due to the need to fight the Chinese, Americans and British by then, thus greatly contributing to its quick defeat at the hands of the Red Army. Further proving that defeating the axis was a team effort.
Speaking of Pearl Harbor, my grandfather was just a boy at the time of the attack. He and a friend climbed a tree and could see Pearl smoking and on fire, including the Arizona exploding. He also remembers seeing a Japanese A6M flying so low he could see the suns on the wings and the pilot in the cockpit. Edit: the high school I went to, McKinley High (VTH ik you'd be proud) was strafed by a couple of Japanese planes because they mistook it for the Hawaiian capitol
@@firstpersonwinner7404 I’m pretty sure if I remember correctly it has happened in Iran I believe I forget but somewhere in the east! Either way still so sad to think of❤️
As somebody who does not delve into WW2 content much (And has not finished this video) I instantly see your helping on the subject, as always I am grateful to have you as a channel.
The Japanese DID invade the USSR in real life. During the 1930s-40s, there were two strategic factions duking it out in the Japanese high command, the Strike North faction (Hokushin-ron) (championed by the Army) who pushed to focus the war effort on Siberia and China, and the Strike South faction (Nanshin-ron) (championed by the Navy) who wanted to focus on China and SE Asia. The Strike North faction orchestrated increasingly violent border clashes in 1938, culminating in the series of battles at Khalkhin Gol in Mongolia from May to September 1939, where the Red Army under Zhukov decisively defeated the Kwangtung Army. The Strike North generals begged the Emperor for another campaign to save their face, but the loss was the straw that broke the camel's back, and the Emperor rejected them and sided with the Strike South group, and the Pacific War, for the remainder of WWII. But without the Western Embargo, there was no pressing need for Japan to invade the Pacific regions at all -- after all they were already getting as much oil and chemicals from the US, oil and rubber from Dutch Indonesia, and steel and grain from Australia, as they could buy. Which means the driving strategic calculus underlying the Strike South faction's arguments was gone, making the likelihood of the Japanese military going all-in in Siberia, especially after Barbarossa, much higher. I don't see this Alt-Hist scenario as implausible at all
Glad I saw this before I posted my own reply, I was about to say the same thing! Ultimately I think the issue is that this Alt-History scenario is somewhat mislabled as it seems to be an Alt-History scenario centered around the lack of a US Embargo of Japan. Perhaps you could even go with a "What if the Red Army lost" in those early border clashes with Japan.
Also, remember that Japan had soundly defeated Russia in 1905. I can easily see the Japanese military commanders remembering past glory and thinking they could achieve victory once again.
Hi! I was a part of the Pearl Harbor parade! I was part of JROTC Unit HI-931! I was amazingly fun. You should see it in person one day! Also, the base drum is very heavy lol. Idk how parade people do it
Thinking about the Imperial Japanese Navy without Pearl Harbor and by extension without the Battle of Midway, the Japanese would still have 10 aircraft carriers, while the Soviets did not have any at all, not seeing the importance of them until the Cold War. Also, historically, the Japanese Navy has a history of kicking Russian naval butt.
You made a great point about how looking at history from a different perspective allows us to analyse specific events better and it's something I think we need to do more to really understand why those decisions occurred in the first place
I disagree with this video of alternatehistory. With no Pearl Harbor attack and no oil embargo and with Japan attcking the Soviet Union and forcing the Soviets to fight a two front war, WW2 would have ended in a stalemate at best. If the Soviets were to win it wouldn't be until the late 1940s or early 1950s. I wouldn't be surprised if the Soviets lose half of it's population in this scenario. Also the Soviets would never have successfully invade Japan. The Soviet Union was a major land military power but never a naval power. The Japanese navy was considered one of the most powerful in the world at the time. So if the Soviets attempt to invade Japan it would be a major naval disaster. With the Soviet fleet being destroyed or the Soviet troops being bogged down at the beach heads being slaughtered. I just don't see this ending favorably for the Soviets.
Exactly I really think in this scenario the soviets would struggle to come out of the war as a regional power assuming they get lucky i can easily see them losing the war instead
It's been discussed many times, the oil embargo forced the Japan to look to take the "Dutch East Indies" (now Indonesia) which was a major oil production site ( Royal Dutch Shell ) in the 1930s. The problem for Japan was the American territory of the Philippines being on the direct line on the line of advance, which could cut the supply line to this new conquest- if the US were to declare war on Japan first. Japan therefore extended that plan to invade the Philippines and destroy the US pacific Fleet. Had the Japanese just gone after the East Indies and trusted to US isolation policy to not intervene then I could see the events laid out here........ unlikely but possible without war with the US.
I think at this time, Japan had the third largest navy in the world IIRC, and the Soviets didn't even possess 1 aircraft carrier. I think Cody is ignoring the fact that an invasion of Japan was only plausible in our timeline because the American navy had battered the IJN, it's possible that the Soviets might have kicked them off the mainland. Though I feel like people just assume that the soviets can absorb endless casualties forever in these alternate scenarios, i could honestly see the USSR being taken to the brink.
The biggest parts I dont agree with is I believe the US does follow through on the embargo and I do NOT think the Soviets could contain or eliminate the Navy of Japan enough to invade it via the water. The rest seems pretty reasonable or atleast not crazy.
I don’t agree with the soviets winning the war if the Japanese invaded and the US never joined the war. Reason? The Siberian reserves and all others located on Siberia wouldn’t be able to help in the Eastern front, and that the Germans would be able to focus more on the soviets without other distractions. Let’s just say that those troops really had an impact on the Eastern front by reinforcing the lines once winter arrived and defending key points like Moscow. Without those it is possible that the war would have gone the other way around. Also, not American involment means not African nor Italian nor French fronts for the Germans. This means that all those troops send to those war zones can be sent instead to the Eastern front. Summary, less fresh experienced troops in the Eastern front and less support from the allies WHILE having to fight a larger enemy that, by the way, is not suffering from intense bombing raids and has his full industry intact means that the soviets might not be able to win this one. So yeah, American involvement in the war was more impactful that some might think.
Agreed, the battles between the Soviets and Germans were already very close in our timeline. If the Soviets had to spare troops to fight a two-fronts war, they would be in terrible shape.
As a story writer, I've come to appreciate the difficulty of world building, especially when alternate history is involved. Whether it's just alt hist. or a blend with fantasy fiction... Choosing any point of divergence requires some history homework to be done. The medieval and Renaissance eras are pretty tricky areas to diverge from, as any major change could affect the existence of languages as we know them (especially the complicated history of the English language). Diverging from the normal course towards Pearl Harbor... Diverging from any of the multiple points that led to WWI and WWII... Makes you appreciate just how much of a colossal machine domestic and international relations and politics can be.... And how hard it is to stop, once the train towards desolation leaves the station.
As much as I like Alternate History Hub this one gets a little too out there for me. I just can't imagine a world where Japan prioritizes attacking Siberia of all places over China, Indonesia and Australia... Also assuming that Russia could defeat Japans Navy to the extent it would allow them to invade the main Islands within any reasonable time frame feels sketchy at best.
The key word there is china. Indonesia is attacked purely with the goal of attacking china. Australia is attacked because attacking indonesia means war with the british empire. The strike south is for resources, the way to do it successfully need the phillipines, doing that means war with america. If the scenario means no war with america then the strike south simply isnt feasible as the japanese cant run an overstretched supply line like that to attack people in order to get resources to fix their supply issues. Therefore, likely no strike south, therefore not oil to renew offensive operations in china, therefore, offensive war in china wrecks japanese economy too much and japan gives in. People forget that japans entrance into the world war is all to end their war in china, their fight to the end mentality is based on them being invaded, the idea that them invading a foreign country that wont come after them at home and destroying their economy through mobilisation for years will cause them to just keep at it is ludicrous
@@andrewshaw1571 Indonesia, or the Dutch East Indies as it was known back then, was (and still is) a major producer of oil. With an American oil embargo, this would be the only possible source for Japan to get oil for its war machine.
I love alternate history, it's a good way to pass time when I'm bored It would be great if you could react to his video on what if Lincoln was never assassinated
Could you please do a series around Japanese history as obviously your comments on historical matters you are well educated on are extremely educational and entertaining. I do enjoy also when you are out of your environment and learning something new along with the audience.
