I think we can agree here. The whole speculation creaks and shakes at the ecomplete insanity of such actions. Japan pretty much shifted away from the northern strategy because they didn't want to fight a bloody war for little gain. They wanted to solve their resource problems.
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.
I can't understand why people don't get the situation they are discussing... Japan DON'T invade china in 1937, the moderate win, so they try to maintain the status quo on China, so no embargo, so no need to invade the western colony or the USA because they can trade for resources, so what is the next threat ? USSR, with all those skirmishes on the border, so japan can divert a part of the huge resources invested in shipbuilding in OTL to heavy equipment, i thinks this passage is logical, how can some disagree? now the huge problem is, how can germany and japan get together now that japan is not the bad boy of the east? maybe with the anti-commintern pact because for both USSR is a threat. but i not think japan will join axis( a situation like the finnish with a parallel war only vs the soviet with german collaboration becosue he doesn't want to get embargoed by the british or the USA) , anyways this meas that japan can devote his resources more on the army than in it did in OTL. so in this TL we have huge commitment of japan in manchuria so is logical to think that USSR move troops east, another question that is bothering me, now the M-R pact is reasonable? if yes we can have the URSS getting barbarossed in 41 alon with an attack on the manchurian border. the resoult is a double attack with no space for land lease and the necessity for the URSS to commit a lot of resuorces on the east and the west at the same time.
- 2
Could a reason for not "understanding" have to do with the "new Russia" banning a book from world famous and university educated English historians?
Could a reason for not "understanding" be a completely different world perspective?
Last edited:
- 1
I eel the exact same thing.
So far OK.
"Try" is the key word. A status quo only works if both sides want it.
And have an extemeley vulnerable economy with literally no resources.
If the Allies go to war with Gemrnay, the moment the weak and economically vulnerable Japan begins to show friendliness toward Germany, it will be slapped with an embargo which will completely cripple the economy. If Japan tries to enter the war, it will be destroyed within months by resource shortages and US bombardments.
Are you high?
The Japanese invaded China, signed the Tripartite Pact, and annexed Indochina from a Vichy France that Germany bullied on Japan's behalf and only then did the US finally embargo oil to Japan... in 1941. Seriously, you are putting the US tripwire far too soon.
Also, a more land oriented Japan would have less need for oil and could run on the prewar stockpiles longer.
- 1
Ad hominem.
Translation: the Allies reacted immediately after Japan took an action friendly to Germany (moving into south Indochina). China was accepted as it was Japan's separate war. Actions together with Germany were not.
A land oriented Japan would need far more oil and. Planes, Tanks and even trucks don't run on air. Which is why Germany, despite much higher Oil production an far less naval activity was short on oil. Now if the land oriented Japan has little motorised armor and airforce, then yes they would need less oil. But then they aren't going far in a war with USSR.
People simply buy too much of the "Japan has no resources, so Japan must conquer" narrative. In reality the Japanese resource exploitation was not that different from the late European colonization, and the South Manchuria Railway Company was pretty much a Japanese East/West India Company in China.
Before the Washington Naval Treaty, Japan almost went the 8-8 fleet program (8 battleships, 8 battlecruisers), and except the last 4 battlecruisers, all the rest were either completed, in construction, or had their budget allocated by the time of the signing of the treaty. That a total of 421,358 tons of standard displacement of capital ships when Japan didn't control Manchuria. Their maintenance would be financially crippling, but there's no material problem in constructing them. In comparison, Yamato's standard displacement was 65,000 tons.
Also Japanese full-on invasion of SEA only happened in late 1941 right before/after Pearl Harbor. If Japan was in dire need of resources French Indochina and Dutch East Indies would be occupied far earlier, but in reality Japan only took over Tonkin, the northmost part of French Indochina to block a supply route for China, out of the whole SEA until late 1941. This pretty much shows that "secure supply of oil & other resources in SEA" was less important than "blockading China" until late 1941.
