Japan delays Pearl Harbor, attacks USSR during the high point of Barbarossa

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Japan delays Pearl Harbor, attacks USSR during the high point of Barbarossa

Post by Takao » 30 Oct 2019 20:59

OpanaPointer wrote:
30 Oct 2019 20:11
The Japanese did declare war on the US first.

" The United States would take a LOT more than just the occupation of the NEI by the Japanese to go to war, no matter what the USN and Roosevelt wanted."

Twice in 1941 FDR's entire cabinet stated that they believed he could get a declaration of war against Japan through Congress if the British and/or Dutch colonies were attacked by the Japanese.
True, but FDR was less sure of the outcome in 1940, and he said so. He even speculated that even if the Philippines were attacked in 1940, he might not get a DoW.

If Japan was going in, it had to be mid-40.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5607
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Japan delays Pearl Harbor, attacks USSR during the high point of Barbarossa

Post by OpanaPointer » 30 Oct 2019 21:14

FDR was always behind public opinion.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: Japan delays Pearl Harbor, attacks USSR during the high point of Barbarossa

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 31 Oct 2019 08:59

I haven't read all the thread- too many participants are on my ignore list.

But re the OP's question, there's a couple distinct analytical points:

(1) The historical feasibility of Japan attacking USSR in 1941.
(2) The likely outcome of such an attack, should it have happened.

Re (1) I don't see a large window for arguing it was feasible - i.e. that given different contingent personality profiles of Japanese/German leadership, it would have happened. Japan's interest in helping Germany win against the USSR was too small, and Japan's direct interest in Siberian acquisitions too small, for this to happen feasibly. Among the Japanese cabinet, only the rabidly anti-communist Matsuoka favored the course. Anti-communism wasn't at the top of the list of driving factors for Japanese society generally or for the elites who actually ran the government.

HOWEVER, there is an arguably feasible ATL in which Hitler had focused his efforts on convincing the Japanese to join his cause by conditioning defensive alliance guarantees upon Japanese participation in Soviet war. Had Hitler recognized that he couldn't defeat the Soviets alone, while also recognizing that he needed to defeat the USSR, he might have refused the broad guarantees of the Tripartite Pact until the Japanese joined the Anti-USSR crusade. In that ATL, Japan would have known that (1) it needed to fight the USSR with Germany or else fight the USA alone and (2) it could not fight the USA alone. For this constellation to have occurred probably requires more trust in German assurances than existed historically in Japan (for good reason, obviously). However, if Japan were convinced of Hitler's commitment to a fight against the USA then it would have greater reason to rely on Germany's promise of future assistance in such fight as a matter of Germany's national goals rather than as a matter of trust.

...that brings me to (2) - how would things have gone in this ATL?
IMO the Japanese would not have scored dramatic victories in Siberia but neither would have the SU. As other posters have pointed out, Japan reinforced the Kwantung Army in anticipation of this fight while the SU denuded Siberia of its best forces (even if leaving these forces numerically and superficially strong). A very strong Japanese army against a very weak Soviet army probably means a stalemate. But Japan doesn't need a land victory to render Vladivostok and Komsomolsk useless as ports; SU doesn't have much incentive to drive on Harbin - let alone Seoul - as an alternative to resisting the Ostheer. So I'd predict something of a stalemate in Siberia.

I'd also predict, however, that the failure of Kwantung Army to achieve rapid success would suck in Japanese resources throughout 41/42, causing perhaps an earlier Japanese mobilization of its economy for war and almost certainly the withdrawal of further forces from China. It would likely also prevent a Japanese move against French Indochina during 1941, which might mean less intense U.S. sanctions against Japan (politically it's harder to embargo oil over anti-communist warfare than against French/Vietnamese people).

If those predictions are correct, then the anti-Pearl voices in the IJN and Army likely prevail as Japan seeks a decision in the North, causing the Southern strategy to be delayed or shelved at least through the first half of 1942. The rates of shipbuilding still allowed Japan a reasonable window to challenge the USN in the Pacific through the first half of 1943.

The impact on SU of a Japanese attack would be severe. As another poster noted, even high-placed officials privately confided that the SU was cooked if Japan moved against it. One of the more interesting - and difficult to document - questions of WW2 is how close to collapse the SU was during 41-42; I tend towards the opinion that it was on a razor's edge. Starvation-related deaths were rampant in 42-43 even in the Urals and Central Asia; Japanese involvement means a ~50% cut to Lend Lease, especially in food aid flowing through Vladivostok. There's no way to say for certain, or even from hard evidence, but my sense is that the SU probably would have collapsed during 1942 given Japanese involvement, greater starvation, and more territorial and battlefield losses as a result of having to fight two fronts.

