If Japan have attacked Russia and not the Usa?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#106

Post by Jon G. » 28 Dec 2007, 14:15

How about adding some facts to the discussion, colchekov19? I'm not interested in freeloading opinion-making. Did Germany offer half of Russia on a silver platter to Japan? If you think they did, please provide a source. If they did not, please explain why they would. Japan was not privy to Hitler's plans for attacking the Soviet Union.

colchekov19
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 24 Dec 2007, 05:35
Location: US

#107

Post by colchekov19 » 28 Dec 2007, 14:18

dude this is a what if situation


Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#108

Post by Jon G. » 28 Dec 2007, 14:31

That doesn't mean that facts are unwelcome.

Unsourced opinions do not make any of us any smarter. What-Ifs are not free for all scenarios where you can throw out anything that comes to mind. You can claim that Germany would have offered half of Russia to Japan, I could claim that they wouldn't - and apart from a little wasted bandwidth and a little wasted time nobody would be any smarter.

That is why posters in this and other sections attempt to add facts to their arguments. Opinions on their own account for nothing, they explain nothing, and they do not further the discussion in any way. Not even in the What-If section: try to abide by the What-If posting guidelines http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 271#695271 particularly these parts:
...The What If’s need to be a plausible variation on actual military/political events occurring up to the end of 1985 or viable alternatives in their conception. This is a vital pre-requisite to any What If thread, if they do not meet this requirement they will locked or removed.
...
don’t just ask the question but give us the benefit of your viewpoint and information to back up your argument, as this helps to put the question into context...

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

#109

Post by LWD » 28 Dec 2007, 16:44

colchekov19 wrote:....as for the LL churchil must have prodded FDR to extend the LL to USSR ....
Churchill was signigicantly more anti-comunist or at leas anti-Soviet than FDR was. Indeed a number of FDRs closes advisors (possibly including his wife) were definitly sympathetic to toward communism.

webmill
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 18 Mar 2007, 23:09
Location: Palm Beach Gardens. Florida

Re: If Japan have attacked Russia and not the Usa?

#110

Post by webmill » 05 Jul 2009, 21:25

Barkhorn wrote:I was thinking about this possibility. If the Japanese empire has attacked the URSS in the East...
As a What If discussion should cover all angles of the What If question, I would put forward that as the Russian spy Sorge informed the Kremlin in 1941 that Japan would not attack Russia, Stalin still needs to back up this conclusion by Sorge so that it has a strong belief to the point of a close as possible to a confirmed belief for Stalin and his Generals necessary for action such transfering the Siberian divisions West to Moscow as soon as possible ...while the Trans-Siberian railway is intact with locomotives and railway among other considerations. The Japanese Air force threat to the Russian locomotives is potential to the Russians but not believable as high amount of damage perpertrated by Japanese warplanes to the rail system, I would speculate. Did the Russians conclude that Japanese bombs will miss? although the Japanese divebomber did not when the Pacific War started?

Russian reconnaissance by Air would ask what Japanese airfields except for longer range flights for a Japanese Air strike from Korea. How can the Japanese warplanes find a Russian rail transport if it moves out at night?



Therefore the Soviet-Japanese Nuetrality Pact of April 13,1941 should hold for the Russians to preclude or stop a Japanese infantry-tank team push north to cut the Trans Siberian railway..the legal requirement of the Pact was to be in effect for 5 years.

Its possible that the Japanese at the time would consider a Japanese Army offensive against the Soviet Union with the limited purpose of cutting the TransSiberian rail and occupying or sieging Vladivostok, however this alerts the USA and as a reaction and consequence can, prediction is that it will, put the USA into full mobilization in June 1941. Specifically that would mean RADARs for Pearl Harbor that are not shut down and the US aircraft carrier on patrol South of Pearl for an immediate counter Air move versus any Japanese Naval air attack.

Why wouldn't Great Britain not lend the US in June/July 1941, after the Battle of Britain is over, some limited squadrons of the highly effective Spitfire for US Navy and Air Force use while the British Airforce uses P-39/40s and B-17s instead for the British transfer to USA Spitfire loss.And why not a number of British submarines for Pearl harbor patrol and early warning. British assistance In time for a June/July 1941 Japanese surprise attack on Pearl?, However, a soon Japanese Naval Air strike on Pearl Naval base is not likely, Japanese hesitation here can cause delays but has important reasons to not launch the surprise attack too early on the USA

For the Japanese strategic planning completely defeating the US Navy is the highest priority, if this is not done all other military moves are lost or irrelevant and subject to reprisal.

Webmill

User avatar
cortodanzigese
Banned
Posts: 235
Joined: 03 Jul 2009, 15:29
Location: Danzig

Re: If Japan have attacked Russia and not the Usa?