Your videos always brings a sense of peace to me in some way. The way you talk to us and add so much digestible context to each video/subject. I know if I’m ever having a bad day, I can put on one of your videos and you bring me back down to Earth. Keep on going and don’t forget to breathe!
A Baggies shirt. I'm Luton Town myself but I have to appreciate the fact your team isn't Man U etc because they're the biggest. You are a man of culture sir.
This was one of his vids where I most strongly disagreed on and still do, because there are to many things happening to balance out the odds and making it less predicable + the soviet invasion of Japan, which is as impossle as a japanese win against the USA. For the unlikly case that the US still wont declare war on germany, britains position now is incredibly weaker, not enough to get invaded or loose but enough to make them a far less threat. Germany still looses the battle of britain and africa, but with no possible british invasion, far far less enemy aircraft germany has less plane loosses/can defend better, no big bombing of german industry and oil refineries and they can free up more troops from the western front. The soviets loose all the ressources, tanks and trucks from the US they needed for the quick counter attack + now have to split their forces giving germany more time to react. I wouldnt go so far to give germany a sure winning chance even with more heavy equipment, ressources, time, troops and nerfed soviets but at this point its far less one sided and too unpredictable.
Yeah there is no way in this scenario the soviets win the war and end up in a much stronger situation post war it’s extremely unrealistic when with all the support and not having to fight a Japanese army that has access to fuel they almost got destroyed with the loss of population still being a major issue in modern Russia
I love Cody's videos and his interesting takes on alternate history, but I'm not sure I agree with this one. I thought the Soviet Union brought many divisions west to repel Operation Barbarossa. If they are fighting a two front war between Germany and Japan they won't have as many resources to bring west. I also think without the US being in the war that the other western powers soon would have no power in the Pacific Theater, Australia and New Zealand and other colonies are occupied. Japan doesn't have to dedicate so many resources to holding Pacific islands and don't have to spend so many resources to rebuild ships sunk by the US. Their carriers remain the power in the Pacific and they can dedicate those resources to war on the mainland. The Soviets might win out in a two front war, but I think such a fight would be protracted and leave them weakened in the end. "I'm not sure what the status of the Russian Navy was in the East" - You can be sure of one think about the Soviet Navy in the East, after the Russo-Japanese war early in the century, the status of their Navy was new :)
The forces that the Soviet Union moved to the west were primarily used in the counter attacks against the German positions near Moscow in the winter of 1941/'42. I think you hit the nail on the head here. Everything in this scenario makes things somewhat easier for the Germans and more difficult for the Russians. Probably not enough for the Germans to win, but certainly enough to make a Russian victory significantly more delayed and costly. As you suggested there's virtually no chance of a successful Russian invasion of Japan. Japanese forces on the mainland would also be stronger. It is not outside the realm of possibility that this conflict would be so devastating and drawn out that it ends in a negotiated settlement, even with these participants.
I'm under the impression that the oil embargo began in August, 1941, which is several months before Pearl Harbor. There were other embargos, such as scrap metal, that also put Japan into the difficult position that would require their military action, including Pearl Harbor. Pearl Haarbor didn't lead to the oil embargo; the embargo led to Pearl Harbor.
13:10 There’s actually an alternate history comic book series called “Jour J” (“D-Day”) that had an episode in a setting where the Allies got held up during the Liberation of France and the Soviets made it to Paris, making France the country that gets divided and occupied (De Gaulle died in an airplane crash in 1943).
I also recommend Hub’s video on “What If America Had Invaded Japan (Operation Downfall)” or any other video related to it. Curious to see your view on it since in this scenario the US doesn’t get involved while another potential is the US throwing everything at the Japanese to finally end the war.
I think this was one of the events in history was kinda inevitable, in one way or another. There was just no way the Japanese leader would not at some point see the benefits of attacking America outweighing the costs. Maybe not Pearl Harbor exactly but I think something similar would always happen at some point.
When people think Dec 7th is just Pearl Harbor they get off track on what was actually happening. It was also an unprovoked invasion of Malaya, Singapore, Indonesia, Burma, etc. The Philippines represented a dagger aimed right at cutting off the Japanese from everything they wanted to take from the British, Dutch, and French. This whole alt history relies on the US basically being friends with Japan, (no embargo, no lend-lease) even after Japan attacks US friends and surrounds the Philippines. US staying neutral would be a miracle for the Japanese, a truly Devine wind that hypnotizes America.
Great video, as always. I agree that the Soviets simply invading mainland Japan would never happen. Maybe with British help, but the Soviet Navy of WW2 I doubt could even consider a unilateral large-scale naval invasion of mainland Japan.
Without having to fight a war with the US, I doubt the soviets would have occupied Japan, at least not easily. Japan's navy and Air was pretty strong for the time and without having to fight the Americans, losing many of their skilled pilots and warships, the soviets would not have an easy time landing troops on the Japanese mainland
I'm not sure Japan would attack Uni Soviet anytime soon. They still need to conquer China and solidify their holdings in South East Asia. Eastern part of Russia is just not worth it at the time.
@8:53 Wait? Didn't Hitler say in his second book he viewed America as an enemy comparable with the Soviet Union? It seems likely Hitler would have attacked anyways, especially because they were arming the Soviets and the British. He at least would have started attacking US convoys and shipping. That would have brought the US into the war anyways.
My grandfather grew up very poor in West Virginia, his family got their first radio when he was around 10 years old. The first thing they heard through it was reports of the attack on pearl harbor. He ended up joining the air force, spending a lot of time in Germany and eventually going to Korea fixing damaged aircraft.
You shoud react to Oil problem that exist in Germany during World War II made by TIK. The exack name of the video was "The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL".
I've seen you wearing Ipswich shirts in some of your vids but as an American who supports West Brom I am pleased to see you in our current season's shirt! I wouldn't have bought it myself had they not printed Psalm 23 on there...
I definitely agree with you about the Soviets not being able to directly invade Japan. However, I still think Japan would've surrendered in this alternate scenario just because of the pressure of fighting a war against the Soviets and the European Allies completely alone without Germany and Italy
I feel like the thing Alternate History forgot in this video is the Strength of the Japanese Navy. There simply wouldn’t be a strong enough Russian Navy to invade Japan, Especially if the US never did an oil embargo. So while Japan would lose all their mainland territory, They would probably just be isolated on their island.
That's the one thing I love the most about alternate history, there's no right or wrong answers... unless you get into the nutty realms of the likes of Fallout, Wolfenstein and Command & Conquer.
It sounds like he has expanded the scenario from "Japan doesn't attack Pearl Harbor" to "Japan does not switch from its "Northern Strategy to the Southern Strategy options". Maybe I am writing my comment too soon, but usually he explains his thoughts about what preconditions wold be needed in order to allow the stated premise to be possible in more detail.
14:25 no it couldn't. In this scenario it is already stated that the American oil embargo never happens and the IJN doesn't spend its fuel reserves fighting the Allied navies. It would obliterate the Soviet Pacific Fleet and then the USSR has no way to invade Japan without Allied naval support. I normally agree with Cody but where he's going here is bogus. Another issue I have with this is that Italy would still probably be invaded by the British and Commonwealth forces in this timeline and it would still succeed but it would take longer than it did historically. Italy would still fall into a civil war and eventually the Germans would have to peel soldiers away from both France and Italy to prevent this total collapse to the USSR so Italy would probably fall in early 45.
The WW2 channel's minute by minute documentary on Pearl Harbor is literally the ultimate most in-depth take on the subject. There's literally no other video or documentary that even remotely comes close to it.
