so if Japan opted for USSR instead of US

[SchwarzKatze]

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.

That's not defeat? That's steamrolling. And you based your assumption that IJA would have only their historical equipment where the focuses/foci was the navy and light weaponry that can be easily transported deep in China and on jungle covered islands.

 

[Opanashc]

That's not defeat? That's steamrolling. And you based your assumption that IJA would have only their historical equipment where the focuses/foci was the navy and light weaponry that can be easily transported deep in China and on jungle covered islands.

Did USSR steamroll Germany in 1943-44? Nope. Yet in that time, against a MUCH better armed opponent (vis-a-vis Red Army) Moscow took back territory that was much larger then Manchuria.

 

[Guaro90]

you know that the soviet got stalled for all the winter vs the Finnish outnumbering them almost 4 to 1 and having more than 4000 tanks and 3880 aircraft involved vs less than 100 tank and 40 aircraft in 1940 ? so you think that they will push out the IJA , of more than 1 million man with the morale over the roof, angry as fuck with probably a lot more heavy equipment that in our OTL,with all the IJN and all the land based aviation? madness utterly madness, you have ONE railroad that have to "ship" supplies for more than 5000 km just to get from the ural s to Ulan-Udè, becouse right now all the industrial base is in european russia. remeber also that stalin stopped the finnish invasion because UK and France literally threatened him to enter the war alongside the finnish, so you think that a full scale invasion of japan ( now they have done nothing) wouldn't have any repercussion? imho the US is gonna sell th shit load of material to japan vs the commies. and remember that in this TL japan want to get rid of the soviets with germany so no solo campaign vs them in any kind of escalation.

 

[Guaro90]

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.

Red army going with flanking maneuvers in 1938 at army level?

 

[D Inqu]

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.

The pact was nevertheless just apiece of paper. It wasn't an action, like taking south Indochina was.

Basically, it took SEVERAL friendly actions between the two for the Allies to react.

I still see just one real action was all it has taken for the allies and US to react.

Also, this statement is predicated on the Allies being at war with Germany which the US wasn't until the end of 1941.

The US was fully commited to war to Germany by early of 1941. Hence why the LL agreement was signed in early 1941, the security zone was established in West Atlantic, and the US was forming a dozens of new divisions.

 

[Loke]

you know that the soviet got stalled for all the winter vs the Finnish outnumbering them almost 4 to 1 and having more than 4000 tanks and 3880 aircraft involved vs less than 100 tank and 40 aircraft in 1940 ? so you think that they will push out the IJA , of more than 1 million man with the morale over the roof, angry as fuck with probably a lot more heavy equipment that in our OTL,with all the IJN and all the land based aviation? madness utterly madness, you have ONE railroad that have to "ship" supplies for more than 5000 km just to get from the ural s to Ulan-Udè, becouse right now all the industrial base is in european russia. remeber also that stalin stopped the finnish invasion because UK and France literally threatened him to enter the war alongside the finnish, so you think that a full scale invasion of japan ( now they have done nothing) wouldn't have any repercussion? imho the US is gonna sell th shit load of material to japan vs the commies. and remember that in this TL japan want to get rid of the soviets with germany so no solo campaign vs them in any kind of escalation.

Looking closer to the Russian invasion of Finland, the Russians really do look like noobs at warfare.
Towards the end of the winterwar the odds in Russian favor was 3:1 in soldiers, a whooping 204:1 in tanks and a staggering 34:1 in aircraft!

Considering these numbers and the Russian failure to a quick victory - they would not be able to break the IJA.

 

[Opanashc]

you know that the soviet got stalled for all the winter vs the Finnish outnumbering them almost 4 to 1 and having more than 4000 tanks and 3880 aircraft involved vs less than 100 tank and 40 aircraft in 1940 ? so you think that they will push out the IJA , of more than 1 million man with the morale over the roof, angry as fuck with probably a lot more heavy equipment that in our OTL,with all the IJN and all the land based aviation? madness utterly madness, you have ONE railroad that have to "ship" supplies for more than 5000 km just to get from the ural s to Ulan-Udè, becouse right now all the industrial base is in european russia. remeber also that stalin stopped the finnish invasion because UK and France literally threatened him to enter the war alongside the finnish, so you think that a full scale invasion of japan ( now they have done nothing) wouldn't have any repercussion? imho the US is gonna sell th shit load of material to japan vs the commies. and remember that in this TL japan want to get rid of the soviets with germany so no solo campaign vs them in any kind of escalation.