#111

Post by cortodanzigese » 06 Jul 2009, 00:14

I think that this discussion is excellent, howewer we lost some general geopolitical and ideological ramifications.

First of all Germany and Japan are tied in for good, since they represent ideological systems unacceptable to the west and their goals are also unacceptable for all other players.

A)That's becouse these two countries were latecomers on the world stage - and thus a source of problem for earlier powers. The world was already divided, Russia, Britain, America all carved out their spheres of influence and reacted very agressively when someone was trying to do the same (recall global hystery when Kaiser Wilhelm tried to build his own navy or when Japan carved out tiny Manchuria - what was Manchuria compared to british stealing of India!). They were not welcomed.

B)in 1940s The Japan and Germany are nation-states with patriotic ideology based on "one nation and his sacred soil". Russia, UK and USA are multinational entities rooted in freemasonic ideology. Freemasons are Britain's elite since 1640, USA's all state symbolic is freemasonic - just look at plan of Washington (I don't want to enter the subject here, is has been discussed million times since 1789 so please let's discuss this in other thread). Soviet Communism is also rooted in freemasonic ideology and as we know the "revolution" was financed partly by US banks (Kuhn&Loeb etc). The main characteristics of freemasonic ideology is hatred toward any form of patriotism, national feelings etc and promoting some cloudy "eternal peace" under guidance of invisible lodges.

Thus freemasonic ideology contradicts nationalism and nationalism was the moving force behind Germany and Japan.

The nationalism was the credo of german and japanese elites, and the freemasonic beliefs in various, peculiar forms were credo of The Big Three.

Despite some minor bickering, note that these three powers were always cooperating in fundamental issues and were always on the same side in first half of XXth century.

The conclusion is that these two powers (UK, USA and USSR) would turn into one coalition sooner or later, becouse its ruling circles shared similarities. The feelings toward USSR in 1930s America was warm and actions of hollywood film industry, media rulers, and Roosevelt's circle proves that - they all praised that "brave new experiment".

The anglosaxon elites were clearly showing contempt toward Japan and germany and very murky attitude toward USSR at best (western intellectuals as a whole bowed behind Stalin's "paradise"). And even in times of cold war western propaganda always showed Soviets as an adversary but not as avatar of all evils. On the contrary Germany in movies and films and games is always the ultimate evil... nationalist bastards who cannot be reasoned, in a contrary to misguided but not completely hopeless soviets - but that is also matter for another discussion.

That's why Japan in my opinion comitted suicide in 1941. Japan had chance to eliminate one of three potential enemies who were all hostile toward her strategic goals. Japan instead helped another of her enemies - the USA to enter the war and by that brought doom upon her ally the Germany. And when Soviets had done away with Germany they threw their knife into Japan - proving all the time they were part of same camp - the camp of internationalism.

It doens't really matter how Japan's performance against Soviet Union would look like - it is a different matter. On the grand strategy scale attacking USSR was only logical option cause Japan's fate was tied with Deutschland's fate. Japanese Empire couldn't exist in world dominated by internationalist countries anyway, so regardless of how the military campaign would look - the dooming of USSR was only hope for Japan and Germany to just exist. Cause only with that artificial entity erased from the globe, they could force Anglosaxon powers to recognize their demands.

If Japan chose to attack Soviet Union the war would probably end like WWI - with a stalemate that means, not the total defeat of Axis nor with decisive victory of the Allies, becouse US entry would be inevitably prolonged (like in 1917).

Surely the attack on SU would not help Roosevelt bring USA into the War, the Americans wouldn't have Pearl Harbour motivation (rather vietnam motivation), the Germans would have smaller soviet forces to deal with, and the Japanese would succeed in a limit way or not at all, but the outcome of WWII would be in all dimensions different - that means it wouldn't be a total triumph of internationalist clique - only partial at best.

User avatar
princeliberty10311517
Member
Posts: 621
Joined: 05 Jun 2009, 22:26
Location: Alexandria Virginia - DC area

Re:

#112

Post by princeliberty10311517 » 06 Jul 2009, 03:51

Tim Smith wrote:All the Japanese could realistically do against Russia is take over Kamchatka (the USSR's coastal regions in the Far East) and maybe Mongolia. They don't have the troops or the tanks to do anything else, since a large part of their army would tied up in China.

That would not be enough to knock the USSR out of the war, even with the German invasion as well.

The Siberian troops would remain in the east instead of being sent to fight the Germans. But the Siberians were not used to defend Moscow - they were used only to counterattack the Germans in the winter offensive of 1941-42. So the Russians could hold Moscow in 1941 even without the Siberians, but the Germans would be in a better position to attack Moscow again in summer 1942 if they chose.

The USA would not enter the war as a result of Japan invading Russia, but would impose a full trade embargo if they hadn't done so already. Also the US would still send Lend-Lease aid to Russia, which the Japanese would not like one bit if they were at war with Russia.

