so if Japan opted for USSR instead of US

[SchwarzKatze]

You are saying this, as if you know what I am thinking.

Because they don't have the experience to build good tanks. Look at US tanks, prior to Sherman.

Your surrender on the point has been counted.

And why would USSR split up? Deal with the East first, then worry about the west.

Hitler does not have the resources to attack USSR in 1939-40, while having France and UK on the continent. Besides, USSR was NOT running total war economy in 39-40, and could have stepped up its game, to deal with Japan.

Ramming the US Navy? Good one.

You did notice the word try, did you not? Or did you interpret my words as "Red Army turns Khalhin-Gol into August Storm, and kicks Japan off the mainland in 2 months"? Nice one, again.


And Canadians had 0 vested interest in fighting against Germany. Hence, their army was full of soldiers with questionable loyalty. Another nice one.

I counted 4.

Well if you weren't refuting hkrommel's claim that the embargo could be lifted by not invading China, then I don't know what you were saying. I supported his claim by presenting the Hull Note.

Japan could make artillery, armor plating, and engine, and put them together into a perfectly function war machines that made up the IJN. Beside interservice rivalry, I don't see why they couldn't make "adequate" tanks. And Lee-Grant didn't suck, it's not great, but it's adequate. Compared to tankettes with 12mm armor that can be spalled by Hanyang 88, it would be leaps and bounds better.

What is this? Mental victory? I asked for the exact type of the division you're coming up with, with two most possible scenarios addressed beforehand, I don't know how can you read that as a surrender. I may not be an English L1 but I'm confident that I'm not that poor.

You're assuming that everything can go down the dream plan, I didn't. It's the mistake found in Germany and Japan IRL that East Europe->France->UK->USSR and China->SEA->US could be done one at the time, but ended up in trainwrecks.

Same as above, Hitler could skip BoB and gave USSR a very small time window to focus on Japan.

Again, is my English skill so poor? I mean Japan could board any ship trying to breach the blockade, unless the ship attempted violent resistance.

You are the one making the assumption, I'm merely saying that this is not guarenteed to be as smooth as August Storm. And based on my previous arguments, if USSR can't win before French capitulation, then it'd be a very, very bad time for Stalin.

Umm, England wasn't overrun, and Canadians were almost all Anglo- or Franco-, the same ethnicity as the two biggest members of the Allies, and unlike Soviet Central Asia, there was no famine and unrest in Canada. If you want another example, try India: if the Hakenkreuz flies everywhere between London and York, would India remain steadfast or decide it's high time for independence?

 

[Opanashc]

Same as above, Hitler could skip BoB and gave USSR a very small time window to focus on Japan.

You do realize, that 0 ground troops were involved in BoB, right? That Germany started the preparations for invasion against SU, pretty much as soon as dust settled after Fall of France? That even if a miracle happens, and Germany starts Barbarossa in 1940, its going to be no earlier than September-October of 1940, with predictable results?
For some reason, you give Axis all these "extra powers", that come from nowhere, and reducing the powers of their opponents based on your thoughts, of how Axis could have won the war.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

You do realize, that 0 ground troops were involved in BoB, right? That Germany started the preparations for invasion against SU, pretty much as soon as dust settled after Fall of France? That even if a miracle happens, and Germany starts Barbarossa in 1940, its going to be no earlier than September-October of 1940, with predictable results?
For some reason, you give Axis all these "extra powers", that come from nowhere, and reducing the powers of their opponents based on your thoughts, of how Axis could have won the war.

Do not mistake no ground troops involved with little efforts. All the plane factories were consuming materials, logistics were delivering plane fuel, parts and ammunitions, tool shops were busy fixing planes. All the effort can go to somewhere else.

I have not give Japan any magic extra powers, I have stated where they come from: Manpower from not invading China, metal, technology and capacity from not trying to arm against the US, and oil by not pissing US off.

 

[Opanashc]

Do not mistake no ground troops involved with little efforts. All the plane factories were consuming materials, logistics were delivering plane fuel, parts and ammunitions, tool shops were busy fixing planes. All the effort can go to somewhere else.