Stalled for 2 months, in a theater very much suited for defense, with 0 maneuver room, in face of defenses prepared since early 1920s. Finns had high morale too, you know.
In Manchuria things were quite different. After all, Red Army crushed Japan at Khalhin Gol. Now scale it up. I am not saying it would be a cakewalk, but you are giving Red Army too little credit. You are one of those, who believe Wehrmacht would have stalled before Moscow, even if Red Army wasn't present? Because your posts imply that you are.

 

[Loke]

Stalled for 2 months, in a theater very much suited for defense, with 0 maneuver room, in face of defenses prepared since early 1920s. Finns had high morale too, you know.
In Manchuria things were quite different. After all, Red Army crushed Japan at Khalhin Gol. Now scale it up. I am not saying it would be a cakewalk, but you are giving Red Army too little credit. You are one of those, who believe Wehrmacht would have stalled before Moscow, even if Red Army wasn't present? Because your posts imply that you are.

At Khalkin Gol Russia lost alot more than Japan...

 

[Guaro90]

USSR
61,860-73,961man[nb 1]
498-550 tanks
385-450 armored cars[4][5]
809 aircraft[6]
500[7]-634[2] artillery pieces
4,000 trucks[8]
JAPAN
30,000[9][10]-38,000man[11]
73 tanks[5]
64 tankettes
250 aircraft[11]
~300 artillery pieces[2]
700 trucks[12]
Casualties and losses
Manpower:
27,880[nb 2]
556[14]-990[2]
Equipment:
208 aircraft[15]
253 tanks destroyed or crippled[16]
133 armored cars destroyed
96 mortars and artillery
49 tractors and prime movers
652 trucks and other motor vehicles[13][14]
Manpower:
17,000-20,000
2,895[nb 3]
Equipment:
162 aircraft[15]
42 tanks destroyed or crippled[5]
Many tankettes destroyed

so this a crushing victory? outnumbering the enemy 2-1 ?? with 8:1 tank and 3:1 aircraft? and getting almost double the loss? on a single engagmente by a retarded general without tokyo approval? LEL about the german invasion i think the would have stalled anyways, way befor if the were vs an organized red army, with that logistic preparation

 

[Opanashc]

Question - of the losses suffered, how many were dead/wounded? Because, according to sources, SU lost less then 10,000 dead and missing, to Japanese 17,000.
If you know of military operations, you would know, that during an offensive, the attacking side suffers higher casualties (things like training and equipment being equal) until it gets into the enemy's rear, and starts wrecking havoc on the support troops. No such thing happened at Khalhin Gol.

 

[Dark Jakkaru]

Japan did have an opportunity and was offensively positioned to remove Soviet threat from the Kuril Islands and Manchuria with sufficient forces to do so. This is largely true up until the disasters of '43 started the switch to the defense and hemorrhaging veteran forces from Manchuria and Korea to other sectors. Now, the actions which enabled Japan to make such a Pact to the Soviet Union quite obviously was due to the way Germany had done so with the Soviet Union which was against the wishes of Japan when they signed the Anti-Commitern Pact.

So the real question thus becomes, if Germany did not sign a non-Aggression Pact with the Soviet Union, would Japan have taken the opportunity to plan their offenses to coincide with the Axis attack on 22 June 1941? After all, it was wise on the Soviet's part to extend the non-Aggression Pact to Japan. The Soviet Union benefited immensely from this arrangement having sufficient forces to counter attack in Moscow and Stalingrad in particular with Moscow being more famously known than for Stalingrad. Though I would add on numerous occasions post-Stalingrad were Far-Eastern units moved to the West to maintain Operational momentum when needed. So it is only until 44 does the posture of the Soviet Union change from a primarily defensive arrangement in the East to slowly rebuilding forces and planning for a spectacular Offensive Operation (that lasts 7 days)!

