- 1
so if Japan opted for USSR instead of US
- Thread starter darth254
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Japanese would prepare for Siberian Invasion without fighting in China, no oil problem, which doesn`t give China time to consolidate or Chinese wouldn`t care Manchuria in Japanese hand, Stalin would still make MR pact, Allies will sit in their asses, Barbarossa would have been successfull as it has happened in real time etc. What is missing is add USA to Axis side so we can get full house.
You are basically saying everything bad that can happen must happen to Soviets and anything bad that could have been happen to Axis wouldn`t happen. This is the only way this scenario works.
My point was it is pointless to argue what if in history. There are just too many variables. What if Stalin comes to his senses before invasion because German and Japan clearly preparing Soviet Union invasion? What if Soviets survive in their Ural mountains until D-Day because of Axis supply situation f? If stars aligned who can say Soviet Union can`t win against Japan and Germany both?
Again there are just too many variants (bad and good for both sides). I don`t think only bad variants are for Soviets.
- 3
What I'm saying is that a Japan that isn't bogged down in China is in a position to make a lot of really bad things happen for the Soviet Union in 1941-1942.
This probably would still be a horrible idea for Japan in the long run and would certainly have lots of negative effects for the Axis.
But my point, and the point that I haven't seen many people argue against directly, is that Japan could have made things significantly worse for the Soviets in 1941-1942.
Or to put it another way, the only period where there was any possibility albeit incredibly remote, of the Axis winning.
There are tons of ways this could negatively affect the Axis and I'm not discounting that. I
What I am arguing and I haven't seen anyone argue against is that it would have cost the Soviets, time, people, equipment, and ammunition to deal with a more belligerent Japan. It also makes no sense that a more hostile Japan would not make the Soviets more eager to make peace on their western border. The MR pact and the Japanese NAP were the OTL Soviet Union trying to make peace on both of its fronts.
If Japan seems more dangerous to the USSR than in OTL, the Soviets would have more reason to want peace with the Germans, not less.
Things could still go badly for the Axis in the long run in this scenario but I have yet to see anyone make a plausible case as to why the Germans wouldn't have an easier time with Barbarossa if the Soviets had the additional headache of an actively hostile Japan.
Last edited:
- 1
The pipe dreams of the short-lived Hayashi administration were nothing more than amusing. They could just as realistically wish to go to the moon. The unification of China hinged on the ultimate return of occupied Manchuria. The Chinese government had no choice but to seek confrontation with Japan, as soon as they were strong enough. Just like Japan had no choice but to destroy the government that was rapidly unifiying the semi-independent warlords into a powerful state.
Not even slightly.
Gibraltar was a tiny territory was lost in the early 1700-s. And Franco was friendly to Britain, as without the embargo on the republicans he would have never come to power. Spain was also a very minor military power and Franco knew full well that entering the war would be his end.
That is exactly 0 similaries with the situation in China, where a significant part of the country was taken mere years ago, and where the strengthening government felt they were getting powerful enough to claim back that land (hence the strong response to the 1936 Mengjiang encroachment).
Yes, the Soviets could deploy far more resources in 1938-1940, when the resources in the west weren't used anyway. They could choose to escalate the border conflicts with Japan to reduce the threat. The Far Eastern front still had I-16 fighters and BT tanks in 1945. They simply were not used. Just like many tanks and planes were lost in 1941 in the west without seeing a single battle. In the OTL they would be.
If Japan is commited to counter USSR, they there is much less investment in naval strike capabilities. Far less naval bombers. So air superiority on land would mean little on the sea.
You said it yourself: the Philippines.
It would also take more than two months to make any significant advance for Japan in the Far East.
I'm counting 3 fleet carriers (2 of them from the early 20s) and 2 light carriers (1 from the 20-s)
Historically even with the naval program, naval bombing investment and Pearl Harbor, the Japanese were stalling within half a year (Midway, Guadalcanal). Take away the newest ships, the naval bombers and the Japanese would struggle to go anywhere at all.