There was a war plan/ doctrine for the Japanese to attack the Soviets. There were two competing factions in Japan, the Army and the Navy. Each had a plan for Japanese domination and expansion, the Navy had Nanshin- Ron, which was the drive into Southeast Asia and against the US. The Army had Hokushin- Ron, which was the plan to attack the Soviet Union. Had the US not embargoed Japan and the Army remained ascendant over the Navy, its pretty likely Japan would have gone with Hokushin- Ron and attacked the Soviets
One of the German attache was a secret Soviet spy, he persuaded the Japanese not to attack the Soviets, he was found out and executed, for this the Soviets awarded him Hero of the Soviet Union Order of Lenin. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge
@Vlogging Through History, you should check out Binkov's Battlegrounds. I would highly recommend reacting to "Could US Military Conquer UK if it wanted to (2019)." I think this is the best channel when it comes to the analysis of modern warfare, and his videos have a "Geo-History" vibe to them. I think you'd really enjoy the channel. Alternatively, you should check out "The United States (USA) vs The World - Who Would Win? Military / Army Comparison" by The InfoGraphics Show
For some hard data on the Soviet forces in Siberia-Manchuria on december 1941: During WW2 the Soviets had two fronts (army groups) deployed in the area as a cautionary measure against Japan: the Transbaikal front in the Siberian-Mongol part, and the Far Eastern front in the Manchu part. For december 1st, the Soviet forces in the area numbered 7 armies (2 in the Transbaikal front, 5 in the Far Eastern front), with 5 rifle, 1 cavalry and 2 tank divisions plus 2 fortified sectors (brigade-sized fortified garrisons, they couldn't attack but their defenses were really high), 1 armoured cars brigade, 3 anti-air brigades, 2 motor rifle regiments, 1 motorcycle regiment, 6 artillery regiments, 2 fighter wings, 2 bomber wings and 3 mixed wings for the Transbaikal front and 19 rifle, 1 cavalry and 2 tank divisions plus 13 fortified sectors, 9 rifle, 1 airborne, 6 tank and 7 anti-air brigades, 1 rifle, 3 cavalry, 1 motorcycle, 18 artillery and 2 sapper regiments, 4 fighter wings, 1 bomber wing and 10 mixed wings. In comparison, the Japanese Kantokuen plan for a 1941 invasion of the USSR included 25 divisions (all infantry), plus 1 cavalry brigade and 6 garrison units. So, the overall balance is 24 Soviet rifle divisions against 25 Japanese infantry divisions, 4 Soviet tank divisions against 0 Japanese tank divisions, 2 Soviet cavalry divisions against 0 Japanese cavalry divisions, 3 Soviet cavalry regiments against 1 Japanese cavalry brigade, 15 Soviet fortified sectors against 6 Japanese garrisons and so on, giving the Soviets an overall advantage in artillery (both quantity and quality), tanks (both quantity and quality) and fortified positions. Plus the advantage of playing defense while fortified alongside the Amur river. Note that this is after the Soviets had withdrawn several important units along the Siberian-Manchu border and sent them to fight in Europe against Germany. Source: ВОЕННО-НАУЧНОЕ УПРАВЛЕНИЕ ГЕНЕРАЛЬНОГО ШТАБА (Военно-исторический отдел): БОЕВОЙ СОСТАВ СОВЕТСКОЙ АРМИИ - ЧАСТЬ I (июнь-декабрь 1941 года). Типография Военной академии ГШ, МОСКВА 1963 - Military-scientific administration of the General Staff (Military-Historical department): Military structure of the Soviet Army part 1 (June-December 1941). Published in the G. Sh. Military Academy, Moscow, 1963.
Have you thought about doing a video on cynical historians vids? He’s got some super informative stuff. Plus his hatred of Woodrow Wilson is hilarious.
It’s an interesting question. The big debate between Japans army and navy were whether to invade indochina or Russia. In a situation where the US isn’t a factor, the Japanese might very well have invaded Russia and this provides 2 different storylines. Either the eastern Russian troops have left to reinforce those at Stalingrad which did happenand was one of the things that turned the tide there, they have left and eastern Russia is relatively in defended against the Japanese or they haven’t left and those troops can’t be used to bolster the defense of the western besieged cities. Russia could still win but if the US isn’t involved at all, which means no aid, that means the British probably don’t hold North Africa since a large number of their tanks were American. With the brits losing suez and the oil fields there, the nazi war machine has renewed reserves. With far less pressure in the west, an Italian ally not knocked out by the US attacks, the Germans can commit far more assets to the Russian front. It’s an interesting scenario that’s for sure
The only way I see Japan not going to war with the U.S is if they win at Khalkin Gol in 1939. That defeat marked the moment where the Japanese decided to expand south instead of west, and expanding south would inevitably lead to war with America.
hey i love your videos ..... i think you should start reddit and start reacting to history memes ..... that would boost your channel and many of us too want it
The USSR on Dec 7 1941 had 743 ships, can't find much about what was added but it probably wasn't much as they were in a land war. The US had 790 ships on Dec 7 1941 and 6768 by May 14 1941 (if including 2547 amphibious assault ships)
Please know your rationality, curiosity and humility are so, so welcome when it comes to historians reacting. Too many times individual ego, pride and smugness ruin a lot of these videos. Looking for a reaction for me is looking for a different perspective, not wanting to hear how "wrong" one historian thinks another is.
I agree with you. The author's stated premise is no attack on Pearl Harbor. It is altogether another thing to add no embargo. There is also the fact that in Europe we were already involved through lend lease. I can easily see that escalating up to war (see WWI). This also skips the whole thing of invading Dutch East Indies, Singapore, etc. One main reason of Japanese attack on US was the expected reaction to the attack on the European colonies, which they needed for resources. The author seems to be rewriting a lot more than he claims and I'm not sure some of these things *could* have happened.
I know it is alternate history and you can kind of do what you want. But I don't like the oil embargo not going ahead as that was in place before the attack, not in reaction to the attack, I feel like the fork in the timeline should be at the point of the event, going back before that disturbs the space time continuum too much.
I think he went with the no embargo because in my opinion there is no way that Japan doesn't declare war on the U.S. with the trade embargo. I think they'd think eventually the U.S would declare war on them just purely based on how tense of a situation it was.
But if there's no embargo why would they attack the Soviets? The reason they attacked before is they needed resources partially due to the fact they couldn't buy them from America anymore. If they aren't embargoed, they could just keep on grinding away in China.
@@111ram1 oh yeah the reasoning for that is a little easy I guess you could say. Nothing's to say they wouldn't but then again they did attack the U.S knowing they couldn't support a land invasion. Maybe you could say that they didn't think the soviets could send enough troops to the east with Germany, kinda like their thinking with the American Navy. Especially with how fast Germany reached Moscow. It's easy to say now that the Russians definitely could outlast the Germans but in late 1941 it didn't look like that was gonna be the case.
Going off of what you said at the end about thinking about the post war world, I think dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had multiple meanings, not just forcing the Japanese to surrender and save American lives from a land invasion. It also served to warn the USSR that America was a power house and would be tough to defeat in a war.
I know this was much earlier, but when Kublai Khan invaded Japan in 1274, the Mongols had more men (as in backup) and fiercer weapons than Japan did. Still, after conquering such a huge landmass they were unable to conquer a small island off the coast. The reason had been and was in 1944 the Japanese do-or-die mentality. With or without naval supremacy, the Russians would not be able to take anything off a Japan defending its homeland.
I think the original video overestimates the soviets a bit. Especially when it comes to an invasion of Japan. Even without pearl harbor occurring, I see too many moments where US intervention would have occurred.
I noticed this video when I was browsing and was surprised it hadn't come up in my notifications. Turns out TH-cam unsubscribed me, and turn off notifications. It must have just happend today or yesterday because your John Lennon assassination video did come up on my notifications. Thought you should know!
Japan had an expansionist view of themselves and the world. They wanted to control Asia, and I think they would have eventually wanted Hawaii. It seems unlikely that they would not have eventually challenged the US. Also I don't see them eager to attack Siberia. Even if they win all they win is...Siberia.
"Soviet invasion of mainland japan." I never get that with these alt history videos. Where do they get the ships to contest arguable most powerful navy in the world in that timeline?(seeing as america would not have built up arms during this time to combat japan, thus the foremost advanced carrier doctrine would be on the side of the japanese and the amerian naval ship printing wouldn't have happened). Do the Soviets march across the sea?
I wonder, though, if the Soviet Union was really capable on its own to push back all of the way to Berlin. If you don’t have the waves of trucks, planes, tanks and other supplies coming in that a fully mobilized US could provide by 1943, then the Soviets would run into the same supply and logistics issues that Germany had as it ground further into Soviet territory. I’m thinking that a more likely outcome would have been some kind of stalemate - with maybe a successful coup against Hitler.