As is hopefully clear from this post, however, this is a tentative conclusion and I'm open to other arguments.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1015
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: Japan delays Pearl Harbor, attacks USSR during the high point of Barbarossa

Post by pugsville » 31 Oct 2019 09:21

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
31 Oct 2019 08:59
I haven't read all the thread- too many participants are on my ignore list.

But re the OP's question, there's a couple distinct analytical points:

(1) The historical feasibility of Japan attacking USSR in 1941.
(2) The likely outcome of such an attack, should it have happened.

Re (1) I don't see a large window for arguing it was feasible - i.e. that given different contingent personality profiles of Japanese/German leadership, it would have happened. Japan's interest in helping Germany win against the USSR was too small, and Japan's direct interest in Siberian acquisitions too small, for this to happen feasibly. Among the Japanese cabinet, only the rabidly anti-communist Matsuoka favored the course. Anti-communism wasn't at the top of the list of driving factors for Japanese society generally or for the elites who actually ran the government.

HOWEVER, there is an arguably feasible ATL in which Hitler had focused his efforts on convincing the Japanese to join his cause by conditioning defensive alliance guarantees upon Japanese participation in Soviet war. Had Hitler recognized that he couldn't defeat the Soviets alone, while also recognizing that he needed to defeat the USSR, he might have refused the broad guarantees of the Tripartite Pact until the Japanese joined the Anti-USSR crusade. In that ATL, Japan would have known that (1) it needed to fight the USSR with Germany or else fight the USA alone and (2) it could not fight the USA alone. For this constellation to have occurred probably requires more trust in German assurances than existed historically in Japan (for good reason, obviously). However, if Japan were convinced of Hitler's commitment to a fight against the USA then it would have greater reason to rely on Germany's promise of future assistance in such fight as a matter of Germany's national goals rather than as a matter of trust.

...that brings me to (2) - how would things have gone in this ATL?
IMO the Japanese would not have scored dramatic victories in Siberia but neither would have the SU. As other posters have pointed out, Japan reinforced the Kwantung Army in anticipation of this fight while the SU denuded Siberia of its best forces (even if leaving these forces numerically and superficially strong). A very strong Japanese army against a very weak Soviet army probably means a stalemate. But Japan doesn't need a land victory to render Vladivostok and Komsomolsk useless as ports; SU doesn't have much incentive to drive on Harbin - let alone Seoul - as an alternative to resisting the Ostheer. So I'd predict something of a stalemate in Siberia.

I'd also predict, however, that the failure of Kwantung Army to achieve rapid success would suck in Japanese resources throughout 41/42, causing perhaps an earlier Japanese mobilization of its economy for war and almost certainly the withdrawal of further forces from China. It would likely also prevent a Japanese move against French Indochina during 1941, which might mean less intense U.S. sanctions against Japan (politically it's harder to embargo oil over anti-communist warfare than against French/Vietnamese people).

If those predictions are correct, then the anti-Pearl voices in the IJN and Army likely prevail as Japan seeks a decision in the North, causing the Southern strategy to be delayed or shelved at least through the first half of 1942. The rates of shipbuilding still allowed Japan a reasonable window to challenge the USN in the Pacific through the first half of 1943.

The impact on SU of a Japanese attack would be severe. As another poster noted, even high-placed officials privately confided that the SU was cooked if Japan moved against it. One of the more interesting - and difficult to document - questions of WW2 is how close to collapse the SU was during 41-42; I tend towards the opinion that it was on a razor's edge. Starvation-related deaths were rampant in 42-43 even in the Urals and Central Asia; Japanese involvement means a ~50% cut to Lend Lease, especially in food aid flowing through Vladivostok. There's no way to say for certain, or even from hard evidence, but my sense is that the SU probably would have collapsed during 1942 given Japanese involvement, greater starvation, and more territorial and battlefield losses as a result of having to fight two fronts.

