Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Huszar666
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 18 Dec 2021 14:02
Location: Budakeszi

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Huszar666 » 25 Jun 2022 17:47

21st Rifle Division (transferred to 7th Army facing the Finns in Sept 1941)
26th Rifle Division (transferred to 11th Army in Northwestern Front in Sept 1941)
32nd Rifle Division (transferred to Stavka Reserve 4th Army in Sept 1941)
78th Rifle Division (transferred to Western Front in Oct 1941)
413th Rifle Division (transferred to 50th Army in Bryansk Front in Oct 1941)
239th Rifle Division (transferred to 10th Army in Nov 1941)
Thank you, I truly must have overlooked them. I would like to note, however, that the 413rd was a war-raised divisision.
But the list would mean, that only 4 out of 17 rifle divisions were transfered to the West, leaving 13.
From the "fast divisions" these were in the Far Eastern Front 1941:
- 58th Tank Division to the West in October
- 59th Tank Division to the West in June
- 69th Tank Division (strangely, no mention found on the eng or rus wiki about it, probably an error on Niehorster's part, since he shows a 69th motorised Division too, and that went to the West in July)
- 239th motorised Division to the West in November
- 8th Cavalry Division to the West in February 1943

That would mean, the soviets still had 13 rifle, and one Cavalry division in the Far Eastern Front, plus 11 Fortified regions, probably up to 4 Rifle Brigades and odds and Ends.
if we count the Transbaikal MD too:
65th RD was sent West in October and fought at Thikvin
93rd RD in October to Moscow
114th RD in July to the Urals, in October against the Finns
57th TD was en route to the West in June
82nd motRD to the West in October (Moscow)

94th RD never left the East
61st TD never left the East
36th motRD never left the East
57th motRD never left the East


By far enough to thwart any possible Japanese excursion in Late 1941 (much more, than the 10-12 Divisions, the Japanese sent to conquer the South would not be in the North either), and we are not even speaking about a "2nd Phase" in late 1942 - since not much (if any) Japanese troops would be there to invade the SU...
Not counting other soviet units that could be (or were) raised locally.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3601
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Takao » 25 Jun 2022 18:43

ljadw wrote:
25 Jun 2022 05:55
From Wiki :
'' However,since the beginning of 1939,the Soviet Union's aviation volunteer team in China had been inactive.
Which is wrong.

The Soviet volunteers were active throughout 1939.
http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/sino-japanese-1939.htm

ljadw wrote:
25 Jun 2022 05:55
It was withdrawn in batches in 1940.By the beginning of 1941,the Soviet Union had withdrawn all its volunteer teams . ''
Odd, you said
and his pilots ( whose activities were mainly propaganda ) were withdrawn in 1939 .
Now, which one is it 1940 or 1939?

I am going to guess you were WRONG when you said 1939.

ljadw wrote:
25 Jun 2022 05:55
The Soviet volunteer teams were withdrawn,because Stalin 's opinion was that China was not worth the risk of a war with Japan
Wrong. The pilots were withdrawn due to a falling out between the Peanut & Stalin. As Stalin was winding things down, the American's stepped in to take his place.

ljadw wrote:
25 Jun 2022 05:55
And I did not say that these teams were in China for propaganda. I said that their activities were mainly propaganda .
Proof please. You have provided none.

ljadw wrote:
25 Jun 2022 05:55
About the Germans : it is not needed to be paid in money,to make money .
Germany had to sell weapons to foreign states,because its domestic market was too small : the more weapons you can sell,the lower the average production price .If Lockheed could only produce for the US Air Force,its aircraft would cost too much .
Proof that the 50,000 Mausers supplied to the Chinese perceptibly
Lowered the cost of making them

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5586
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by glenn239 » 25 Jun 2022 19:34

ljadw wrote:
25 Jun 2022 16:11
Thee is no proof for your claim that the Soviets were afraid of a two front war and there is also no proof that a war with Japan would result in a war with Germany .When there was border fighting between Japan and the USSR ,Hitler did not attack the Soviets .
The only certain thing we know is that the USSR attacked Japan immediately after defeating Germany.
Besides : it would be suicidal for Japan attack the SU, because Hitler would do nothing and Japan could not defend herself against the US,if it attacked the Soviets .
If Japan had attacked the USSR in 1942 it may well have been the case that the USSR would have still managed to win on both its eastern and western front. But in that case, Japan's defeat in Manchuria would have been no more suicidal than the BEF's defeat in France in 1940, for the simple reason that Japan itself was an island. Since the Red Army would not be able to invade other than at perhaps Hokkaido, the Japanese would have plenty of time to think about how they were going to surrender to the United States - long before US forces were even in position to bomb the Home Islands.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 5011
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by OpanaPointer » 25 Jun 2022 20:21

Peter89 wrote:
25 Jun 2022 16:55
So essentially Japanese chances boiled down to the swift capture of the Hawaii Islands.
The Japanese Ar.my would never go for that. They wanted the "Southern Resources Area" to support their ongoing FUBAR in China.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13091
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 25 Jun 2022 20:30