But a lot depends on whether the Japanese still attack the British and Dutch or not while attacking Russia as well. If they do the US are bound to declare war on them eventually, probably in late 1942.

I don't think that this would be enough to win the war for the Axis, although they would be better off than they were historically.
And the lend lease that got to the Soviet Union from the Pacific would have never reached Russia and that would have been important.

And prehaps starting closer to Moscow in 1942 means Hitler pulls the trigger on the great battle for Moscow in 1942 which could not only have captured Moscow but destroyed huge amounts of the Red Army which would be desperate to save Moscow.

If Moscow falls, then the principle lend lease from the north can't reach the industrial zones of Russia and remains stuck in port waiting for the Germans to capture the now strategiclly cut off ports.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

Re: If Japan have attacked Russia and not the Usa?

#113

Post by Tim Smith » 06 Jul 2009, 12:55

The principal Lend-Lease route was neither Vladivostok in the Pacific nor Murmansk in the Arctic.

It was via British and Soviet occupied Persia (Iran). Which was far out of the logistical reach of both the German and Japanese armies, and far out of range of their air forces.

User avatar
princeliberty10311517
Member
Posts: 621
Joined: 05 Jun 2009, 22:26
Location: Alexandria Virginia - DC area

Re: If Japan have attacked Russia and not the Usa?

#114

Post by princeliberty10311517 » 07 Jul 2009, 01:06

Tim Smith wrote:The principal Lend-Lease route was neither Vladivostok in the Pacific nor Murmansk in the Arctic.

It was via British and Soviet occupied Persia (Iran). Which was far out of the logistical reach of both the German and Japanese armies, and far out of range of their air forces.
Actually most that went thru Baku not the Central Asia.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

Re: If Japan have attacked Russia and not the Usa?

#115

Post by Jon G. » 07 Jul 2009, 07:57

Your geo-political masonic theories I have absolutely no time for. That means I can basically skip 95% of your post. But I still have a few questions to raise:
cortodanzigese wrote:...First of all Germany and Japan are tied in for good, since they represent ideological systems unacceptable to the west and their goals are also unacceptable for all other players...
If Japan represents an 'ideological system' which is unacceptable to the West, how could Japan be allied to the Entente powers during WW1? And how could Shiang-Kai Shek, Japan's main adversary in the 1930s, have ties to Nazi Germany until Japan finally settled for an alliance with Germany? It wasn't ideology (or masonry, heaven forbid) which gradually alienated Japan to the west. It was Japan's aggression in China.
... And even in times of cold war western propaganda always showed Soviets as an adversary but not as avatar of all evils. On the contrary Germany in movies and films and games is always the ultimate evil... nationalist bastards who cannot be reasoned, in a contrary to misguided but not completely hopeless soviets - but that is also matter for another discussion...
Plain rubbish.
...That's why Japan in my opinion comitted suicide in 1941. Japan had chance to eliminate one of three potential enemies who were all hostile toward her strategic goals.
If you mean that Japan had a chance to eliminate the USSR in 1941, how does the Khalkin Gol experience fit into this view? Specifically, and also re your point about powers always sticking together due to similarities between their ruling circles, how do you think the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact affected Japan's actions? I am also curious about your view of Japan's strategic goals - you make reference to them several times, but you are not being very specific.

User avatar
cortodanzigese
Banned
Posts: 235
Joined: 03 Jul 2009, 15:29
Location: Danzig

Re: If Japan have attacked Russia and not the Usa?

#116

Post by cortodanzigese » 07 Jul 2009, 12:25

Dear Jon G., sorry I have negatively dazzled you, howewer, here how I see it:
If Japan represents an 'ideological system' which is unacceptable to the West, how could Japan be allied to the Entente powers during WW1? And how could Shiang-Kai Shek, Japan's main adversary in the 1930s, have ties to Nazi Germany until Japan finally settled for an alliance with Germany? It wasn't ideology (or masonry, heaven forbid) which gradually alienated Japan to the west. It was Japan's aggression in China.
I've never knew that Chiang had ties to the Nazis!

The Japan was rather loosely tied with the Entente if I recall she just sold munitions to Russia and occupied german colonies. She was nominally an ally of the West, but immediately in 1919-1921 the western nations began to contain her race for mineral resources.

The whole "ideological issue" I meant, was rather 1930s polarized atmosphere, not the whole 1900-1950 period, sorry for the misconception.

Howewer it was Japan's success that gave birth to so called "yellow peril" on the west. The yellow peril was a flood of pulp fiction, scientific works and politicians' speeches how the evil Asians will conquer white race. So the opinion of the western elites were rather that Japan is a danger, and that opinion formed after Japan crushed Russia in 1905. The "yellow peril" is rather a big issue, so I wouldn't discuss this in this thread.