As is hopefully clear from this post, however, this is a tentative conclusion and I'm open to other arguments.
got states for the pacific route in 1941 - 1942 ? Stats form another poster in another thread, in a hurry but less than 30%
'

1941: 360,778t, of which 13,502t Persian Gulf, 193,229t Soviet Far East, 153,977t North Russia.
1942: 2,453,097t of which 705,259t Persian Gulf, 734,020 Soviet Far East, 949,711 North Russia, 64,107 Soviet Artic.
1943: 4,794,545t of which 1,606,979 Persian Gulf, 2,388,577 Soviet Far East, 681,043 North Russia, 117,946 Soviet Artic.
1944: 6,217,622t of which 1,788,864 Persian Gulf, 2,848,181 Soviet Far East, 1,452,775 North Russia, 127,802 Soviet Artic.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: Japan delays Pearl Harbor, attacks USSR during the high point of Barbarossa

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 31 Oct 2019 09:43

pugsville wrote:got states for the pacific route in 1941 - 1942 ? Stats form another poster in another thread, in a hurry but less than 30%
'

1941: 360,778t, of which 13,502t Persian Gulf, 193,229t Soviet Far East, 153,977t North Russia.
1942: 2,453,097t of which 705,259t Persian Gulf, 734,020 Soviet Far East, 949,711 North Russia, 64,107 Soviet Artic.
1943: 4,794,545t of which 1,606,979 Persian Gulf, 2,388,577 Soviet Far East, 681,043 North Russia, 117,946 Soviet Artic.
1944: 6,217,622t of which 1,788,864 Persian Gulf, 2,848,181 Soviet Far East, 1,452,775 North Russia, 127,802 Soviet Artic.
Yeah so over 50% SFE in 41, ~30% in 42, ~50% in 43.
The SFE was all non-military material, i.e. food and raw materials - else the Japanese weren't letting it through.
I'm in a hurry too (to go to bed) but do you realize the extent of the starvation crisis in the SU during '41-43? Losing 30-50% of LL aid could have been catastrophic.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15478
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Japan delays Pearl Harbor, attacks USSR during the high point of Barbarossa

Post by ljadw » 31 Oct 2019 09:59

The starvation crisis is an invention .

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1015
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: Japan delays Pearl Harbor, attacks USSR during the high point of Barbarossa

Post by pugsville » 31 Oct 2019 11:46

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
31 Oct 2019 09:43
pugsville wrote:got states for the pacific route in 1941 - 1942 ? Stats form another poster in another thread, in a hurry but less than 30%
'

1941: 360,778t, of which 13,502t Persian Gulf, 193,229t Soviet Far East, 153,977t North Russia.
1942: 2,453,097t of which 705,259t Persian Gulf, 734,020 Soviet Far East, 949,711 North Russia, 64,107 Soviet Artic.
1943: 4,794,545t of which 1,606,979 Persian Gulf, 2,388,577 Soviet Far East, 681,043 North Russia, 117,946 Soviet Artic.
1944: 6,217,622t of which 1,788,864 Persian Gulf, 2,848,181 Soviet Far East, 1,452,775 North Russia, 127,802 Soviet Artic.
Yeah so over 50% SFE in 41, ~30% in 42, ~50% in 43.
The SFE was all non-military material, i.e. food and raw materials - else the Japanese weren't letting it through.
I'm in a hurry too (to go to bed) but do you realize the extent of the starvation crisis in the SU during '41-43? Losing 30-50% of LL aid could have been catastrophic.
But in there would have be more sent by other routes. In changed situation assuming everything stays the same is a flawed method of analysis. Particular in a situation where the USA is not at war, I expect other routes could carry significantly more.Losing 20% of LL isn't as nearly catastrophic. Demands how finely balanced you have the Russian campaign.

And the US might well ship things to SFE anyway. What's the Japanese going to do declare war and sink American ships?

Or the US runs a bigger support LL to Nationalist China. Things changing has repercussions.

User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: Japan Delays Pearl Harbor, Attacks The U.S.S.R. During The "HIGH POINT" of Barbarossa.