Is "Japanese airpower" a given? The US would in fact have a very easy time, as they could use Soviet airbases in the far east (IRL not happened because of Sovite-Japan neutrality). It's only a few hundred km from Vladivostok to Japan, so it could in fact be the US, not japan who establish air dominance in the Sea of Japan. Plus the Soviet airforce itself is a very big factor.
The Soviets had other cities, such as Komsomolsk-on-Amur, which had major ports, even if somehow the Japanese were to take Vladivostok.
- 1
- 1
You have assumed the total Tōseiha dominance in the IJN, which did not happen until the purge following of 2/26 incident, which happened in 1936 within the game's timeframe. Also in China, Chiang was not resolved to fight Japan on his own, he was made to, literally, at gun point. First the communist sympathizer who held him hostage, then the Japanese troops attacking his men in Beijing.
And it seems that you forgot, or doesn't know that, Japan was really helping Chiang to modernize his military, including building him a navy. Ning Hai was delivered as promised even after Mukden Incident, and Ping Hai was being outfitted in Japan in early 1936, little more than a year before all things went south.
Without Japan demanding German recognition of Manchukuo, which was effectively forcing Germany to choose either them or China, German advisors would be steering China away from confrontations with Japan until Soviet influence is removed. Even if Chiang busted Mao in Yan'an, there's still Sheng Shicai in Xinjiang, and even if that's also taken care of, there's still Mongolia, which will not be taken short of Barbarossa. And by doing so, Chinese interests could be made to align with theirs regarding the Soviets.
And Göbbels might even be able to spin Japan's previous aggressions in Manchuria as a preemption of communist infestation by using the Zhang Xueliang = communist narrative after Xi'an incident, provided that Japan doesn't commit further aggression.
By running into Japanese land-based aircraft, supported by the unmolested IJN?
There's a little known fact, Yamamoto Isoroku was actually a vehement advocate for the Washington Naval Treaty, so it's far from impossible to bring Japan back into the treaty system even without radical changes in the ranks of the IJN.
If Japan (and the IJA) chose to focus on the USSR, it's only logical to renew the treaty both to appease the Allies and to keep their hands tied from naval buildup.
- 1
You believe the "communist" conspiracy theory? Chiang was resolved to fight China. Not in 1937, if possible as the military was still weak, but the long term goal does not change.
2 destroyer sized vessels in 7 years.
Did you know the Italians built the destroyer "Tashkent" for USSR in the late 30-s, as well as technical assistance for other Soviet destroyer and cruiser designs? Does that mean the Italy was "allied" to USSR?
And why would China listen?
No reason why it can't be done over 1937-1939.
Choosing between the Mongolian wasteland and Manchuria, Shanghai etc. (complete with the 1936 border only miles from Beijing), it's obvious what the Chinese would choose.
And once again, why would China listen? They knew the Japanese invaded and took lots of land, and no excuse was going to cut it.
As I explained before, it took only 7 months between Pearl Harbor and Midway. Now take away the Japanese most modern ships built between 1936-1941, take away the bulk of naval bombers, no Pearl Harbor, and provide the US the the opportunity to base aircraft in the Soviet Far East.
Last edited:
- 1
Well, as Porkman says in an earlier post, "Similarly, more resources to the Russian Far East in response to a Japanese buildup means less resources in the West. Is there any part of this where you disagree? The Soviets can somehow double their commitment in the Far East without there being a commnesurate loss in some other places?"
This is very simple mathematic and should be agreeable worldwide.
Lets break down the Russian army a tiny bit... to 4 soldiers in total in an attempt to make it even easier to understand.
- Russia as a nation has 4 soldiers; 3 positioned in the west and 1 in the east, a threat is building up(this thread) in the east, then you move 1 from the west to the east. Thus you have 2 in the west and 2 in the east, making it harder for the eastern invader(Japan) but you will make it easier for the western invader(Germany).
It all comes down to economy, a nation do not have infinite resources and has to choose where to place its units.
This is very simple mathematic and should be agreeable worldwide.
Lets break down the Russian army a tiny bit... to 4 soldiers in total in an attempt to make it even easier to understand.
- Russia as a nation has 4 soldiers; 3 positioned in the west and 1 in the east, a threat is building up(this thread) in the east, then you move 1 from the west to the east. Thus you have 2 in the west and 2 in the east, making it harder for the eastern invader(Japan) but you will make it easier for the western invader(Germany).