That's like saying: "I can use my IKEA furniture factory to produce tanks". How does not using aircraft factories to full capacity help in production of munitions? You cannot make explosives out of aluminum, you know.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

That's like saying: "I can use my IKEA furniture factory to produce tanks".

How does not using aircraft factories to full capacity help in production of munitions? You cannot make explosives out of aluminum, you know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonal

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Do not mistake no ground troops involved with little efforts. All the plane factories were consuming materials, logistics were delivering plane fuel, parts and ammunitions, tool shops were busy fixing planes. All the effort can go to somewhere else.

I have not give Japan any magic extra powers, I have stated where they come from: Manpower from not invading China, metal, technology and capacity from not trying to arm against the US, and oil by not pissing US off.

By "not invading China" you mean "not invading China beyond Tsingtao and Manchuria" that were already under japanese control?

 

[Zinegata]

Anti-American bias aside (we did triumph in the Cold War, unless you've been living under a rock), peace with China means no more embargo since the rationale for the embargo was Japanese aggression in China. Also, a favorable opinion of a country doesn't mean you will go to war for them, not in America.

Lol you didn't "triumph" in the Cold War. And thinking there would be no embargo against Japan because they withdrew from China is wishful thinking. Again, America's main concern was Germany. Japan invading the Soviet Union in concert with the German kinda gives America an even bigger reason to go to embargo Japan.

The Japanese wanted to control the Pacific. Vladivostok was where the Soviet Pacific Fleet (more like the Pacific squadron) was based.

Which had exactly how many operational modern battleships and fleet carriers? It simply wasn't a big deal.

I really suggest you stop staring at the map so much and instead look at the actual forces available in the Soviet Pacific Fleet in comparison with the Japanese navy. Only two Soviet fleets really did any sterling work in the historical war, and neither of them were in the Pacific.

Based on what? Though by the end of 1941 US public opinion was in favor of war (against Germany, not Japan), they didn't have the congressional majority in favor of declaring war. It would take until 1944 to get that majority in the Senate, based on incumbent reelection rates and the demographics of isolationist-represented districts.

You're way overstating the Congressional problem given that the US eventually declared war unanimously in the Senate and with only one dissenting voice in Congress. Politics were not as partisan back then.

In OTL, yes, but if they had planned to invade the USSR (the basis for this entire thread, the foundational assumption here), they would have built more heavy equipment. They also had the Soviets outnumbered. Based on the numbers provided earlier in this thread of the average number of men in a Soviet division, 25,000, multiplied by the number of divisions the Soviets had on the Manchurian border in 1941, 34, you get 850,000 men. The IJA had 51 divisions and 1.7 million men. If they were planning to invade the Soviets they would have mobilized more (they had 5.5 million in 1945). That's a numerical advantage of 850,000 or 2:1.

I would really suggest you stop just blurting numbers without considering the equipment. Numbers of troops are less important than ammunition expenditures and gun tubes available. This is not the Napoleonic Wars.

And here we go again with the whole "they lied about the numbers" argument. Until you actually produce more credible figures, those figures stand. Otherwise how do we study anything at all? If you call everything into doubt then there's no way to do any analysis whatsoever!

Now you're being silly. I merely pointed out that the Japanese figures have never been re-examined; and that in previous cases the numbers have always been revised upwards.

Demanding that I present more accurate figures is silly. The point is that the figures you used are inaccurate to begin with; which means they should not be used at all.

More to the point your obsession with numbers again demonstrates why your methodology is so flawed. Casualties taken are only one part of the story. The bigger issue is how the battle shattered the IJA's confidence about its ability to face a Soviet mechanized force. One side was handing out medals and awards after the battle. The other side was essentially routed. Is it really important that 50 years after the battle you used two incompatible sets of figures to claim that the Japanese actually had a better kill ratio? The kill ratio was meaningless to begin with; always has been.

 

[Zinegata]

You mean why invade the USSR as Japan?