I agree The Soviets fighting a two front war with no supplies coming from America does not bode well for them. I don't see them taking Berlin and Tokyo in this scenario. It would be a bloody stalemate at best and complete defeat at worst.
the problem with many alt-his videos is that the point of divergence tends to leave the realm of the plausible into the fantastical. It's one thing when a different likely choice is taken, but it becomes completely absurd when the different choice is taken JUST BECAUSE, especially when the context is completely ignored. By December 1941 the American public was anything but isolationist. Public support for more involvement in the war has been growing since the fall of France in 1940, and especially since many US merchant ships and destroyers have been fighting the German U-boots since early 1941. The US was joining the war against Germany with or without Pearl Harbour. The only possible alternate history is Japan not attacking the US despite the embargo.
Excellent video and I particularly appreciated the comments on the value of alternate history. As much as I enjoy a good alternate history, I don't think the embargo is the straw that broke the camel's back in regard to Japan's decision to proceed with attacking Pearl Harbor. There's a really good book called "The Japanese Empire: Grand Strategy from the Meiji Restoration to the Pacific War" by S.C.M. Paine that shows the calculus of Japanese leadership being quite nuanced, even if it was kind of narrowly focused in its outlooks. Based on that book and other considerations, Japan needed to win its war in China but it needed resources to fuel that conquest and its strung-out economy. Southeast Asia thus becomes too juicy of a target and there is a statistically improbable chance that the IJN is going to allow bypassing the Philippines (an American protectorate). Additionally, the Chinese had reached out to the U.S. for help and by May of 1941 become part of the Lend-Lease program. Even if IJ leadership holds back on Pearl Harbor, it's nearly certain there was going to be a provocation, intended or otherwise, like the Panay Incident in 1937. American supplies to S.E. Asia (predominantly for British holdings) or the Chinese defenders would create too many possibilities for the IJN to sink the wrong (group of) convoys. Setting all of that aside, I don't see a successful "Soviet Sea Lion" against Japan. The Black Sea and Baltic fleets were pretty much cornered, which leaves a slim possibility of the Arctic Fleet trying to meet up with the Pacific Fleet for Tsushima 2.0. Even then, Japan's lack of complete dedication to the Soviet front gave Stalin enough confidence to yank several divisions from the East to throw against Hitler in the early days of Barbarossa. While changing this may not result in Germany achieving total victory the Soviets-who were fighting the existential war to end all existential wars-it probably results in dragging the war into the late 1940's and a likely negotiated ceasefire with a Soviet Union hemmed in between the Urals and the Western edge of Mongolia and all powers involved having their economies sputtering, coughing, and wheezing like a busted-up Model T.
I think this alternate history discounts several items. 1. If Hirohito refused to allow the military to attack, it is very likely he would have been forced or abdicate, removed from power or assassinated. But the window to attack pearl might not have been there. 2. It's not a guarantee that the soviets would win a war against both Japan and Germany. Yes, the war on the eastern front in Europe was turned at stalingrad. However to think Japan would not be able to hurt Russia discounts a lot. He might be seeing the Russians mow the Japanese down in Manchuria however in our timeline the Japanese were down to no materials to wage war.
I am not normally an alternate history kind of guy, but I agree with your assessment. Making theories about alternate history helps us to better understand the events surrounding the event.
I really wanted to enjoy the alternate history show "Man in the High Castle" because the book was great. But like so many American shows, they turned it into a soap opera which moves at a snail's pace, and discarded the intellectual core.
They did the same thing to "House of Cards". A brilliant 4 episode show in the UK, and then morphed into a multi-season slogfest in he US. It started well, but was ultimately cancelled before it even told the whole story (for various reasons).
I LOVE For All Mankind, which is a show depicting a Soviet lunar landing. I love the first season, but the second quickly became some drama BS show trying to be “politically and socially correct.” And at the end, they hinted at a landing on Mars, which is cool and all, but the show really isn’t the same, whether it be better or not. The first season was more like “What if...” while the second season became more of a fictional story.
It's one of the reasons I was a big fan of the first two C&C: Red Alert games. The concept of the Soviets becoming a Super power pre-WWII and replacing the Nazis as the antagonist was interesting. It let you see how the cold war may have played out if it was an actual conventional war.
The Soviet Navy was one of the weakest navies in the entire war. They might build it up over time after defeating Germany, but it would be slow going and they wouldn’t be able so easily cross the sea.
I doubt it because most of their ports were too cold.
They would have definitely have gone to war with the Soviets, because there was a faction in the Japanese gov that wanted war with the Soviets but they fell out of favor in favor of a faction that wanted to go south and take the "southern resource area". Thus, eliminate the main competitor there, the U.S.
To be fair that's because the main driving force of Hokushin-Ron was the Kōdōha faction of government which was purged after the failed coup in 36, combined with the defeats at Lake Khasan and Khalkhin Gol as well as external and internal pressure from foreign governments, the imperial navy and zaibatsus, the faction basically crumbled with members either being killed off, forced into retirement or siding with the new policy of striking South
@@Azraeltheangelofdeath And also the fact that even after the Soviets sent many divisions from the Manchu-Siberian border to fight in Europe they still had a ton of troops there (outnumbering the Japanese), with superiority in artillery and armoured units.
I can't shake the feeling that by the time the Soviets hypothetically invade Japan, that the US would've still sat by at this point. I know this scenario is supposed to exclude the US, but I think Congress would've been shaken up by the Soviets taking over so much land mass. I'm very strongly inclined to think the US would've found an excuse to invade Japan b4 the Soviets could.
Possibly getting involved in the Pacific theater, but you make it sound like invading Japan would have been a simple and quick thing to do in the 1940s with the world's largest ocean separating the two.
I dont think the soviets could have taken that much land he kinda ignored the fact that even with resources provided by the west The Soviet Union was starving and was at its limits now combine a unfettered Japanese with enough oil attacking them from the other side i dont see the soviets somehow overcoming everything and even taking over eastern europe and japan
@@draggy6544 I've since thought exactly that. Totally agree w/ you. The Soviets did invade a portion of northern China post-war, but Japan would've been a different story. The Japanese navy (unfettered) would've been .... well....a kind of Great Wall let's just say.
That would still take awhile because the Japanese Navy and Air Force would've been unaffected by anything that happened in the Mainland
@@draggy6544 the Soviets wouldn't need to invade right away they could've waited till enough Troops come from teh west without worrying and I doubt Japan would've Been able to Invade Sibera cuz of Russian Weather
This is a channel that I'm very glad to have found. Always educational and always entertaining.
Thanks Andrew. Glad you're here!
@@VloggingThroughHistory russians had times where they were about to fall and the message that japan is focusing on the south leads to the USSR moving troops from the east to the west just in time to defend moscow. Without US material, and with Japanese pressure to think russia would have won anyway isnt plausible to me
The naval side of this scenario is interesting to consider. The Soviet Navy is going to face serious issues when trying to invade Japan. Historically, by 1945 the Soviet’s had lost 98 of its 218 submarines, and 29 of its 59 destroyers. However they did not lose any heavy surface units, 6 heavy cruisers and 4 battleships (I added the Soviet casualties because they should occur regardless of US involvement). This does not leave them many units to fight the Japanese with. If we are assuming that the USA does not get involved I do not see the IJN taking many losses until the end of the war. With the loss of British force Z and the later losses due to the Indian Ocean raid, the Royal Navy would not come back to the South West Pacific until they can free up resources from the Mediterranean and Atlantic theaters. The IJN would have no one to fight, giving them time to save fuel, and resources. I do not see the Navy General Staff giving many or any ships to help the other Axis forces. Which should leave a fairly intact Navy to face the Soviets for an invasion.
Assuming no Japanese casualties the Soviets could be facing: 30 Aircraft Carriers of various sizes (they may or may not have planes and pilots left on them at this point if given to land campaigns), 12 battleships, 26 Heavy Cruisers, 26 light cruisers, around 150 destroyers, 178 submarines. Again these numbers are all questionable but even if Japan lost half of these units they would still be able to win in their home waters.
Even on a ship per ship basis the Japanese have the edge on the equivalent soviet ships. If the Soviets do get a chance to invade they would still have to execute it via amphibious assault. They lack the experience or machinery to pull it off. If the Royal Navy were to help the Soviets this would at least give them the ability to possibly defeat the IJN but I won't continue since this is already too long for a TH-cam comment.