It all comes down to economy, a nation do not have infinite resources and has to choose where to place its units.
- 1
Chiang was about as resolved against Japan as he was against the USSR. Both took away huge tracts of land and plant puppets here and there, one even has a client that's trying to topple him. But as history told us, he had little qualm cooperating with one when the other entered an all out war with him.
Whoa hold it right there. "have no problem with the modernization of" is not "allied to". Please stop the strawmanning and goal post moving for a productive discussion.
And it shows that Japan and China could cooperate as late as 1936, and assume there's no war or other kinds of aggression, why would that change in just a few years?
You're only looking at the gain but not the cost. Why did Mexico choose to ally with the US instead of taking all the lost land back? Because it's certain that they would lose, so they opted for minor gains by staying on US's side. Similarily, running headlong into Japanese troops and losing all German aid is not a wise choice, but shit happens so China ended up in the situation.
And Japanese troops were inside Beijing anyway due to Boxer Protocol.
Why do you have to ask when you have quoted the answer? All the territory under Manchukuo was part of the Fengtian Clique, controlled by Zhang Xueliang who started the Xi'an Incident, which was doubtlessly a pro-communist move. Then all it takes is a good rhetoric to connect the two.
Like what? The two Yamato's had less impact in the war than the dreadnought-era ex-battlecruisers, and sinkable carriers are far less valuable to unsinkable carriers called airfields as Japan would not need blue water offensive naval capability in this case. Further down the list there would be CAs completed as CL, but the 6.1" and 8" turrets were made to have the same size so they can be refitted in short notice if needed, then there're Agano's, 4 CL with only 6x6" guns each, and Ōyodo, a scout cruiser which isn't really useful if the enemy is coming to you. Then there're the DD and SS, which can be built if conflict seems likely and would probably have better DP guns and at least some radar and sonar.
And if Japan could return to the treaty, these would be moot anyway.
You are the one who use the "japan built 2 ships for china" as an argument. I merely pointed out that Italy was building destroyers for the Soviets all while Soviet and Italian regular troops ("volunteers") were fighting each other in Spain.
Which is about as clear cut as it get in showing that arms sales can happen even between deeply hostile nations and that Japan building Ning Hai is not an indication of a clear opposition and impending war.
False analogy. Mexico was in a different league in both economic power and population. And the lands the lost weren't even populated by people deeply loyal to Mexico. China knew full well that while they were weaker, they were not much weaker and that if a opportunity presents, they had a good chance of undoing the humiliations over the past couple of decades/
The Xi'an incident was a pro-china move by patriotic elements in china to forge a unified front against ongoing Japanese incursions. It would take a lot of imagination to see a communist conspiracy there.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Historically, Japan's managed for about 6 months until they lost the initiative (Midway). Without the naval building program (which includes naval bombers), they would be much weaker, irrespective of any "they didn't need it" sophistry. Thus the US would have no problems supplying the Soviets as Japan would have no way to oppose it.
And the airfields argument works 2 ways. It applies to Japanese airfields, but also to Soviet airfields, from which the entirety of Japan could be targeted.
You are forgetting the "time variable". Soviets can do 2 (or even 3) soldiers in the East in 1938-1940, to force an acceptable situation, then go back to 1 soldier in 1941.
No not at all, 1941 is the year... Japan goes after Russia instead of the US(this thread), -41 is the year for both Barbarossa & Pearl. Russia would be in a very difficult situation and not even Marshall S Budjenny would have made a difference, in my humble opinion.
Well as were were discussing, if Japan decides to start building up in the north, the Soviets would not just passively sit on their hands and watch. They would react, by for example bulding more fortifications in the east or/and escalating the border 1938-1939 conflicts to weaken Japanese positions. Khasan and especially Khalkin Gol could well escalate into a regional war.No not at all, 1941 is the year... Japan goes after Russia instead of the US(this thread), -41 is the year for both Barbarossa & Pearl. Russia would be in a very difficult situation and not even Marshall S Budjenny would have made a difference, in my humble opinion.