Japan joined the anti-Comintern pact being deeply opposed against communism and the USSR while the soviets sent supplies to communiss in China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_border_conflicts#Soviet_involvement_in_China
Japan historically was opposed even to Imperial Russia as they had conflicting interests in the area which resulted in the 1905 war.
The soviet maritime province and their part of Sachalin would have been the perfect candidates for Japans perimeter around the home islands as the martime province and Wladiwostok are even closer to Japan than Manchuria

Between WW1 and WW2 the japanese military already was in Siberia as part of the allied intervention against the Bolshewiks, so they know the area and infrastructure and points of military interest from firsthand experience of a newer date (until 1922) than Germany knows european Russia from WW1.

You're confusing excuses to start a war with a good, strategic reason to start a war.

Japan went South because there was oil there. Without that oil the Japanese economy collapses. That is a strategic reason for going South.

If they go north they get Siberian wasteland. It has oil, but the deposits hadn't been discovered at this point and there were no facilities or rigs to exploit them.

So again, exactly why should Japan invade Russia? There is a difference between picking a fight because you want to and picking a fight because it's the smart thing to do. Previous hostility, existing alliances, and long time rivalry are reasons for picking a fight. The fact Siberia had no oil when you desperately needed it is why it's not smart to pick a fight there.

It would keep the lend lease away too - but once blockading the USSR it means going hostile and then it would mean a very long border to defend including the mongolian-manchurian and soviet-manchurian border. Invading the martime province would shorten that line drastically and at least for that part of the war the japanese navy would be able to support the armies advance in part 1 of that plan
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Hokushin-ron-Map.svg

And with the Hokushin-ron plans Japan actually did consider to invade the USSR which was a favourite plan of the army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokushin-ron

Even Yamamoto adviced to not go to war with the US and that happened regardless of his advice only because Japan saw no other way to aquire needed oil after the US, UK and the Netherlands together joined the oil embargo against Japan.

Not necessarily. Japan imposed conditions on the Lend-Lease supplies through Vladivostok - namely it should be of non-military nature that the Allies mostly honored. Outright closing the route would not necessarily have led to the Soviets launching an offensive in response; if anything the slack would have to be picked up by the USN who must now provide escorts for the Russia-bound convoys - right when they were desperately short of ships..

Yes, but that happened only after japanese troops moved into southern Indochina in 1940
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War#Oil_embargo_.28Sino-Japanese_War.29
which was necessary only if Japan would have adopted the Hokushu Nanshin Ron plan (defend in the north, advance to the south).

America's main concern however was Germany, and Japan attacking the Soviet Union in concert with Germany will just get it embargo'd just as badly and harshly.

Doesnt´t every government lie when it´s about losses it´s forces suffered while the war is going on?

Yep, but the IJA figures were never reexamined like the Soviet losses were. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison; much like most of the pointless kill-ratio "analysis" on the Internet.

 

[Loke]

Lol you didn't "triumph" in the Cold War.

I would really suggest you stop just blurting numbers without considering the equipment. Numbers of troops are less important than ammunition expenditures and gun tubes available. This is not the Napoleonic Wars..

#1 The west won the Cold War vs the east and it ended with the dissolution of Russia/Soviet..

#2 Considering numbers AND quality, Khalkin Gol proves that outnumbered and with outdated equipment the Japanese managed to take out alot more Russian soldiers, tanks and aircraft than they lost themselves. So what would have happened with more up-to-date Japanese equipment and with odds 1:1?

I do not think it would have ended so good for the Russians.

 

[Zinegata]

#1 The west won the Cold War vs the east and it ended with the dissolution of Russia/Soviet..

The West did not "win" the Cold War because it was never a war to begin with. It's false triumphalism.

The Soviet Union collapsed by itself and there is still the successor state known as Russia that is still the world's second largest nuclear power.

It was not a struggle between East and West as often claimed. It was a marathon, with the Soviet Union stumbling in the 90s and getting back up again to keep on running.

#2 Considering numbers AND quality, Khalkin Gol proves that outnumbered and with outdated equipment the Japanese managed to take out alot more Russian soldiers, tanks and aircraft than they lost themselves. So what would have happened with more up-to-date Japanese equipment and with odds 1:1?

I do not think it would have ended so good for the Russians.