100% facts. The British aren't gonna help the Soviets conquer Japan after war in Europe is over. Battle of Tsushima 2.0 if the Soviets try to invade.
I can’t see anything the Soviets have being able to defeat the Kido Butai under Yamamoto
Even worse, all those soviet ships, they're in Europe!
They have 0 ways of supporting an amphibious assault of japan for at least a few months, while the navy makes its way over from the Black Sea and the baltic, depending on when this mobilization starts, they could cross the arctic ocean, however that route is frozen over by the time this happens, so they go through the Suez Canal (I don't the Americans will let the Soviets through Panama) and if they use that route there is a chance the Japanese would destroy them on their way to the siberian coast, they wouldn't even have the fuel to retreat if that happens.
This would leave the Soviets with the small garrison of destroyers stationed in siberia as a purely defensive fleet, thus leaving Russia in a similar position to Germany and the battle for Britain.
Cody thinks that the Soviets alone defeated the axis, instead of the correct term of the Soviet forces were mostly responsible for defeating the German led forces on land, while Americans and British defeated the Axis at sea, on the air, and in economics. In short, the Allies worked together to defeat the Axis. In the case of the Kwantung Army, by 1945 they were already stripped off their best soldiers and equipment due to the need to fight the Chinese, Americans and British by then, thus greatly contributing to its quick defeat at the hands of the Red Army. Further proving that defeating the axis was a team effort.
lots of these would be in europe too and whatever the soviets had in Asia probably got destroyed.
Speaking of Pearl Harbor, my grandfather was just a boy at the time of the attack. He and a friend climbed a tree and could see Pearl smoking and on fire, including the Arizona exploding. He also remembers seeing a Japanese A6M flying so low he could see the suns on the wings and the pilot in the cockpit.
Edit: the high school I went to, McKinley High (VTH ik you'd be proud) was strafed by a couple of Japanese planes because they mistook it for the Hawaiian capitol
That makes me wonder if that might be one of if not the only American highschool to ever be under attack in a war.
@@firstpersonwinner7404 I’m pretty sure if I remember correctly it has happened in Iran I believe I forget but somewhere in the east! Either way still so sad to think of❤️
wow
As somebody who does not delve into WW2 content much (And has not finished this video) I instantly see your helping on the subject, as always I am grateful to have you as a channel.
The Japanese DID invade the USSR in real life. During the 1930s-40s, there were two strategic factions duking it out in the Japanese high command, the Strike North faction (Hokushin-ron) (championed by the Army) who pushed to focus the war effort on Siberia and China, and the Strike South faction (Nanshin-ron) (championed by the Navy) who wanted to focus on China and SE Asia. The Strike North faction orchestrated increasingly violent border clashes in 1938, culminating in the series of battles at Khalkhin Gol in Mongolia from May to September 1939, where the Red Army under Zhukov decisively defeated the Kwangtung Army. The Strike North generals begged the Emperor for another campaign to save their face, but the loss was the straw that broke the camel's back, and the Emperor rejected them and sided with the Strike South group, and the Pacific War, for the remainder of WWII.
But without the Western Embargo, there was no pressing need for Japan to invade the Pacific regions at all -- after all they were already getting as much oil and chemicals from the US, oil and rubber from Dutch Indonesia, and steel and grain from Australia, as they could buy. Which means the driving strategic calculus underlying the Strike South faction's arguments was gone, making the likelihood of the Japanese military going all-in in Siberia, especially after Barbarossa, much higher. I don't see this Alt-Hist scenario as implausible at all
Glad I saw this before I posted my own reply, I was about to say the same thing! Ultimately I think the issue is that this Alt-History scenario is somewhat mislabled as it seems to be an Alt-History scenario centered around the lack of a US Embargo of Japan. Perhaps you could even go with a "What if the Red Army lost" in those early border clashes with Japan.
More like "they tried but failed miserably"...
@@Codeman90 I think the idea of no US embargo is a huge stretch. US at peace is one thing but US completely neutral is kinda silly.
@@pluginleah it’s a hypothetical situation. Thems the rules right?
Also, remember that Japan had soundly defeated Russia in 1905. I can easily see the Japanese military commanders remembering past glory and thinking they could achieve victory once again.
Hi! I was a part of the Pearl Harbor parade! I was part of JROTC Unit HI-931! I was amazingly fun. You should see it in person one day! Also, the base drum is very heavy lol. Idk how parade people do it
Thinking about the Imperial Japanese Navy without Pearl Harbor and by extension without the Battle of Midway, the Japanese would still have 10 aircraft carriers, while the Soviets did not have any at all, not seeing the importance of them until the Cold War. Also, historically, the Japanese Navy has a history of kicking Russian naval butt.
You made a great point about how looking at history from a different perspective allows us to analyse specific events better and it's something I think we need to do more to really understand why those decisions occurred in the first place
I love alternate history discussions. Really liked this one👍
I disagree with this video of alternatehistory. With no Pearl Harbor attack and no oil embargo and with Japan attcking the Soviet Union and forcing the Soviets to fight a two front war, WW2 would have ended in a stalemate at best. If the Soviets were to win it wouldn't be until the late 1940s or early 1950s. I wouldn't be surprised if the Soviets lose half of it's population in this scenario.
Also the Soviets would never have successfully invade Japan. The Soviet Union was a major land military power but never a naval power. The Japanese navy was considered one of the most powerful in the world at the time. So if the Soviets attempt to invade Japan it would be a major naval disaster. With the Soviet fleet being destroyed or the Soviet troops being bogged down at the beach heads being slaughtered. I just don't see this ending favorably for the Soviets.
Exactly I really think in this scenario the soviets would struggle to come out of the war as a regional power assuming they get lucky i can easily see them losing the war instead
love your reactions, keep up the good work
It's been discussed many times, the oil embargo forced the Japan to look to take the "Dutch East Indies" (now Indonesia) which was a major oil production site ( Royal Dutch Shell ) in the 1930s. The problem for Japan was the American territory of the Philippines being on the direct line on the line of advance, which could cut the supply line to this new conquest- if the US were to declare war on Japan first. Japan therefore extended that plan to invade the Philippines and destroy the US pacific Fleet.
Had the Japanese just gone after the East Indies and trusted to US isolation policy to not intervene then I could see the events laid out here........ unlikely but possible without war with the US.
I think at this time, Japan had the third largest navy in the world IIRC, and the Soviets didn't even possess 1 aircraft carrier. I think Cody is ignoring the fact that an invasion of Japan was only plausible in our timeline because the American navy had battered the IJN, it's possible that the Soviets might have kicked them off the mainland. Though I feel like people just assume that the soviets can absorb endless casualties forever in these alternate scenarios, i could honestly see the USSR being taken to the brink.
The biggest parts I dont agree with is I believe the US does follow through on the embargo and I do NOT think the Soviets could contain or eliminate the Navy of Japan enough to invade it via the water. The rest seems pretty reasonable or atleast not crazy.
I don’t agree with the soviets winning the war if the Japanese invaded and the US never joined the war. Reason? The Siberian reserves and all others located on Siberia wouldn’t be able to help in the Eastern front, and that the Germans would be able to focus more on the soviets without other distractions. Let’s just say that those troops really had an impact on the Eastern front by reinforcing the lines once winter arrived and defending key points like Moscow. Without those it is possible that the war would have gone the other way around. Also, not American involment means not African nor Italian nor French fronts for the Germans. This means that all those troops send to those war zones can be sent instead to the Eastern front.
Summary, less fresh experienced troops in the Eastern front and less support from the allies WHILE having to fight a larger enemy that, by the way, is not suffering from intense bombing raids and has his full industry intact means that the soviets might not be able to win this one.
So yeah, American involvement in the war was more impactful that some might think.
Agreed, the battles between the Soviets and Germans were already very close in our timeline. If the Soviets had to spare troops to fight a two-fronts war, they would be in terrible shape.
As a story writer, I've come to appreciate the difficulty of world building, especially when alternate history is involved.
Whether it's just alt hist. or a blend with fantasy fiction... Choosing any point of divergence requires some history homework to be done.
The medieval and Renaissance eras are pretty tricky areas to diverge from, as any major change could affect the existence of languages as we know them (especially the complicated history of the English language).