If you mean that Japan had a chance to eliminate the USSR in 1941, how does the Khalkin Gol experience fit into this view? Specifically, and also re your point about powers always sticking together due to similarities between their ruling circles, how do you think the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact affected Japan's actions? I am also curious about your view of Japan's strategic goals - you make reference to them several times, but you are not being very specific.
I would compare Khalkin Gol to finnish Winter War. Assuming on the performance of the soviets during the winter war you would never suspect they will crush Third Reich, do you?

Japan had a chance to eliminate the USSR in 1941, becouse her entry into the barbarossa would tie in so much soviet division that the Germans would have a lot of easier way. I mean: Japan would perform miserably or with limited success, but the USSR would be eliminated by war on two fronts. Instead of 2:1 soviet advantage on the eastern front, in men, tanks and planes, the soviet advantage against germans would be 1.5:1 at best.

We don't know how it would play out, but japanese entry would surely made chances of destroying USSR a lot bigger.

As to Japan's strategic goals: I recommend reading the works of Ikki Kita He was a guru of japanese officers and zaibatsu directors (he wasn't the only one - there were dozens like him, but he was most popular). Tanaka Memorial was a forgery, as we know today, but Ikki's works are good reading and gave an insight into japan's elite world view.

Ribbentrop-Molotov... you have me for now... I must reconsider this for some time :idea:

Best, Corto

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: If Japan have attacked Russia and not the Usa?

#117

Post by LWD » 07 Jul 2009, 13:50

cortodanzigese wrote: ...
Japan had a chance to eliminate the USSR in 1941, becouse her entry into the barbarossa would tie in so much soviet division that the Germans would have a lot of easier way. I mean: Japan would perform miserably or with limited success, but the USSR would be eliminated by war on two fronts. Instead of 2:1 soviet advantage on the eastern front, in men, tanks and planes, the soviet advantage against germans would be 1.5:1 at best....
That's not at all clear. It's been posted how many divisions the Soviets left in the East. Looked like more than enough to contain the Japanese to me.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: If Japan have attacked Russia and not the Usa?

#118

Post by Ironmachine » 07 Jul 2009, 14:04

cortodanzigese wrote:I've never knew that Chiang had ties to the Nazis!
Take a look here, for example:
http://www.feldgrau.com/articles.php?ID=11
cortodanzigese wrote:I would compare Khalkin Gol to finnish Winter War. Assuming on the performance of the soviets during the winter war you would never suspect they will crush Third Reich, do you?
Funny example. Following the logic of your comparison, I would say that assuming on the performance of the Japanese during Khalkin Gol you would never suspect they could have crushed the Soviet Union...
Japan had a chance to eliminate the USSR in 1941, becouse her entry into the barbarossa would tie in so much soviet division that the Germans would have a lot of easier way. I mean: Japan would perform miserably or with limited success, but the USSR would be eliminated by war on two fronts. Instead of 2:1 soviet advantage on the eastern front, in men, tanks and planes, the soviet advantage against germans would be 1.5:1 at best.
We don't know how it would play out, but japanese entry would surely made chances of destroying USSR a lot bigger.
Well, obviously a Japanese second front against the Soviet Union would have made no harm to the Germans, but I'm far from sure that it would be enough to give them a victory. As have been pointed in this thread, the Siberians troops were not employed in the west till the winter offensive of 1941-42, so if the Soviets manage to resist or defeat the Japanese with the troops already there they would still had the same numerical advantage on the Russo-German front. On the other hand, there are a number of possible strategies that they could employ, for example withdrawing in front of the Japanese troops; was the Japanese logistical system good enough to sustain such a campaign? Could the Soviets in this way send west in 1941-1942 the same number of troops that they sent historically while at the same time stopping the Japanese with what was left? Even at the worst moments of the German invasion the Soviets maintained a significant Soviet military force defending the frontier against the Japanese (I think there is a thread about that somewhere in this forum)...
What-ifs are very complex questions, so I don't think that you can so simply say "surely"... :)
.

User avatar
cortodanzigese
Banned
Posts: 235
Joined: 03 Jul 2009, 15:29
Location: Danzig

Re: If Japan have attacked Russia and not the Usa?

#119

Post by cortodanzigese » 07 Jul 2009, 14:15

But all those divisions Japan sent against Anglosaxons along with airplanes gave them a trouble. So you think that Soviet Army would just crush this force in few months, while the millions of Americans needed few years for that?

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: If Japan have attacked Russia and not the Usa?

#120

Post by LWD » 07 Jul 2009, 17:38

cortodanzigese wrote:But all those divisions Japan sent against Anglosaxons along with airplanes gave them a trouble. So you think that Soviet Army would just crush this force in few months, while the millions of Americans needed few years for that?
The situation is so different that this analogy just doesn't work.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”