What if Japan never attacked the United States?

And the U.S. continued to only have a limited role in the European front, do you think the NAZI empire would of been the most dominant force in the world? Would the U.S. still be what it is today?

I'm by no means an expert but my impression is that the Soviets would've taken care of things sooner or later. Feel free to correct me WW2 buffs.Sajo7

[QUOTE="Sajo7"]I'm by no means an expert but my impression is that the Soviets would've taken care of things sooner or later. Feel free to correct me WW2 buffs.SonyNintendoFan

[QUOTE="Sajo7"]I'm by no means an expert but my impression is that the Soviets would've taken care of things sooner or later. Feel free to correct me WW2 buffs.SonyNintendoFan

America didn't win WW2, or help win WW2. Fightingfan

[QUOTE="SonyNintendoFan"][QUOTE="Sajo7"]I'm by no means an expert but my impression is that the Soviets would've taken care of things sooner or later. Feel free to correct me WW2 buffs.Ace6301

There would have been no intervention in the Korean war, because American would have still been hesitant to go into foreign afairs if they were not attacked. Then we would have a legit ruler of asia: StaticOnTV

Nope

If japan never attacked America, America would have attacked japan first and the war would have happened any way. 

whether the outcome would be better or worse I cannot say. 

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"]There would have been no intervention in the Korean war, because American would have still been hesitant to go into foreign afairs if they were not attacked. Then we would have a legit ruler of asia: lostrib

Nope

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"]There would have been no intervention in the Korean war, because American would have still been hesitant to go into foreign afairs if they were not attacked. Then we would have a legit ruler of asia: StaticOnTV

Nope

Actually it was a UN action.  But you are assuming that Japan would have lost control of Korea.  Without the intervention of the US, it is quite possible they would not have.  And either way, Kim jong un would not rule asia at all.

I'm not a history buff either but I thought two of the big battles to shift momentum on the Soviet side were the battles at Stalingrad and Kursk, and those occurred before the D-Day invasion.lamprey263

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"][QUOTE="Fightingfan"]America didn't win WW2, or help win WW2. The Soviets did. WW2 wasn't about D-day or battle of the bulge; it was about getting Nazi Germany out of Berlin. Which is what the Soviets were doing, and would of eventually accomplished without Roosevelt intervention. Fightingfan

and you are foolish to clame that the US barely did anything

What if Alexander the Great didn't get sick and die?

We were pretty much already in the war before the Japanese attacked. so it wouldn't really matter.

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"][QUOTE="Fightingfan"]America didn't win WW2, or help win WW2. The Soviets did. WW2 wasn't about D-day or battle of the bulge; it was about getting Nazi Germany out of Berlin. Which is what the Soviets were doing, and would of eventually accomplished without Roosevelt intervention. Fightingfan

Without the US support (even before the attack) the Allies would of lost. Even the mightly USSR got a ton of US aid during the war. 

And the U.S. continued to only have a limited role in the European front, do you think the NAZI empire would of been the most dominant force in the world? Would the U.S. still be what it is today?

SonyNintendoFan

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="StaticOnTV"] WWII would have lasted longer if it was only the Soviets, and more nations might have been covered by German western expansion.lostrib

and you are foolish to clame that the US barely did anything

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="StaticOnTV"] We destroyed the concentration caps, the USSR did not give to craps. We stopped Japan expansion and USSR would not have done an end war move like dropping nukes, nor did they really have any at the time, and the death count fighting the japanese would not be worth it if THEY managed to get control from those proud people. We stopped German western expansion and saved france, USSR did not give a crap. etc. etc. etc.StaticOnTV

Japenese losses

83,737 KIA
640,276 POWs

[QUOTE="SonyNintendoFan"][QUOTE="Sajo7"]I'm by no means an expert but my impression is that the Soviets would've taken care of things sooner or later. Feel free to correct me WW2 buffs.Sajo7

[QUOTE="StaticOnTV"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] You are embarrassing yourself. Not only did the USSR liberate concentration camps but they were the first of the Allies to do so. And the USSR's invasion of Manchuria was one of the main reasons for Japan surrendering, if not the main reason. Person0

Japenese losses

83,737 KIA
640,276 POWs

[QUOTE="Sajo7"]I'm by no means an expert but my impression is that the Soviets would've taken care of things sooner or later. Feel free to correct me WW2 buffs.SonyNintendoFan

[QUOTE="SonyNintendoFan"][QUOTE="Sajo7"]I'm by no means an expert but my impression is that the Soviets would've taken care of things sooner or later. Feel free to correct me WW2 buffs.Rattlesnake_8

Kind of hard being a dominant force when they couldn't make it past Soviet winters.DroidPhysX

ah but theres the rub.....if the U.S. didn't enter the war Germany's Western Front would be strong enough to add more troops vs the Russians and would have won.

The 2-front war cost Germany the war, certainly Britain couldn't stop Germany on the West front alone, and even Italy would have been Axis to the end.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"]I'm by no means an expert but my impression is that the Soviets would've taken care of things sooner or later. Feel free to correct me WW2 buffs.SonyNintendoFan

Exactly right.....Russia would have been defeated without the U.S. entering the war. By the way the U.S. supplied Britain AND Russia with supplies before 12/1941

America didn't win WW2, or help win WW2. The Soviets did. WW2 wasn't about D-day or battle of the bulge; it was about getting Nazi Germany out of Berlin. Which is what the Soviets were doing, and would of eventually accomplished without Roosevelt intervention. Fightingfan

Wrong answer.....the U.S. were just as important to winning the War as the Soviets. Fact.