Diverging from the normal course towards Pearl Harbor... Diverging from any of the multiple points that led to WWI and WWII... Makes you appreciate just how much of a colossal machine domestic and international relations and politics can be.... And how hard it is to stop, once the train towards desolation leaves the station.
Hey VTH, I've been watching for a while now and I love your channel. You have that "passionate teacher" energy that a lot of my best teachers had.
As much as I like Alternate History Hub this one gets a little too out there for me.
I just can't imagine a world where Japan prioritizes attacking Siberia of all places over China, Indonesia and Australia... Also assuming that Russia could defeat Japans Navy to the extent it would allow them to invade the main Islands within any reasonable time frame feels sketchy at best.
The key word there is china. Indonesia is attacked purely with the goal of attacking china. Australia is attacked because attacking indonesia means war with the british empire. The strike south is for resources, the way to do it successfully need the phillipines, doing that means war with america.
If the scenario means no war with america then the strike south simply isnt feasible as the japanese cant run an overstretched supply line like that to attack people in order to get resources to fix their supply issues.
Therefore, likely no strike south, therefore not oil to renew offensive operations in china, therefore, offensive war in china wrecks japanese economy too much and japan gives in.
People forget that japans entrance into the world war is all to end their war in china, their fight to the end mentality is based on them being invaded, the idea that them invading a foreign country that wont come after them at home and destroying their economy through mobilisation for years will cause them to just keep at it is ludicrous
Russia wouldn't need to defeat Japans navy, they would only need to kick them from mainland Asia.
@@andrewshaw1571 Indonesia, or the Dutch East Indies as it was known back then, was (and still is) a major producer of oil. With an American oil embargo, this would be the only possible source for Japan to get oil for its war machine.
I love alternate history, it's a good way to pass time when I'm bored
It would be great if you could react to his video on what if Lincoln was never assassinated
Could you please do a series around Japanese history as obviously your comments on historical matters you are well educated on are extremely educational and entertaining. I do enjoy also when you are out of your environment and learning something new along with the audience.
You should really check out this channel's take on the alternate 1912 election. It's really good and has lots of Woodrow Wilson bashing.
Not history related, but I wanted to thank you for teaching me so much about history. It's.
Really helpful and I wish you were my teacher.
Your videos always brings a sense of peace to me in some way. The way you talk to us and add so much digestible context to each video/subject. I know if I’m ever having a bad day, I can put on one of your videos and you bring me back down to Earth. Keep on going and don’t forget to breathe!
A Baggies shirt. I'm Luton Town myself but I have to appreciate the fact your team isn't Man U etc because they're the biggest. You are a man of culture sir.
This was one of his vids where I most strongly disagreed on and still do, because there are to many things happening to balance out the odds and making it less predicable + the soviet invasion of Japan, which is as impossle as a japanese win against the USA. For the unlikly case that the US still wont declare war on germany, britains position now is incredibly weaker, not enough to get invaded or loose but enough to make them a far less threat. Germany still looses the battle of britain and africa, but with no possible british invasion, far far less enemy aircraft germany has less plane loosses/can defend better, no big bombing of german industry and oil refineries and they can free up more troops from the western front. The soviets loose all the ressources, tanks and trucks from the US they needed for the quick counter attack + now have to split their forces giving germany more time to react. I wouldnt go so far to give germany a sure winning chance even with more heavy equipment, ressources, time, troops and nerfed soviets but at this point its far less one sided and too unpredictable.
Yeah there is no way in this scenario the soviets win the war and end up in a much stronger situation post war it’s extremely unrealistic when with all the support and not having to fight a Japanese army that has access to fuel they almost got destroyed with the loss of population still being a major issue in modern Russia
I love Cody's videos and his interesting takes on alternate history, but I'm not sure I agree with this one. I thought the Soviet Union brought many divisions west to repel Operation Barbarossa. If they are fighting a two front war between Germany and Japan they won't have as many resources to bring west. I also think without the US being in the war that the other western powers soon would have no power in the Pacific Theater, Australia and New Zealand and other colonies are occupied. Japan doesn't have to dedicate so many resources to holding Pacific islands and don't have to spend so many resources to rebuild ships sunk by the US. Their carriers remain the power in the Pacific and they can dedicate those resources to war on the mainland. The Soviets might win out in a two front war, but I think such a fight would be protracted and leave them weakened in the end.
"I'm not sure what the status of the Russian Navy was in the East" - You can be sure of one think about the Soviet Navy in the East, after the Russo-Japanese war early in the century, the status of their Navy was new :)
The thing is that even with all those divisions sent west, the Soviet forces in the area still outnumbered the Japanese in december 1941
The forces that the Soviet Union moved to the west were primarily used in the counter attacks against the German positions near Moscow in the winter of 1941/'42. I think you hit the nail on the head here. Everything in this scenario makes things somewhat easier for the Germans and more difficult for the Russians. Probably not enough for the Germans to win, but certainly enough to make a Russian victory significantly more delayed and costly. As you suggested there's virtually no chance of a successful Russian invasion of Japan. Japanese forces on the mainland would also be stronger.
It is not outside the realm of possibility that this conflict would be so devastating and drawn out that it ends in a negotiated settlement, even with these participants.
The Soviet Pacific Fleet by 1945 consisted only of two cruisers, one destroyer leader, ten destroyers.
I'm under the impression that the oil embargo began in August, 1941, which is several months before Pearl Harbor. There were other embargos, such as scrap metal, that also put Japan into the difficult position that would require their military action, including Pearl Harbor. Pearl Haarbor didn't lead to the oil embargo; the embargo led to Pearl Harbor.
Yes. That's why in terms of this scenario either the embargo would've had to have never happened, or at least quickly ended.
I hope you react to Montemayor’s Midway series. It is the best documentary on Midway I’ve ever seen.
13:10 There’s actually an alternate history comic book series called “Jour J” (“D-Day”) that had an episode in a setting where the Allies got held up during the Liberation of France and the Soviets made it to Paris, making France the country that gets divided and occupied (De Gaulle died in an airplane crash in 1943).
I also recommend Hub’s video on “What If America Had Invaded Japan (Operation Downfall)” or any other video related to it. Curious to see your view on it since in this scenario the US doesn’t get involved while another potential is the US throwing everything at the Japanese to finally end the war.
I think this was one of the events in history was kinda inevitable, in one way or another. There was just no way the Japanese leader would not at some point see the benefits of attacking America outweighing the costs. Maybe not Pearl Harbor exactly but I think something similar would always happen at some point.
When people think Dec 7th is just Pearl Harbor they get off track on what was actually happening. It was also an unprovoked invasion of Malaya, Singapore, Indonesia, Burma, etc. The Philippines represented a dagger aimed right at cutting off the Japanese from everything they wanted to take from the British, Dutch, and French. This whole alt history relies on the US basically being friends with Japan, (no embargo, no lend-lease) even after Japan attacks US friends and surrounds the Philippines. US staying neutral would be a miracle for the Japanese, a truly Devine wind that hypnotizes America.
Great video, as always. I agree that the Soviets simply invading mainland Japan would never happen. Maybe with British help, but the Soviet Navy of WW2 I doubt could even consider a unilateral large-scale naval invasion of mainland Japan.
With how much russia controls Europe Churchill would promptly tell stalin to fuck off.
Churchill was vehemently anti communist, doubt he'd allow the British to assist the Soviets.
Loving the pacific theatre videos keep them coming please!
I just visited Pearl Harbor on 12/3/21. What a powerful experience! If you haven’t been, I hope you get to go!
I was there on my honeymoon in 2002. May go back next year for our 20th.
Without having to fight a war with the US, I doubt the soviets would have occupied Japan, at least not easily. Japan's navy and Air was pretty strong for the time and without having to fight the Americans, losing many of their skilled pilots and warships, the soviets would not have an easy time landing troops on the Japanese mainland
yeah it would probably end up like korea, no official peace but with the conflict mostly over.
I'm not sure Japan would attack Uni Soviet anytime soon. They still need to conquer China and solidify their holdings in South East Asia. Eastern part of Russia is just not worth it at the time.
@8:53 Wait? Didn't Hitler say in his second book he viewed America as an enemy comparable with the Soviet Union? It seems likely Hitler would have attacked anyways, especially because they were arming the Soviets and the British. He at least would have started attacking US convoys and shipping. That would have brought the US into the war anyways.
I'm here early and excited to watch!