Then Russia would have been the "Bad boy" and the rest of the world (Allies&Axis) would go for the Comintern(Russia)... So that would have been even worse for Russia.
Although this is a sidestep I think, the main thing is that it would be impossible for the decapitated red army to withstand an assault from both European and Asian axis at the same time.
Last edited:
Which showed that Italy and the USSR weren't actually at each other's throats during the proxy war. Without Germany doing Barbarossa, Italy had little reason to get into a fight with the USSR as the two were buffered by neutral states who didn't look like falling into the orbit of either at that time.
China was far, far back from Japan in any terms but population. Domestic designs of any fighting vehicles were basically non-existent or had critical parts that depends on imports, which would be blockaded by the IJN if they start a war. Chinese troops lacked offensive weaponries to take out fortified IJA positions so any assault against Manchukuo without direct foreign support would fail bad. And Manchukuo's population weren't that loyal actually, their number increased by 50% in just 10 years even as there's a war going on, and Japanese could only account for a small fraction of it.
Zhang's motives are only known to him, but the fact is that Zhou Enlai somehow showed up in Xi'an and negotiated with Song Meiling in person, so it was fully exploited by the communists and there are all the propaganda materials you need to claim that Zhang was a communist from the start. Remember I'm talking about propaganda war to turn the people's opinions, not solid facts of historical events.
We were talking about the fleets, weren't we? Japanese fleet would be covered by the land based aircrafts in this scenario, which would make it way tougher to defeat. I don't know why you think land bombers couldn't bomb ships. A dive bomber is a dive bomber, and horizontal bomber with external bomb clamps can be turned to carry torpedo clamps. If running through enemy navy was that easy US could've just drop all the lend lease cargos on the shores of Guangdong and Fujian instead of building the Burma Road or flying over The Hump.
And here you're back to assuming that everything will go smoothly for the USSR which is for from given.
- 2
This is getting silly. When the Soviets were not only ideologically opposed ,but actually fought a proxy war, but apparently that's not a big deal. Fine. How about Germany Lützow (Petropavlovsk) in 1940 then.
On their own: yes. With foreign support (for example Soviet) they could draw Japan into a war of attrition.
Again this is far from guaranteed, as the Soviets have their own airfields, from which the entirety of Japan can be targeted. IRL Japan and Soviets were neutral, so the US could not use them, but in the OTL they could + the Soviets have an airforce too. So at the approaches to Russia could be very supported by Soviet/US air force.
Not saying everything is going smoothly, but advances 100-s of kilometres in the terrain, logistic situation of the Far East (not to even mention the 1.5million Soviet force which was there IRL) were simply not possible. The German logistic system collapsed in much better conditions. No massive encirclements are possible. You end up with a WW1-style slugfest.
Once again my points are:
1. Japan change of strategy does not happen in a vacuum. It would have consequences and reaction from China, Soviets during the late 30-s. Events will unfold differently and you cannot just substitute a OTL Japan into the IRL timeline.
2. The Allies will want the USSR to be capable in the fight against Germany. Therefore allied foreign policy toward Japan which is clearly set for anti-soviet action would be very hostile.
3. Most importantly, Japan's northern strategy has a lot of risks, a high cost and little reward. The Soviet Far east was just too poorly developed to be worth fighting a land war with Russia.
- 2
- 1
1. What happens to say the Winter War in the situation where the USSR decides to use a bunch more tanks and troops to nip this Japan thing in the bud?
We are not arguing that Japan could win. Japan winning or losing is immaterial. What we are arguing is that a hostile Japan would essentially function as an "Army in Being" and force the Soviets to devote resources that could be used elsewhere. Italy's Navy never defeated the Royal Navy or went out much, but just its existence meant the RN had to devote more resources to the Mediterranean than they would have liked to.
A hostile Japan, especially in 1941, means that the Soviets have to deal with it. They either have to attack it or defend against it. In either case, that's going to take more resources than they expended in OTL.
2.The Allies were terrified of the Soviets in the 30's and only Germany's successful belligerence changed that. In 1938, an anit soviet attitude was not a mortal sin for any nation vis a vis the western allies. If however the Soviet Union spends 1939 attacking Finland and Japan, especially a Japan that has not entered a total war with China, then the Allies won't care much. The only attitude they can take is a pox on both your houses.