Again, when you're using Japanese casualty figures at face value for kill ratios it's completely meaningless. If they were really thrashed the Soviets so badly then why were they completely routed? You don't get routed if you give as good as you got. The fact that they got routed and an entire Division surrounded demonstrates the deep level of anti-Soviet revisionism in the kill count crowd.

And even with up to date equipment you're talking about 75mm artillery pieces against Soviet 122mm ones. Again, stop with the troop comparisons. Count how many artillery pieces the Japanese could have built and supplied, because artillery is the prime killer and determinant of victory. The Soviets had way more artillery pieces than the Germans in 1941 but the Germans fired way more ammunition; hence predictably the Soviets suffered more casualties.

 

[D Inqu]

#2 Considering numbers AND quality, Khalkin Gol proves that outnumbered and with outdated equipment the Japanese managed to take out alot more Russian soldiers, tanks and aircraft than they lost themselves. So what would have happened with more up-to-date Japanese equipment and with odds 1:1?

False on all 3 counts.
1. The Japanese were not outnumbered until August (in a conflict which started in mid-May). They enjoyed numerical superiority during May and June, and ever more or less matched during July. The Soviets had to deal with the nearest supply base being all the way in Chita and could simply not bring a large force without a few months preparation
2. The Japanese equipment was not "outdated". The Japanese aircraft were in fact far more modern, using Ki-27 fighters at the time the soviets were using I-15 biplanes, only changing to the somewhat "modern" I-16 in July.
3. Both sides suffered more or less equal casualties of around 10k killed/missing. The smaller number of Japanese total casualties is achieved by all the typical "eastern front" number magic tricks, such as not including non-combat casualties (when around 2k of the Soviet total casualties included treated illnesses), "forgetting" the prisoners, "forgetting" Manchuko auxiliaries.

The net result however was fairly conclusive. The Japanese lost one division (23rd) annihilated, one more (7th) badly mauled, and several smaller units, including a significant amount of materiel. The battle ended Ueda's, Yasuoka's and Komatsubara's careers.

I do not think it would have ended so good for the Russians.

The Japanese understood very well how much worse for them the outcome would be if they tried to attack forces which were well supplied, dug in and in more defensible terrain.

 

[Loke]

#1 Yes, the west won the cold war vs the east, Russia collapsed and now has an economy about the size of Canada.

#2 Look at them numbers one more time, really, its seems like a tactical Japanese victory at Kalkin Gol. The Japanese were outnumbered in every aspect, still they managed to win losses ratio.

 

[Zinegata]

#1 Yes, the west won the cold war vs the east, Russia collapsed and now has an economy about the size of Canada.

The West won nothing. Fox News and other populist outlets just likes pandering to the Boomer crowd and give them an "achievement" to compare with their parent's actual defeat of Nazi Germany.

There's no American flag that ever flew over Moscow. Eastern Europe became NATO allies but that's because Gorbachev allowed them to leave the Pact.

Oh and Russia's still the world's 6th-10th largest economy depending on who you ask. Again, not as if the country vanished and was a complete ruin like Nazi Germany in 1945.

By the way, I find it funny that you try to lord this false triumphalism on me as though I cared for Russia in any real way. It looks just like the Russians who make fun of the Murica crowd.

#2 Look at them numbers one more time, really, its seems like a tactical Japanese victory at Kalkin Gol. The Japanese were outnumbered in every aspect, still they managed to win losses ratio.

You missed the above post didn't you, especially the bits where Japan cheated in the counting of your perennially inaccurate kill ratios?

 

[Loke]

This is my personal opinion based on Kalkin Gol numbers/facts available online, based on them I think the outcome if Japan opted for Russia instead of the Us would not have been so negative for Japan.

(That GDI-list is from 2014 I guess Russia has fallen a bit further, maybe Russia is closer to South Korea in 2015? Anyway GDI-per capita is more interesting.)

 

[Zinegata]

This is my personal opinion based on Kalkin Gol numbers/facts available online, based on them I think the outcome if Japan opted for Russia instead of the Us would not have been so negative for Japan.

(That GDI-list is from 2014 I guess Russia has fallen a bit further, maybe Russia is closer to South Korea in 2015? Anyway GDI-per capita is more interesting.)