Post by Robert Rojas » 31 Oct 2019 15:24

Greetings to the disparate readership of this thread. Well boys and girls, IT"S GAME OVER! Following the initial commentary of Herr General Oberst Erich Marcks of his posting of Wednesday - October 30, 2019 - 11:59pm, unless you're a select member of his ever shrinking circle of like minded paladins, then don't even bother wasting your precious time acknowledging ANY of his "sage" pearls of wit and wisdom. Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this haughty dress down from one of our forums preeminent representatives of the intelligentsia - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid every last one of you an especially copacetic day no matter where you just might happen to find yourselves on Terra Firma.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: Japan delays Pearl Harbor, attacks USSR during the high point of Barbarossa

Post by paulrward » 31 Oct 2019 21:30

Hello All :

With respect to Posting # 63 by Mr. TheMarcksPlan :

It is interesting and enlightening to read a considered analysis of the thread so far. I may have some slight disagreements with a few of his points, but he has at least examined the concepts from a realistic viewpoint, and he should certainly not be disparaged in such a mocking tone for making this posting. Mr. TheMarcksPlan makes an excellent point, that if Hitler and Tojo had conferred and come to a unified plan of action, it would certainly have made the Axis a MUCH more formidable set of opponents.

We have to consider: The Allies were, at the start of the War, Britain and France, with backing by the USA. France left the game, and was replaced by the USSR, with the USA still on the sidelines. Then the USA entered, and it was, essentially, game over after the middle of 1942. HOWEVER, if the USSR could have been knocked out or rendered helpless at about the time the USA entered the War, then it would have been just Britain and the USA against the Axis.


Now, the Putin-inspired Neo-Stalinists on this forum can bluster that the USSR could NEVER have been defeated, but that's not how it looked at the end of 1941. There WAS starvation in the Soviet Union as late as 1943 ! How do I know this ? Because Edward V. Rickenbacker, who was sent to the USSR to assist them in utilizing their Lend Lease U.S. aircraft and equipment, witnessed starving Russians, and even went out of his way to provide food to a woman and her baby who were at the point of starving to death. ( And for this act he was criticised by his Soviet Hosts, who informed him that, since the woman couldn't work, and thus contribute to the war effort, there was no point in letting her or her baby have any food. Rickenbacker wrote that he was ' disgusted ' by their attitude. )

If the Japanese cut the Trans Siberian Railway, then all of the troops in Kamchatka CANNOT be moved West, all of the Lend Lease through the Soviet Far East Port of Vladivostock CANNOT be moved West, and no further equipment can be moved East to reach the Far Eastern Army from the Ural factories. And, if the Japanese begin bombing the warehouses and port facilities in Vladivostock, they can effectively cut the Far Eastern Army off from it's supplies.

Could the IJA have defeated the Soviet Far Eastern Army ? No, obviously not. But, they can play Cunctator, using Fabian tactics to draw the Soviets out, slow them down, and tie down their army, preventing it from being used in European Russia. This removes over 200,000 troops from the Western Front, and it would have resulted in a disaster for the USSR at the critical moments of 1941 when the war hung in the balance.


Now, in # 67, Mr. Pugsville writes:
And the US might well ship things to SFE anyway. What's the Japanese going to do declare war and sink American ships?
No, but what the Japanese might do is spend a few days using the IJN's aircraft carriers to bomb Vladivostock to the point that it cannot handle ship cargoes, and, if the T.S.R.W. is shut down, the supplies that do get unloaded will simply sit on the docks until they rot. What is more, it is an old rule of war that non-combatant civilian merchant ships that are destroyed in a harbor of a combatant nation during a time of war are NOT covered by insurance policies unless those policies have a VERY expensive ' War Rider ' added. And, NO sane shipping company is going to send a very expensive cargo ship into a war zone unless it is insured. ( If you want proof, just look at the way the shipping companies refused to carry supplies to the Philippines in early 1942, despite the VERY attractive monetary inducements offered by the Roosevelt Administration. )

Mr. Pugsville also postulates that, with the Soviet Far Eastern Lend Lease Route cut, the U.S. might send more aid to China. This is true, but it would have to go through the Burma Road, a one-and-half-lane dirt road that snaked through mountainous wilderness and was NEVER capable of support Chiang Kai Shek's, by that time, somewhat ragtag army.


Finally, I am going to Address Mr. Robert Rojas: Sir, Mr. TheMarcksPlan, in his posting, starts out by saying that he didn't think a Japanese attack was historically feasible, and gives reasons. He then continues, and gives what he, again and again, describes as HIS OPINIONS as to what the result might be. As examples, he uses the phrases,
" there is an arguably feasible ATL " , " I'd predict " , " If those predictions are correct " , " One of the more interesting - and difficult to document - questions " , and finishes with " a tentative conclusion and I'm open to other arguments. "

Mr. Rojas, Mr. TheMarcksPlan did not give us a " Haughty Dress Down ", he simply posted some interesting ideas he has concerning the matter under discussion.