3. This is all true. Japan should never have entered into WW2 at all, honestly since their plans were all balls out crazy and unrealistic in OTL and in this one.
Last edited:
SU used like 10% of its forces against Finland.
And keeping 1.3 million men poised against Japan was not dealing with "army in being"?
Possibly. But think about this: from May 1939 (start of Khalhin Gol and possible all-out war) till Barbarossa, USSR has 2 years to deal with Japan. I, for one, think they would have been able to kick Japan out of Manchuria during that time. In the process Red Army learns a lot about how to operate, and all of a sudden, Barbarossa has to deal with a much better trained Red Army, even if it is somewhat smaller.
QUOTE="Porkman, post: 20423172, member: 62340"
2.The Allies were terrified of the Soviets in the 30's and only Germany's successful belligerence changed that. In 1938, an anit soviet attitude was not a mortal sin for any nation vis a vis the western allies. If however the Soviet Union spends 1939 attacking Finland and Japan, especially a Japan that has not entered a total war with China, then the Allies won't care much. The only attitude they can take is a pox on both your houses.[/quote]
Until they have to enter the conflict, at which point USSR becomes a possible ally against Germany, and thus they could help USSR against Japan, so Red Army could focus on the Wehrmacht.
Towards the end of the winterwar Russia had according to this 998 100 soldiers, 6541 tanks and 3880 aircraft vs Finlands(Including Swedish volunteers) 340 000 soldiers, 32 tanks and 114 aircraft(Odds in Russian favor in 3:1 soldiers, a whooping 204:1 in tanks and a staggering 34:1 in aircraft!).
If Russia used 10% of its army in Finland that would mean Russia had an army of 9 981 000 soldiers, 65 410 tanks and 38 800 aircraft in march 1940... (I havent had my coffee yet so these figures might be a bit off, they do seem astonishing)
I think that both Germany and Japan are doomed if these are the numbers in "peace time" march 1940, Barbarossa would have been a complete disaster and Berlin taken by Russia in december 1941...
Last edited:
I'm saying if Japan has more troops than in OTL along the Manchurian border and that they are actively hostile, than the Soviets will probably have to put more than 1.3 million men. Just as Britain would have had to devote more forces to the Med if Italy had had another 3 battleships and a bunch more destroyers.
The issue isn't whether the Soviets would have won. Just that they would have to take troops from the West and send them East.
The Winter war used 10% of Soviet strength in 1939 or about a million men. 1.3 milion men for an invasion of Manchuria would be greater commitment over a longer distance. It's easier for the Japanese to supply Manchuria, especially on a defensive, than it is for the Soviets to supply the Russian Far East.
The Soviets would have to take resources from somewhere and send them East.
Possibly. But consider this.
The real August Storm was conducted by 1.5 million experienced Soviet troops against 700,000 (25 divisions) of weakened Japanese troops who had been stripped bare to fight in China and around the Pacific.
In 1939, absent a war in China, the Manchurian Army is 30 not 25 divisions and at much better readiness having more recent combat experience than the Soviets. It's also better equipped than it was in 1945 since it hasn't been stripped for parts and people to help other fronts.
The Soviets could probably still beat it, but they would have to use significantly more than the 1.5 million troops they used historically and their casualties would be higher and the campaign would take longer.
They wouldn't have the advanced equipment like T-34's that they did in 1945. They still would be a bit better than the Japanese equipment wise, but the disparity would not be as large. The Japanese would have more modern equipment than they did historically without the diversion to China and the Soviets would not have the benefit of the 6 years of experience and tank development post 1939.
Given that, even if the Soviets win, it's going to be a long and costly battle where they are attacking into defended terrain without the experience that the Winter War and Barbarossa gave them, fighting the exact kind of war that the Kwangtung Army has been preparing for since they took Manchuria in 1931. It would not be easy, nor would it be cheap.
Victory isn't free either. The occupation of Manchuria took 700,000 Soviets after victory. So that's 700,000 troops that have to stay + the casualties and destroyed equipment.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills that I have to argue so hard for the idea that the Soviet Union would have to devote more resources to an aggressive Japan than to one they had a Non agression pact with.
