Also remeber that tokyo was against a war escalation at that time and forbid the JAAF to bombard enemy base and locked all the other division in manchuria on site on the fear of an escalation, on the other hand USSR wanted to have a win vs the japanese so they managed to build a huge force redeploying all the force needed from other front, so calling an example to how the conflict wuold have gone is Not that good imho. And remeber for all who are supporting an easy victory for the USSR is that for nearly 60 k troops zhukov used from various source from 4K (lol) to 20K trucks to supply them for a month for a single counter attack becouse the supply depot was 600 km away so you think that more than 1 milion man could have been supplied well? A full commitment from both side would have been a bloody war and not a easy one, for none. I'm supporting the japanese intervention in 41, so after the board incident they realise they need more trucks, more tank, bett AT, at least with their 47 mm, more planes like OTL, but instead of naval building they go for land equiment. They don't catch up with the soviets in term of quantity but for quality the gape is reduced, maybe they can lay down more railroads and build up more supplies, in 41 we ahve also the last purge trail who eliminate all the major official of the east, so... How is gonna end the engagment witha full commitment of japan leadership and armed force with the red army in the shapes it was? Imho we wuold have had a slower and bloodier invasion compared to the west but the objective are way easier to achive, vladivostock, kurily and karafuto, in days or weeks, and after that a full commitment in mongolia with the objective of the baikal region, an objective that wuold have been way harder to achive for supplies issue, also becouse the soviets wuold have way less supplies issue shortening the distance to their inner base, the bigger what if is that the JAAF is able to achive full air superiority, tha the east for the soviet is lost. They baikal front maybe is holdable, i don't know how the slviet leaderships is gonna react, the true threat is the west , but a major loss even in the east could compromise stalin and his enturage. From a war effort point of view we have land lease cut in half or more becouse the persian corridory is active from 1942, nearly a milion and half man that consume supplies at combat rate instead of garrison rate, so they need ammunition, tank, trucks, food, artillery pieces, and manpower, you can still neglet to send there newer tank but if so you have not a huge equimpent advantage on the japanese, no t-34, it means that the 47 mm at gun can do his job and if the JAAF has air superiority the single railways in gonna get smashed multiple times, so a loss in the east is imho fairly possible. The question now is, that would ahve changed barbarossa? The ost of the land lease, the inability to recruit the same amount of men from the civilian economy, rhe manpower usage on the east, the supplies consumption increased for a the east army group where enough to compromise the battle of Moscow( i think that germany wuoldn't have conquered moskow anywqys) , or more plausable the ability of the soviets to lunch the winter counteroffensive ( more plausible imho)? Without a comuter offensive maybe we can have a full commitment on leningrad, falled the city, AGN can redeploy to the center or push to north anc close archangels lend lease, after that we have moskow than can be surrounded, with the railways hub of moskow isolated, the south is in trouble, and by 1942 fall we have the inabilty from the urss to lunch any major counter offensive and i think is we can think of the USSR capitualtion imminent.