I'll let someone else do the "Wikipedia is not a source" route and instead show this bit in your article:

At 05:45 on 20 August 1939, Soviet artillery and 557 aircraft[38] attacked Japanese positions, the first fighter–bomber offensive in Soviet Air Force history.[49] Approximately 50,000 Soviet and Mongolian soldiers of the57th Special Corps defended the east bank of the Khalkhyn Gol. Three infantry divisions and a tank brigade crossed the river, supported by massed artillery and the Soviet Air Force. Once the Japanese were pinned down by the attack of Soviet center units, Soviet armored units swept around the flanks and attacked the Japanese in the rear, achieving a classic double envelopment. When the Soviet wings linked up at Nomonhan village on 25 August, the Japanese 23rd Infantry Division was trapped.[23][50][51] On 26 August, a Japanese counterattack to relieve the 23rd Division failed. On 27 August, the 23rd Division attempted to break out of the encirclement, but also failed. When the surrounded forces refused to surrender, they were again hit with artillery and air attacks. By 31 August, Japanese forces on the Mongolian side of the border were destroyed, leaving remnants of the 23rd Division on the Manchurian side. The Soviets had achieved their objective.[52]

Emphasis mine. The Japanese forces are described as "trapped", "failed", "failed", and then "destroyed". The Soviets meanwhile achieved their objectives.

Sure the Japanese totally won. That's why Zhukov got medals while all the Japanese commanders got sacked.

Also, regarding casualties...

According to the records of the Bureau 6A hospital, the Japanese casualties amounted to 7,696 killed, 8,647 wounded, 1,021 missing, and 2,350 sick, for a total of 19,714 personnel losses,

Your supposed figure of 19K Japanese casualties were from one hospital only. And based on another source in the Wiki the Soviets captured at least 3,000 Japanese... so why are there only 1,000 missing here?

Again, as I have been saying, your casualty figures are based on nonsense.

By the way, did I mention the Japanese were the ones defending here and still got routed anyway?

 

[Loke]

Yes, Wikipedia is in fact a source, speaking of sources, do you have any sources to back your text....?

 

[Zinegata]

Yes, Wikipedia is in fact a source, speaking of sources, do you have any sources to back your text....?

You didn't even read your own link did you? Because everything I quoted was from the wikipedia text you linked.

 

[Caesar15]

You didn't even read your own link did you? Because everything I quoted was from the wikipedia text you linked.

Snap

 

[Loke]

Nonono... Im not talking about your Wikiquote.

Again, as I have been saying, your casualty figures are based on nonsense.

Its not my figures its Wikis but where do your statistics come from? as you say - Wikis numbers based on nonsense, source for that?

 

[Zinegata]

Its not my figures its Wikis but where do your statistics ome from as you say - Wikis numbers based on nonsense, source for that?

Oh how cute. You think wordplay will save you. Fine, let's pretend you didn't make the embarrassing mistake of not recognizing quotes from your own link.

I do not need to show sources, because I am repudiating YOUR source. This is why I showed snippets from YOUR link. And again, the Wikipedia article said specifically that your casualty figures in fact came from only one hospital:

According to the records of the Bureau 6A hospital

Hence the casualty figures are not complete.

In addition, your wikipedia article led to this link

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcentury/articles/nomonhan.aspx

Which says "The Soviets took some 3,000 Japanese prisoners, many badly wounded.". In comparison, the 6A hospital report in the wiki says there were only 1,021 missing. How can the wiki say 1,000 missing when the source it links to claims the Soviets captured 3,000 prisoners?

Hence, your figures are nonsense. They are inconsistent even within the article itself. And it's really apparent that you never bothered to read them carefully.

Thus, your demand for a source and feigned ignorance of this does not change the fact that your "source" has been debunked even though I gave it a free pass for being Wikipedia.

Oh and I accept your concession that the wikipedia article in fact says the Japanese forces were completely defeated and the Soviets achieved their objective by your failure to address it. Or that you have in effect conceded to D Inqi's post as well due to a failure to address it too.

See, I actually know when someone's trying to avoid certain topics that they haven't actually addressed.