However, I do agree with you on one point: Mr. TheMarcksPlan, whoever he may be, is definitely one of the more intelligent posters on this forum.

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
Last edited by paulrward on 31 Oct 2019 21:37, edited 1 time in total.
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: Japan delays Pearl Harbor, attacks USSR during the high point of Barbarossa

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 31 Oct 2019 21:36

pugsville wrote:
31 Oct 2019 11:46
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
31 Oct 2019 09:43
pugsville wrote:got states for the pacific route in 1941 - 1942 ? Stats form another poster in another thread, in a hurry but less than 30%
'

1941: 360,778t, of which 13,502t Persian Gulf, 193,229t Soviet Far East, 153,977t North Russia.
1942: 2,453,097t of which 705,259t Persian Gulf, 734,020 Soviet Far East, 949,711 North Russia, 64,107 Soviet Artic.
1943: 4,794,545t of which 1,606,979 Persian Gulf, 2,388,577 Soviet Far East, 681,043 North Russia, 117,946 Soviet Artic.
1944: 6,217,622t of which 1,788,864 Persian Gulf, 2,848,181 Soviet Far East, 1,452,775 North Russia, 127,802 Soviet Artic.
Yeah so over 50% SFE in 41, ~30% in 42, ~50% in 43.
The SFE was all non-military material, i.e. food and raw materials - else the Japanese weren't letting it through.
I'm in a hurry too (to go to bed) but do you realize the extent of the starvation crisis in the SU during '41-43? Losing 30-50% of LL aid could have been catastrophic.
But in there would have be more sent by other routes. In changed situation assuming everything stays the same is a flawed method of analysis. Particular in a situation where the USA is not at war, I expect other routes could carry significantly more.Losing 20% of LL isn't as nearly catastrophic. Demands how finely balanced you have the Russian campaign.

And the US might well ship things to SFE anyway. What's the Japanese going to do declare war and sink American ships?

Or the US runs a bigger support LL to Nationalist China. Things changing has repercussions.
Yeah you're right that some would be re-routed to SU. But IMJ not all or even most. The SFE received goods from the Western US whose shipment via Murmansk would have required a 2500mi overland trip. To ship via the Persian corridor required much more shipping resources due to the longer journey time. Plus it was low capacity until later 1942 IIRC. There's a good history of the corridor's development available online.

Meanwhile Murmansk was closed by German attacks during summer 1942 - a critical period - and could have been closed completely had Germany realized it was now a matter of the SU starving or not. OTL it wasn't worth it for Germany to make a ride or die push in the north, ATL it would be. And with more Soviets in the East and/or starved out, Germany might have the strength for Blau plus a northern push.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15478
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Japan delays Pearl Harbor, attacks USSR during the high point of Barbarossa

Post by ljadw » 31 Oct 2019 21:41

There was no reason for Japan to attack the SU, to conquer a lot of toendra, besides Japan had been defeated already by the Soviets and would be defeated again .
Hitler was losing in 1941 , thus why should Japan enter a sinking ship ?
If Hitler could not win against the Soviets with his 150 divisions, and he could not,because the SU was invincible, why should Japan attack the SU with small forces ?
An attack on the SU would make PH impossible : Japan had not the forces to attack and the US and the USSR .
About starvation : the story of a dying mother with her dying child does not prove starvation .

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5607
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Japan delays Pearl Harbor, attacks USSR during the high point of Barbarossa

Post by OpanaPointer » 31 Oct 2019 22:28

Hitler rolled right up to Moscow in 1941. Where was he losing?
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: Japan delays Pearl Harbor, attacks USSR during the high point of Barbarossa

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 01 Nov 2019 01:04

paulrward wrote:There WAS starvation in the Soviet Union as late as 1943 !
Two recent studies confirm this beyond the anecdotal evidence we've always known.

https://www.amazon.com/Bread-Affliction ... 0521522838
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt16gzkwj

I have a hard copy of Bread of Affliction and e-access to Hunger and War. The latter is particularly good at illuminating the general malnutrition that pervaded the SU. More common than outright starvation was what epidemiologists call the "Starvation-Tuberculosis Complex." This occurs when long-term calorie deficit drains resistance to disease, particularly tuberculosis:

Image

The book contains a partial list of records showing a systemic rise in TB deaths:

Image

Note that these numbers are for 1943, after recovery of lands lost in the German 1942 offensive. Had the SU not been able to recover those lands, and/or lost more agricultural lands, the food situation would have been even worse. Combined with loss of much US food aid, this could have spelled collapse and disaster in the SU.