My grandfather grew up very poor in West Virginia, his family got their first radio when he was around 10 years old. The first thing they heard through it was reports of the attack on pearl harbor. He ended up joining the air force, spending a lot of time in Germany and eventually going to Korea fixing damaged aircraft.
Where in germany Was he stationed
If you want to take a look at more alt history stuff, I'd recommend 'What if USA joined Axis instead of Allies' by zvallid
You shoud react to Oil problem that exist in Germany during World War II made by TIK. The exack name of the video was "The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL".
I've seen you wearing Ipswich shirts in some of your vids but as an American who supports West Brom I am pleased to see you in our current season's shirt! I wouldn't have bought it myself had they not printed Psalm 23 on there...
I definitely agree with you about the Soviets not being able to directly invade Japan. However, I still think Japan would've surrendered in this alternate scenario just because of the pressure of fighting a war against the Soviets and the European Allies completely alone without Germany and Italy
I feel like the thing Alternate History forgot in this video is the Strength of the Japanese Navy. There simply wouldn’t be a strong enough Russian Navy to invade Japan, Especially if the US never did an oil embargo. So while Japan would lose all their mainland territory, They would probably just be isolated on their island.
That's the one thing I love the most about alternate history, there's no right or wrong answers... unless you get into the nutty realms of the likes of Fallout, Wolfenstein and Command & Conquer.
It sounds like he has expanded the scenario from "Japan doesn't attack Pearl Harbor" to "Japan does not switch from its "Northern Strategy to the Southern Strategy options".
Maybe I am writing my comment too soon, but usually he explains his thoughts about what preconditions wold be needed in order to allow the stated premise to be possible in more detail.
West Brom kit? Never knew you were like that boss man
Did a video on VTH Extra on how I ended up a West Brom supporter.
14:25 no it couldn't. In this scenario it is already stated that the American oil embargo never happens and the IJN doesn't spend its fuel reserves fighting the Allied navies. It would obliterate the Soviet Pacific Fleet and then the USSR has no way to invade Japan without Allied naval support. I normally agree with Cody but where he's going here is bogus.
Another issue I have with this is that Italy would still probably be invaded by the British and Commonwealth forces in this timeline and it would still succeed but it would take longer than it did historically. Italy would still fall into a civil war and eventually the Germans would have to peel soldiers away from both France and Italy to prevent this total collapse to the USSR so Italy would probably fall in early 45.
The WW2 channel's minute by minute documentary on Pearl Harbor is literally the ultimate most in-depth take on the subject. There's literally no other video or documentary that even remotely comes close to it.
12:00 D-Day happened at a time in which Germany was losing very badly, in fact.
No Pearl Harbor means no Anime...
What a beautiful world we could've had.
Alternate History helps us realize how important events were by seeing what the alternatives would have been.
There was a war plan/ doctrine for the Japanese to attack the Soviets. There were two competing factions in Japan, the Army and the Navy. Each had a plan for Japanese domination and expansion, the Navy had Nanshin- Ron, which was the drive into Southeast Asia and against the US. The Army had Hokushin- Ron, which was the plan to attack the Soviet Union. Had the US not embargoed Japan and the Army remained ascendant over the Navy, its pretty likely Japan would have gone with Hokushin- Ron and attacked the Soviets
One of the German attache was a secret Soviet spy, he persuaded the Japanese not to attack the Soviets, he was found out and executed, for this the Soviets awarded him Hero of the Soviet Union Order of Lenin. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge
11:02 They had plans for that, but were dismissed.
The baggies kit is so random 😂
I swear, AHH always has the best soundtrack
I really recommend to react to the video end of war
@Vlogging Through History, you should check out Binkov's Battlegrounds. I would highly recommend reacting to "Could US Military Conquer UK if it wanted to (2019)." I think this is the best channel when it comes to the analysis of modern warfare, and his videos have a "Geo-History" vibe to them. I think you'd really enjoy the channel. Alternatively, you should check out "The United States (USA) vs The World - Who Would Win? Military / Army Comparison" by The InfoGraphics Show
4:00 my man, just almost dropped a bomb, but managed to control it lol
For some hard data on the Soviet forces in Siberia-Manchuria on december 1941: During WW2 the Soviets had two fronts (army groups) deployed in the area as a cautionary measure against Japan: the Transbaikal front in the Siberian-Mongol part, and the Far Eastern front in the Manchu part. For december 1st, the Soviet forces in the area numbered 7 armies (2 in the Transbaikal front, 5 in the Far Eastern front), with 5 rifle, 1 cavalry and 2 tank divisions plus 2 fortified sectors (brigade-sized fortified garrisons, they couldn't attack but their defenses were really high), 1 armoured cars brigade, 3 anti-air brigades, 2 motor rifle regiments, 1 motorcycle regiment, 6 artillery regiments, 2 fighter wings, 2 bomber wings and 3 mixed wings for the Transbaikal front and 19 rifle, 1 cavalry and 2 tank divisions plus 13 fortified sectors, 9 rifle, 1 airborne, 6 tank and 7 anti-air brigades, 1 rifle, 3 cavalry, 1 motorcycle, 18 artillery and 2 sapper regiments, 4 fighter wings, 1 bomber wing and 10 mixed wings. In comparison, the Japanese Kantokuen plan for a 1941 invasion of the USSR included 25 divisions (all infantry), plus 1 cavalry brigade and 6 garrison units. So, the overall balance is 24 Soviet rifle divisions against 25 Japanese infantry divisions, 4 Soviet tank divisions against 0 Japanese tank divisions, 2 Soviet cavalry divisions against 0 Japanese cavalry divisions, 3 Soviet cavalry regiments against 1 Japanese cavalry brigade, 15 Soviet fortified sectors against 6 Japanese garrisons and so on, giving the Soviets an overall advantage in artillery (both quantity and quality), tanks (both quantity and quality) and fortified positions. Plus the advantage of playing defense while fortified alongside the Amur river. Note that this is after the Soviets had withdrawn several important units along the Siberian-Manchu border and sent them to fight in Europe against Germany.
Source: ВОЕННО-НАУЧНОЕ УПРАВЛЕНИЕ ГЕНЕРАЛЬНОГО ШТАБА (Военно-исторический отдел): БОЕВОЙ СОСТАВ СОВЕТСКОЙ АРМИИ - ЧАСТЬ I (июнь-декабрь 1941 года). Типография Военной академии ГШ, МОСКВА 1963 - Military-scientific administration of the General Staff (Military-Historical department): Military structure of the Soviet Army part 1 (June-December 1941). Published in the G. Sh. Military Academy, Moscow, 1963.
How about this for an alternate history on Pearl Harbor: what if a Japanese attacks on a better / different day?
Have you thought about doing a video on cynical historians vids? He’s got some super informative stuff. Plus his hatred of Woodrow Wilson is hilarious.
WILLLSON!!!
It’s an interesting question. The big debate between Japans army and navy were whether to invade indochina or Russia. In a situation where the US isn’t a factor, the Japanese might very well have invaded Russia and this provides 2 different storylines. Either the eastern Russian troops have left to reinforce those at Stalingrad which did happenand was one of the things that turned the tide there, they have left and eastern Russia is relatively in defended against the Japanese or they haven’t left and those troops can’t be used to bolster the defense of the western besieged cities.
Russia could still win but if the US isn’t involved at all, which means no aid, that means the British probably don’t hold North Africa since a large number of their tanks were American. With the brits losing suez and the oil fields there, the nazi war machine has renewed reserves. With far less pressure in the west, an Italian ally not knocked out by the US attacks, the Germans can commit far more assets to the Russian front.
It’s an interesting scenario that’s for sure
The only way I see Japan not going to war with the U.S is if they win at Khalkin Gol in 1939. That defeat marked the moment where the Japanese decided to expand south instead of west, and expanding south would inevitably lead to war with America.
hey i love your videos ..... i think you should start reddit and start reacting to history memes ..... that would boost your channel and many of us too want it
Idk why but I'm surprised that he's never done this video before
I wish there was a sabaton song about this but instead I'm stuck waiting until June so I can sing midway
I would love to see you react to German solider remembers ww2 by memoirs of ww2
The USSR on Dec 7 1941 had 743 ships, can't find much about what was added but it probably wasn't much as they were in a land war. The US had 790 ships on Dec 7 1941 and 6768 by May 14 1941 (if including 2547 amphibious assault ships)
Please know your rationality, curiosity and humility are so, so welcome when it comes to historians reacting. Too many times individual ego, pride and smugness ruin a lot of these videos. Looking for a reaction for me is looking for a different perspective, not wanting to hear how "wrong" one historian thinks another is.