 

[SchwarzKatze]

A Russian article on the revision of statistics in Khalkhin Gol, Google Translated.

It put the irrecoverable losses of both sides on similar level. Temporary losses were incomparable as the two sides probably had very different standards. AFAIK a soldier that is out of action for at least one day due to medical situations is counted as a sanitary loss. I don't know the Japanese standards but probably a lot stricter, as a report stateed that out of 8,800 wounded, 1,700 were able to return to their ranks.

It also shows that Japanese statsitics were quite consistent no matter if they came from Kwantung Army, military hospital, government or the press, probably due to the new PM Abe (unrelated to the current PM) using the true numbers to slam the outgoing PM Hiranuma (father of a current MP) and dismiss several generals of the Kwantung Army.

Meanwhile the post-Soviet statistics came from an archive raider, and apparently the number still fluctuate from person to person, though they all show that it's not a one sided battle the USSR claimed.

 

[Garmorn]

Why would Japan not use the division of Poland to get aid from the US. I mean "Look the USSR is just as bad as Germany. Why not help us destroy the Communist." While it might not have gotten the US as ally it would go a long way in keeping the US neutral in the war between them and the USSR. Japan could even as for US to help mediate a permanent cease fire between China and Japan.

It would position Japan as a possible member of the allies, after all the USSR had declare war on an member of the Allies (Poland). This would change the political and economic situation to favor Japan to the extent that Lease/Lend might have gone to Japan instead of USSR.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

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.

That does not particularly surprise me, and I'm sure there were others who shared his view. The issue is that they seem to have been a minority in a system that did not share that view. For one, according to Kaigun, the Navy General Staff was anti-treaty dominated after 1929. The treaty issue is in general quite interesting for alt-history though. For example what if Japan would have gotten their doctrinal 70% ratio at Washington and had managed retain USN as a frenemy of sorts?

While I was re-reading on that, I found interesting point on the focus on USSR in general. I had forgotten that the army had accepted USA as the most likely enemy, at least officially (and grudgingly).

"Once again, the Imperial Defence Policy (in it's 1923 revision - AM) proved a source more of contention than of coordination between the two services. The navy gained a significant victory in the designation of the United States as the most likely hypothetical enemy, defense against whom should be the nation's highest priority. But the navy could not prevent wording in the policy's annual operational plan, inserted at the army's insistence, that considered the possibility of war against two or possily even three enemies at once. A heated controversy thus erupted that a series of high-level negotiations failed to resolve, and not until 1933 did the two services agree on a one-enemy-at-a-time formula for operational planning."

 

[SchwarzKatze]

That does not particularly surprise me, and I'm sure there were others who shared his view. The issue is that they seem to have been a minority in a system that did not share that view. For one, according to Kaigun, the Navy General Staff was anti-treaty dominated after 1929. The treaty issue is in general quite interesting for alt-history though. For example what if Japan would have gotten their doctrinal 70% ratio at Washington and had managed retain USN as a frenemy of sorts?

While I was re-reading on that, I found interesting point on the focus on USSR in general. I had forgotten that the army had accepted USA as the most likely enemy, at least officially (and grudgingly).

"Once again, the Imperial Defence Policy (in it's 1923 revision - AM) proved a source more of contention than of coordination between the two services. The navy gained a significant victory in the designation of the United States as the most likely hypothetical enemy, defense against whom should be the nation's highest priority. But the navy could not prevent wording in the policy's annual operational plan, inserted at the army's insistence, that considered the possibility of war against two or possily even three enemies at once. A heated controversy thus erupted that a series of high-level negotiations failed to resolve, and not until 1933 did the two services agree on a one-enemy-at-a-time formula for operational planning."