Keep in mind what the U.S. did in the Pacific, also keep in mind the number of supplies the U.S. sent to both Britain and the Soviets before and during the war.

Nobody denies the Soviets took the brunt of the war, but without the U.S. entering and causing a formidable 2-front war, the Soviets would have lost.

Oh, and by the way, the only reason the Russians got to Berlin first was because the U.S. and British troops were held back by Eisenhower, much to the dismay of Patton and Montgomery. The U.S. decided to give Russia much of what became the Eastern Bloc because of a deal made between FDR and Stalin.

[QUOTE="SonyNintendoFan"][QUOTE="Sajo7"]I'm by no means an expert but my impression is that the Soviets would've taken care of things sooner or later. Feel free to correct me WW2 buffs.AFBrat77

Exactly right.....Russia would have been defeated without the U.S. entering the war. By the way the U.S. supplied Britain AND Russia with supplies before 12/1941

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] You are embarrassing yourself. Not only did the USSR liberate concentration camps but they were the first of the Allies to do so. And the USSR's invasion of Manchuria was one of the main reasons for Japan surrendering, if not the main reason. -Sun_Tzu-

Alot of the problem with the Japanese having no resources is because of American submarine warfare. In the pacific the sub warfare was the reverse.

And the U.S. continued to only have a limited role in the European front, do you think the NAZI empire would of been the most dominant force in the world? Would the U.S. still be what it is today?

SonyNintendoFan

[QUOTE="SonyNintendoFan"]

And the U.S. continued to only have a limited role in the European front, do you think the NAZI empire would of been the most dominant force in the world? Would the U.S. still be what it is today?

Jacobistheman

The Nazis were developing long range stealth bombers to nuke American cities at the very end of the war.

[QUOTE="SonyNintendoFan"][QUOTE="Sajo7"]I'm by no means an expert but my impression is that the Soviets would've taken care of things sooner or later. Feel free to correct me WW2 buffs.Sajo7

If the US stayed out of WW2 and assuming Lend-Lease never happened, Great Britain could have fallen. At the very least, she would've been isolated from help. British bases in North Africa and the Middle East most likely would've fallen along with the Suez Canal. All the men and materiel in western Europe could've been used to strenghten the Eastern Front. Imagine Rommel going on a rampage at the steppes of Russia instead of North Africa.

The Japanese would've been in secure control of the western Pacific with full access to the raw materials she required. Knowing the US will not be a threat, the Japanese could've been more bold with the IJN being able to send fleets of warships to the European Theater. After all, Japan was allied with Germany and Italy. I doubt the Royal Navy could've taken on Japan's well-trained carrier groups.

Who knows how bold the Japanese could've been? If Japan didn't have to keep watch on the US and were able to concentrate their efforts in China, would the Siberians (who were keeping watch on the Japanese) have been able to reinforce the armies fighting the Germans out west?

Edit:

What if Hitler asked Japan to open a second front and threaten areas like Vladivostok in order to tie down large numbers of Soviet troops?

[QUOTE="SonyNintendoFan"][QUOTE="Sajo7"]I'm by no means an expert but my impression is that the Soviets would've taken care of things sooner or later. Feel free to correct me WW2 buffs.Ace6301

That's also assuming that Germany couldn't have taken England or Germany would have kept the same forces on the Western front or the Russians would have had air superiority and managed to do the same bombing the Americans did.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="SonyNintendoFan"] Really? i though the soviets were able to continue because of the western front in europe, making hitler focus on 2 fronts?slimjimbadboy

That's also assuming that Germany couldn't have taken England or Germany would have kept the same forces on the Western front or the Russians would have had air superiority and managed to do the same bombing the Americans did.

The Russians air forces were similar in function to the Luftwaffe which meant they were used primarily for tactical/battlefield operations. I don't think the Russians put much credence on strategic bombing after several attempts ended up being a disaster. The Russians had a 4-engined bomber, the Pe-8. Unfortunately, only 93 were built. 

If the US stayed out of WW2 and assuming Lend-Lease never happened, Great Britain could have fallen. At the very least, she would've been isolated from help. British bases in North Africa and the Middle East most likely would've fallen along with the Suez Canal. All the men and materiel in western Europe could've been used to strenghten the Eastern Front. Imagine Rommel going on a rampage at the steppes of Russia instead of North Africa.

The Japanese would've been in secure control of the western Pacific with full access to the raw materials she required. Knowing the US will not be a threat, the Japanese could've been more bold with the IJN being able to send fleets of warships to the European Theater. After all, Japan was allied with Germany and Italy. I doubt the Royal Navy could've taken on Japan's well-trained carrier groups.

Who knows how bold the Japanese could've been? If Japan didn't have to keep watch on the US and were able to concentrate their efforts in China, would the Siberians (who were keeping watch on the Japanese) have been able to reinforce the armies fighting the Germans out west?

Edit:

What if Hitler asked Japan to open a second front and threaten areas like Vladivostok in order to tie down large numbers of Soviet troops?

 

jun_aka_pekto