Do you you actually think that the Soviets would have to devote LESS resources to an aggressive Japan than in OTL?
I know that once attacked, the world would rally and help the Soviets. I just don't see them going out of their way to help the Soviets pre Barbarossa even if Japan is hostile.
- 2
I don't think there is really any circumstance where Japan invades the USSR instead of attacking the USA.
The entire point of the Japanese expansion was to fuel their economy with natural resources so they could continue on their path of being equal to the western powers and to remain competitive with them. Invading the USSR only makes sense if Japan is playing the long long long game and believes that at some point it will come into conflict with the USSR. Except, why would it? There isn't really any reason why this conflict occurs. The resources Japan needs are the colonial possessions of France, England and the USA. Not the USSR.
Putting off the invasion of Indochina, China, Philippines and the rest of SEA only accomplishes one thing. Japan industry dies that much sooner because it is engaging the USSR in a war for the sake of fighting a war with no tangible benefits to its economy in the short term. Simply put, invading the USSR would ensure that the ABC embargo brings Japan to its knees.
Japan attacked the USA, because it HAD to attack the USA. The USA, Britain, Australia and the Netherlands were waging economic war against Japan over the invasion of China, which Japan launched to resolve its resource crisis.
You have to understand the Japanese mentality at this time. They had this concept from the Meiji period of "Rich country, strong army". For Japan to be strong, and treated as an equal with the West, it had to be rich, so it could have a powerful military. Japan was resource poor, so they had to have a strong military to secure by force if needed the resources the nation needed to be rich, so that it could have a strong army.
Following the invasion of China, the US, Britain, Australia and Netherlands levied the ABC embargo against Japan which effectively starved it of all the raw materials it had been trading for. This in turn MANDATED that Japan would turn and attack those responsible for this attack on the "rich country". Japan from its point of view had no choice. It HAD to have a strong military to FORCE the western powers to treat it as an equal and to achieve this it HAD to be rich.
The USSR does not make Japan rich. South East Asia does. That's why Japan attacks the USA. That's why there is no realistic situation where Japan attacks the USSR. For Japan to survive as a military power, it had to expand, and the place to expand was into the colonial possessions of the USA, Britain, France and the Netherlands.
The entire point of the Japanese expansion was to fuel their economy with natural resources so they could continue on their path of being equal to the western powers and to remain competitive with them. Invading the USSR only makes sense if Japan is playing the long long long game and believes that at some point it will come into conflict with the USSR. Except, why would it? There isn't really any reason why this conflict occurs. The resources Japan needs are the colonial possessions of France, England and the USA. Not the USSR.
Putting off the invasion of Indochina, China, Philippines and the rest of SEA only accomplishes one thing. Japan industry dies that much sooner because it is engaging the USSR in a war for the sake of fighting a war with no tangible benefits to its economy in the short term. Simply put, invading the USSR would ensure that the ABC embargo brings Japan to its knees.
Japan attacked the USA, because it HAD to attack the USA. The USA, Britain, Australia and the Netherlands were waging economic war against Japan over the invasion of China, which Japan launched to resolve its resource crisis.
You have to understand the Japanese mentality at this time. They had this concept from the Meiji period of "Rich country, strong army". For Japan to be strong, and treated as an equal with the West, it had to be rich, so it could have a powerful military. Japan was resource poor, so they had to have a strong military to secure by force if needed the resources the nation needed to be rich, so that it could have a strong army.
Following the invasion of China, the US, Britain, Australia and Netherlands levied the ABC embargo against Japan which effectively starved it of all the raw materials it had been trading for. This in turn MANDATED that Japan would turn and attack those responsible for this attack on the "rich country". Japan from its point of view had no choice. It HAD to have a strong military to FORCE the western powers to treat it as an equal and to achieve this it HAD to be rich.
The USSR does not make Japan rich. South East Asia does. That's why Japan attacks the USA. That's why there is no realistic situation where Japan attacks the USSR. For Japan to survive as a military power, it had to expand, and the place to expand was into the colonial possessions of the USA, Britain, France and the Netherlands.
- 3