Post hoc does not mean ergo hoc.
A Japanese defeat in Manchuria does not mean that the USSR would invade Japan,even if it could do it .
A Japanese victory in Manchuria is not a gain for Japan : it is the opposite :China would continue the war and Japan could not conquer the DEI and the Philippines .
Before 1941 Japan had no oil problems and did not start a war against the USSR .
Why should Japan start a war against the US to have oil and wast this oil to attack the Soviets ?
Besides : time was running against Japan :the Soviets and the US were becoming stronger everyday .The Soviets were no threat for Japan ( there is no proof that after PH Stalin decided to attack Japan at the first moment he could do it ),there were no problems between both countries that were worth to start a war .After PH the border fighting between Japan and the Soviets ceased and both countries started/continued a lucrative trade .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13091
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 25 Jun 2022 20:40

The best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight was the choice they made :war with US .
There was no need for war with the Soviets and defeat of the Soviets would not help Japan .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13091
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 25 Jun 2022 20:53

No one can convince me that it would be a good choice for Japan to start a war with the Soviets after having started a war with the US ,while the chance of winning him was non existent .

Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 2041
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:17
Location: Israel

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Von Schadewald » 25 Jun 2022 22:20

What would likely have been the results after 30 days and 90 days of the Japanese dropping all their other matters, and launching an all-out Hachi-Go type assault against the USSR on the same day as Barbarossa: 22 June 1941?

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokushin-ron
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Von Schadewald on 25 Jun 2022 22:47, edited 1 time in total.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5586
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by glenn239 » 25 Jun 2022 22:38

OpanaPointer wrote:
25 Jun 2022 20:21
The Japanese Ar.my would never go for that. They wanted the "Southern Resources Area" to support their ongoing FUBAR in China.
Topic is best Japanese strategy with hindsight.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5586
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by glenn239 » 25 Jun 2022 22:47

Von Schadewald wrote:
25 Jun 2022 22:20
What would likely have been the result of the Japanese dropping all their other matters, and launching an all-out Hachi-Go type assault against the USSR on the same day as Barbarossa: 22 June 1941?
Any assault on the USSR would require months to move forces elsewhere to the front, but taking your question at immediate face value, attacking the USSR in June 1941 would cancel the occupation of Southern Indochina in July 1941. Since many IJA formations in China would be needed in the north, Tokyo could attempt to negotiate with Washington on the basis of gradual withdrawals to the 1937 lines. It might even be the case that the Japanese could offer to withdraw from northern Indochina. The Japanese would have an oil reserve of 6 million tons, and would need to reckon with the possibility of an oil embargo. Their navy would have to reduce its training and maneuvers in order to stretch this resource as far as possible. They'd also want to start switch cargo ships back to coal fired bunkers.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 5011
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by OpanaPointer » 26 Jun 2022 02:27

Let's ask the Japanese.http://ibiblio.org/pha/monos/
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13091
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 26 Jun 2022 06:02

Von Schadewald wrote:
25 Jun 2022 22:20
What would likely have been the results after 30 days and 90 days of the Japanese dropping all their other matters, and launching an all-out Hachi-Go type assault against the USSR on the same day as Barbarossa: 22 June 1941?

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokushin-ron
This assumes that they knew that Barbarossa would start on June 22 1941 .The fact is that Hitler explicitly ordered not to inform them about Barbarossa .

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Peter89 » 26 Jun 2022 07:54

ljadw wrote:
26 Jun 2022 06:02
Von Schadewald wrote:
25 Jun 2022 22:20
What would likely have been the results after 30 days and 90 days of the Japanese dropping all their other matters, and launching an all-out Hachi-Go type assault against the USSR on the same day as Barbarossa: 22 June 1941?

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokushin-ron
This assumes that they knew that Barbarossa would start on June 22 1941 .The fact is that Hitler explicitly ordered not to inform them about Barbarossa .
June 1941 would be the worst date for Japan to attack the SU. The Soviet Far Eastern forces gradually weakened between June 1941 and June 1942 and most likely the Japanese would lose against the Soviets in June 1941. It is also questionable how much impact could the Japanese have on the German operations in the SU.

Cutting the pacific LL route would probably damage the Soviet-Allied efforts more.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13091
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 26 Jun 2022 08:06

Cutting the pacific LL route before PH could result in war with the US already before PH, something Japan tried to avoid or war with the Soviets if the IJN attacked Russian merchant vessels .
A Lusitania in the pacific LL route would not be good for Japan .

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Peter89 » 26 Jun 2022 08:34

Cutting the LL route after PH was logical and didn't need further explanation. The Soviets had no power to defeat the Japanese before 1944, by the time the war was already lost for the Axis. On top of this Japan would benefit from the extra strain on Allied shipping, escorts, etc.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

Return to “What if”