As for why targeting the USSR, it's simple. USSR was seen as an expansionist power and it's right on Japan's footsteps, and it's considered a threat that might try to attack Japan, either out of ideology, revanchism or just because. It's the same reason why Japan maintained presence in the intervention of Russian Civil War even after the Whites have collapsed and all other powers withdrawn. It's not like there's any profit in the form of cash, resources or pride, but that the communists were perceived as the utmost threat to Japanese security. This hadn't changed in the view of many but that faction was purged in 1936.
Before the Washington Naval Treaty, Japan almost went the 8-8 fleet program (8 battleships, 8 battlecruisers), and except the last 4 battlecruisers, all the rest were either completed, in construction, or had their budget allocated by the time of the signing of the treaty. That a total of 421,358 tons of standard displacement of capital ships when Japan didn't control Manchuria. Their maintenance would be financially crippling, but there's no material problem in constructing them. In comparison, Yamato's standard displacement was 65,000 tons.
Also Japanese full-on invasion of SEA only happened in late 1941 right before/after Pearl Harbor. If Japan was in dire need of resources French Indochina and Dutch East Indies would be occupied far earlier, but in reality Japan only took over Tonkin, the northmost part of French Indochina to block a supply route for China, out of the whole SEA until late 1941. This pretty much shows that "secure supply of oil & other resources in SEA" was less important than "blockading China" until late 1941.
As for why targeting the USSR, it's simple. USSR was seen as an expansionist power and it's right on Japan's footsteps, and it's considered a threat that might try to attack Japan, either out of ideology, revanchism or just because. It's the same reason why Japan maintained presence in the intervention of Russian Civil War even after the Whites have collapsed and all other powers withdrawn. It's not like there's any profit in the form of cash, resources or pride, but that the communists were perceived as the utmost threat to Japanese security. This hadn't changed in the view of many but that faction was purged in 1936.
- 3
They signed the Tripartite PAct in 1940 which was avowedly friendly to Germany and Germany recognized Manchukuo in 1938 which was also a clear mark of German Japan friendship.
Basically, it took SEVERAL friendly actions between the two for the Allies to react. Not just one.
Also, this statement is predicated on the Allies being at war with Germany which the US wasn't until the end of 1941. So I fail to see how Japanese friendliness to Germany before the outbreak of the European war would somehow cause an embargo. Furthermore, it took several friendly moves by Japan during the time of the European war to bring a full embargo from the United States. It wasn't a hair trigger caused by one event as you are implying.
Nor was China "accepted." It was definitely causing a massive outcry in the US before the annexation and it was a definite strike against Japan regardless of what the Germans were doing. South Indochina was the final straw, but don't think the US was only thinking about Germany or that there wasn't a strong China lobby pushing for the US to take a stronger stance on Japan for the sake of China.
Porkman: Of course the notion that if you add to one side, you must substract from the other makes basic sense. But then again, here´s how i would handle it, in Stalin´s situation: When faced with the possibility of an invasion coming from both sides, where i can not ensure victory on both, i will try to hold one (east) with minimal forces with operations more designed to delay the enemy, rather than to stop of even defeat him, until i have at least stabilized the situation on the other side (west). Only when the later is achieved, will i be sending additional troops to the east trying to stabilize that front as well. If the Japans manage to advance even 50km a day, there is a lot of time before they can take anything substantial after vladivostok for quite a while (okay stretching it here, to get the point across)... and the further they get, the worse will their troops be supplied and the shorter will the ways be for my own reinforcements and supplies...
My point is, that by the time Germans start Barbarossa, SU would have already dealt with Japan, and could concentrate on Germany - with fewer men overall, but a lot more experience available. SU didn't lack men in 1941, it lacked experience waging a big war.
And by the time Germany executed Barbarossa, UK would have capitulated, and the seasoned airmen from BoB and the garrisons in the Occupation Zone of France will be free to be send to USSR.
It's just an assumption partly based on factors that were true IRL but not in this scenario.
Opanashc, I think I have asked you a couple of questions earlier in this thread, care to elaborate/answer? 
Edit, lol - Nevermind.
Edit, lol - Nevermind.