Zvallid is a TH-camr that made like a 1hour of a video about what if the USA joined the axis in WW2
I agree with you. The author's stated premise is no attack on Pearl Harbor. It is altogether another thing to add no embargo. There is also the fact that in Europe we were already involved through lend lease. I can easily see that escalating up to war (see WWI). This also skips the whole thing of invading Dutch East Indies, Singapore, etc. One main reason of Japanese attack on US was the expected reaction to the attack on the European colonies, which they needed for resources. The author seems to be rewriting a lot more than he claims and I'm not sure some of these things *could* have happened.
My Great-great uncle, Robert Gerald Allen was killed at Pearl Harbor, and was the first Hoosier killed in WWII.
5:34 According to the research, it was due to an internal explosion, probably accidental.
I know it is alternate history and you can kind of do what you want.
But I don't like the oil embargo not going ahead as that was in place before the attack, not in reaction to the attack,
I feel like the fork in the timeline should be at the point of the event, going back before that disturbs the space time continuum too much.
I think he went with the no embargo because in my opinion there is no way that Japan doesn't declare war on the U.S. with the trade embargo. I think they'd think eventually the U.S would declare war on them just purely based on how tense of a situation it was.
But if there's no embargo why would they attack the Soviets? The reason they attacked before is they needed resources partially due to the fact they couldn't buy them from America anymore. If they aren't embargoed, they could just keep on grinding away in China.
@@111ram1 oh yeah the reasoning for that is a little easy I guess you could say. Nothing's to say they wouldn't but then again they did attack the U.S knowing they couldn't support a land invasion. Maybe you could say that they didn't think the soviets could send enough troops to the east with Germany, kinda like their thinking with the American Navy. Especially with how fast Germany reached Moscow. It's easy to say now that the Russians definitely could outlast the Germans but in late 1941 it didn't look like that was gonna be the case.
just wondering if there is gonna be Extra history justinian and theodora cause its really good
The USSR did not have the Navy or logistical sealift to take Japan or any Islands they had - however, Japan would loose the Mainland areas...
Going off of what you said at the end about thinking about the post war world, I think dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had multiple meanings, not just forcing the Japanese to surrender and save American lives from a land invasion. It also served to warn the USSR that America was a power house and would be tough to defeat in a war.
I know this was much earlier, but when Kublai Khan invaded Japan in 1274, the Mongols had more men (as in backup) and fiercer weapons than Japan did. Still, after conquering such a huge landmass they were unable to conquer a small island off the coast. The reason had been and was in 1944 the Japanese do-or-die mentality. With or without naval supremacy, the Russians would not be able to take anything off a Japan defending its homeland.
I think the original video overestimates the soviets a bit. Especially when it comes to an invasion of Japan. Even without pearl harbor occurring, I see too many moments where US intervention would have occurred.
I hope to be there on the livestream, though my church is doing something so idk
You should do his video about what if Japan won the battle of Midway? I think you'd find the video interesting, despite it's simple title
Speaking of Pearl Harbor my grandfather was door on the day at the exact hour of the attack
I noticed this video when I was browsing and was surprised it hadn't come up in my notifications. Turns out TH-cam unsubscribed me, and turn off notifications. It must have just happend today or yesterday because your John Lennon assassination video did come up on my notifications. Thought you should know!
Thanks for letting me know Kenny!
Japan had an expansionist view of themselves and the world. They wanted to control Asia, and I think they would have eventually wanted Hawaii. It seems unlikely that they would not have eventually challenged the US. Also I don't see them eager to attack Siberia. Even if they win all they win is...Siberia.
Wait, are you a West Brom fan? That is quite a pull; I wonder what the connection is. Always interested what connects Americans to different EFL teams
My moms side of my family comes from West Brom and Birmingham
"Soviet invasion of mainland japan."
I never get that with these alt history videos. Where do they get the ships to contest arguable most powerful navy in the world in that timeline?(seeing as america would not have built up arms during this time to combat japan, thus the foremost advanced carrier doctrine would be on the side of the japanese and the amerian naval ship printing wouldn't have happened). Do the Soviets march across the sea?
I wonder, though, if the Soviet Union was really capable on its own to push back all of the way to Berlin. If you don’t have the waves of trucks, planes, tanks and other supplies coming in that a fully mobilized US could provide by 1943, then the Soviets would run into the same supply and logistics issues that Germany had as it ground further into Soviet territory. I’m thinking that a more likely outcome would have been some kind of stalemate - with maybe a successful coup against Hitler.
I agree The Soviets fighting a two front war with no supplies coming from America does not bode well for them. I don't see them taking Berlin and Tokyo in this scenario. It would be a bloody stalemate at best and complete defeat at worst.
4:08 Which combined with the additional tons of resources the Soviets produced, made for a fearsome war machine.
Good moning from New Zealand :)
Good afternoon from from the US
One of my what if questions.. What if japan had planned to invade during pearl harbor.
the problem with many alt-his videos is that the point of divergence tends to leave the realm of the plausible into the fantastical. It's one thing when a different likely choice is taken, but it becomes completely absurd when the different choice is taken JUST BECAUSE, especially when the context is completely ignored.
By December 1941 the American public was anything but isolationist. Public support for more involvement in the war has been growing since the fall of France in 1940, and especially since many US merchant ships and destroyers have been fighting the German U-boots since early 1941. The US was joining the war against Germany with or without Pearl Harbour. The only possible alternate history is Japan not attacking the US despite the embargo.
Excellent video and I particularly appreciated the comments on the value of alternate history.
As much as I enjoy a good alternate history, I don't think the embargo is the straw that broke the camel's back in regard to Japan's decision to proceed with attacking Pearl Harbor. There's a really good book called "The Japanese Empire: Grand Strategy from the Meiji Restoration to the Pacific War" by S.C.M. Paine that shows the calculus of Japanese leadership being quite nuanced, even if it was kind of narrowly focused in its outlooks. Based on that book and other considerations, Japan needed to win its war in China but it needed resources to fuel that conquest and its strung-out economy. Southeast Asia thus becomes too juicy of a target and there is a statistically improbable chance that the IJN is going to allow bypassing the Philippines (an American protectorate). Additionally, the Chinese had reached out to the U.S. for help and by May of 1941 become part of the Lend-Lease program. Even if IJ leadership holds back on Pearl Harbor, it's nearly certain there was going to be a provocation, intended or otherwise, like the Panay Incident in 1937. American supplies to S.E. Asia (predominantly for British holdings) or the Chinese defenders would create too many possibilities for the IJN to sink the wrong (group of) convoys.
Setting all of that aside, I don't see a successful "Soviet Sea Lion" against Japan. The Black Sea and Baltic fleets were pretty much cornered, which leaves a slim possibility of the Arctic Fleet trying to meet up with the Pacific Fleet for Tsushima 2.0. Even then, Japan's lack of complete dedication to the Soviet front gave Stalin enough confidence to yank several divisions from the East to throw against Hitler in the early days of Barbarossa. While changing this may not result in Germany achieving total victory the Soviets-who were fighting the existential war to end all existential wars-it probably results in dragging the war into the late 1940's and a likely negotiated ceasefire with a Soviet Union hemmed in between the Urals and the Western edge of Mongolia and all powers involved having their economies sputtering, coughing, and wheezing like a busted-up Model T.
No US in WW2 would mean that Glen Miller wouldn’t have died in a plane crash forever changing late 1940’s music 😂
I think this alternate history discounts several items.
1. If Hirohito refused to allow the military to attack, it is very likely he would have been forced or abdicate, removed from power or assassinated. But the window to attack pearl might not have been there.
2. It's not a guarantee that the soviets would win a war against both Japan and Germany. Yes, the war on the eastern front in Europe was turned at stalingrad. However to think Japan would not be able to hurt Russia discounts a lot. He might be seeing the Russians mow the Japanese down in Manchuria however in our timeline the Japanese were down to no materials to wage war.