I just looked up the Japanese demands/proposals for the Second London Naval Conference, and it seems that the government then was not serious anymore. Not only did Japan sought full parity (for everyone, but it's not that France or Italy would be able to fill their quota anyway), it also called for, the abolishment of, or a massive reduction in, "offensive vessels" including capital ships, carriers and heavy cruisers in order to preserve peace by removing offensive capability, and a restriction on the total tonnage of the remaining combat vessels (CL, DD, SS) at 350,000 tons. There were some more realistic numbers like "no more than 6 BB with 14" guns max, no more than 3 carriers with 20,000 tons max", though the references all end up in some Japanese books that I have no way to find.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Yeah I doubt anyone considered those calls for parity (first brought up in 1934 in preliminary talks, by this time the civilian government seems to have been convinced by the anti-treaty faction) as anything more than convenient way to exit the treaty system. The calls for reduction in "offensive" warships were probably intended to provide propaganda material for domestic consumption. I.e. by allowing the navy and the Japanese state to be portrayed as willing participants to naval disarmament who were forced away by unreasonable imperialists.

 

[hkrommel]

Meanwhile the post-Soviet statistics came from an archive raider, and apparently the number still fluctuate from person to person, though they all show that it's not a one sided battle the USSR claimed.

It's astounding the Soviets did as poorly as they did with their enormous advantages.

Approximately 2:1 manpower advantage
Approximately 7:1 tank advantage
Approximately 7:1 armored car/tankette advantage
Approximately 3:1 aircraft advantage
Approximately 2:1 artillery advantage
Approximately 6:1 truck advantage

...and they still had roughly equal losses, with much greater equipment losses (253 tanks destroyed or irrecoverably damaged vs. 42 tanks destroyed or irrecoverably damaged).

Honestly I'm surprised the myth that Khalkhin Gol remotely resembled a success for the USSR persisted this long.

 

[Loke]

It's astounding the Soviets did as poorly as they did with their enormous advantages.

Approximately 2:1 manpower advantage
Approximately 7:1 tank advantage
Approximately 7:1 armored car/tankette advantage
Approximately 3:1 aircraft advantage
Approximately 2:1 artillery advantage
Approximately 6:1 truck advantage

...and they still had roughly equal losses, with much greater equipment losses (253 tanks destroyed or irrecoverably damaged vs. 42 tanks destroyed or irrecoverably damaged).

Honestly I'm surprised the myth that Khalkhin Gol remotely resembled a success for the USSR persisted this long.

I agree, there are many myths and things that should be looked into more. Another interesting one is the Prokhorovka tankbattle in 12th july 1943 that has til recent years been considered a massive Russian victory. Today modern research shows the opposite, almost like - Germany used the Russian tanks as target practice on a shooting range.

 

[D Inqu]

It's astounding the Soviets did as poorly as they did with their enormous advantages.
...and they still had roughly equal losses, with much greater equipment losses (253 tanks destroyed or irrecoverably damaged vs. 42 tanks destroyed or irrecoverably damaged).
Honestly I'm surprised the myth that Khalkhin Gol remotely resembled a success for the USSR persisted this long.

No that just shows how weird wikipedia numbers can become to propagate the "russian hordes" myth. The Japanese had a massive numerical and equipment advantage at the start of the conflict, which they maintained for over a month. It was only in August that the Soviets obtained superiority.
"Greater equipment losses" are also cherry-picking fantasy. The Japanese lost far more equipment, with the 23rd division encircled and annihilated, and other units so badly mauled they were no longer capable of combat.

 

[D Inqu]

I agree, there are many myths and things that should be looked into more. Another interesting one is the Prokhorovka tankbattle in 12th july 1943 that has til recent years been considered a massive Russian victory. Today modern research shows the opposite, almost like - Germany used the Russian tanks as target practice on a shooting range.

The Soviet description of the battle was pure fantasy as was the German commanders' description. The Soviets glossed over their significant armor losses, the German reports gloss over the fact that after the "target practice", the 2nd SS Panzer Corps had less than 150 operational AFVs left (with 600 operation a week earlier, and nearly 300 a day earlier) and has simply run out of armor to keep up the offensive.