Last edited:
Mind asking them again?Opanashc, I think I have asked you a couple of questions earlier in this thread, care to elaborate/answer?
1. Japan started Khalhin Gol even while at war in China. Without war in China, they very possible could have escalated the conflict to a full-blown war.
2. Germany cannot start a war with USSR, until it deals with Poland and France - geography and politics, fear of a two-front war among German leadership. Thus, not until 1941 can Barbarossa start.
3. Germany has no fleet to invade the isles.
4. USSR has no fleet to invade Japan proper, hence it can only kick Japan off the mainland at best. My opinion - SU can push Japan out of Manchuria into Korea by Barbarossa.
5. USSR learns a lot of lessons conducting operations in Manchuria, and uses them during Barbarossa, inflicting greater casualties on Germany. Both sides have less soldiers available.
- 1
- 1
Then what I disagree is your opinion that USSR can defeat Japan in a year or two in this case, with various reasons stated in previous posts.
- 1
I was prepared to generally agree with you, but I stopped myself and looked at the kind of war the Soviets could expect against Japan in Manchuria during this time. Let me ask you this:
Would the Soviets have learned lessons useful to fighting the Germans in the west by fighting Japan? They certainly would have learned a lot, but fighting in Manchuria is a different animal than fighting in Poland and the Ukraine for a whole list of reasons.
Would the Soviets have learned more lessons applicable to defeating the Germans fighting Japan than they did fighting the Finns?
- 2
Did I say defeat? I said - push out of the Manchuria into Korea. SU had more and better tanks, artillery, more aircraft and all. In 2 years, SU did a lot against Germany.
Overall - yes. Troops that fought the Finns showed better results against Germans. SU would not gain experience in dealing with enemy tanks, but would gain useful experience in organizing its troops. In 1941 a lot of Red Army commanders did not know how to use radios to control their troops. War with Japan would change that. Combined arms operations would be given a boost - practice makes perfect. Red Army would be better prepared to FIGHT, not specifically the Wehrmacht, but in general. A lot of Germany's success in 1941 came from inexperience of the Red Army. German tank attacks would still pose the same problem, but with better coordination, Red Army would give Wehrmacht a harder time. Also, Barbarossa-day minus 1 would technically be "wartime" for SU, it's troops would be in a much higher state of alertness, then historically.
- 1
you mean the USSR start a preventive war on Japan?? when? and HOW? going offensive vs japan with the russian military in the late 30'? LOL i mean LOL, the usmarine with a shit load of material superiority and combat experience literally bleed themself vs japan. one thing is a divisional engagement who went meh for the commie on the border with less than 50k man involved one other is going offensive with a single railways as supply rout. never the less you are vs literally all the IJA, the IJN and the japan aviation at 100 km form their industrial zone, against on of the highest morale population of the world with an army got together with the NKVD. and if you attack befor danzing you are going to get all the freaking attention of the allies and probably you are going to get the german signing a non aggression pact with them, danzing from poland and a war agains SU with allies supplies. if you are going in after danzing when are you going to attack? after the the winter war? or no finalnd ? or you are going to move million of men east after the fall of france? in summer of the 40? with the german redeploing east? or winter 40-41? and you know you'll get bogged down in the east because is IMPOSSIBLE that the urss is going to win easy vs japan on the defensive with those troops and that leadership and those supply routes.
- 2
As I said above - Japan initiated Khalhin Gol while at war with China. Without war in China, it was very possible, that Japan would have inflated that into full-blown war. Thus, the start is in May 1939. Allies already guaranteed Polish independence and all. Allies want Soviet help against Germany - Wehrmacht is next door to them, while IJA is half the globe away. In fact, it is possible, that Allies sign on with USSR (since SU is even less demanding in that situation), and Berlin gets a 2-front war in 1939, against Paris and Moscow. Wehrmacht is divided, has MUCH less resources, gets beaten, and true horrors of WW2 never happen.
USMC had to invade islands and do head-on attacks, with no possibility of flanking the enemy. Manchuria offers enough space for flanking maneuvers.
- 1
- 1