With the Japanese in the East, there's no way the SU holds as much land against the Germans as it did historically, so it's very possibly headed for collapse.

One further note is that the caloric restriction places a limit on how many people the SU could have evacuated if it loses Moscow or Stalingrad. There simply wouldn't have been enough food for everyone.
paulrward wrote:TheMarcksPlan did not give us a " Haughty Dress Down ", he simply posted some interesting ideas he has concerning the matter under discussion.
Thanks. On any internet forum one is never assured of finding interesting, thoughtful interlocutors. Glad to have your contributions.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

nota
Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 16:35
Location: miami

Re: Japan delays Pearl Harbor, attacks USSR during the high point of Barbarossa

Post by nota » 01 Nov 2019 01:12

I think japan would lose the battle but that could be the way to win the war

no matter if they are pushed back in to their area the troops the reds can't afford will be used up
and arms and ammo guns and food the reds need elsewhere any fighting will expend far more then a sitting army

to bad for the axis they never had common goals

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: Japan delays Pearl Harbor, attacks USSR during the high point of Barbarossa

Post by paulrward » 01 Nov 2019 02:41

Hello All :

In # 71, Mr. Ljadw posted the following :
There was no reason for Japan to attack the SU, to conquer a lot of toendra, besides Japan had been defeated already by the Soviets and would be defeated again .
Hitler was losing in 1941 , thus why should Japan enter a sinking ship ?
If Hitler could not win against the Soviets with his 150 divisions, and he could not,because the SU was invincible, why should Japan attack the SU with small forces ?
An attack on the SU would make PH impossible : Japan had not the forces to attack and the US and the USSR .
About starvation : the story of a dying mother with her dying child does not prove starvation .
I will handle these in order:


" There was no reason for Japan to attack the SU....."
Top Five Really Good Reasons for the Japanese to attack the USSR in 1941:
1. Get revenge for their defeats at the hands of the USSR in the 1930s
2. Capture and hold large territories on the east coast of Asia, including Vladivostock.
3. Remove the possibility of the USSR providing military assistance to either Chiang Kai Shek or Mao Tse Tung.
4. As I have outlined, to make a deal with Germany to gain ' lawful ' title to Dutch, French and British Territories.
5. Assist in the destruction of the USSR, at that time the source of International Communism, which was and is a scourge on the human race.

" Japan had been defeated, and would be defeated again. " Well, not if the Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Rumanians, Bulgarians, and Japanese all combine to ' pile on ' to the USSR simultaneously .....

" Hitler was losing in 1941..... " Not if you look at a map. On December 1, 1941, Hitler ruled Europe from the North Cape of Norway to North Africa, and with his allies the Spanish, controlled the territory from the Atlantic Coast to the gates of Moscow.

" If Hitler could not win against the Soviets with his 150 divisions, and he could not,because the SU was invincible "
The Soviet Union was Invincible..... So, tell us, Mr. Ljadw, how is the Soviet Union doing these days ? Oh, that's right, the U.S.A., Great Britain, and the Vatican declared economic War on the Soviet Union in the 1980s, and in 1991, the Invincible Soviet Union CEASED TO EXIST ! And all of Vladimir Putin's Horses, and all of his Men are NOT going to be able to put Humpty together again.

" An attack on the SU would make PH impossible : Japan had not the forces to attack and the US and the USSR . "
That's RIGHT ! An attack on the USSR makes an attack on the USA impossible - which means that, with NO WAR against the USA, the Japanese do not face the overwhelming economic force of America, and are thus not beaten
to a pulp ! For the Japanese, that's what is call a WIN !

" About Starvation ..... "
Sorry, Mr. Ljadw, but even with nearly twenty years of Putin, you can't bury the decade from 1991 to 2001, when information about the USSR during the war years freely flowed into the West. We now have vast amounts of data and documents that clearly show the conditions in the USSR, from the early 1920s to the fall of Communism. Mr. TheMarcksPlan has quite clearly shown the sudden, dramatic rise in TB deaths due to malnutrition during the War. I think nothing more on this matter needs be said, after all, if Americans visiting the USSR saw starving people in 1943, and there were starvation related deaths, that means there was starvation.

And yes, Mr. Ljadw, a woman and her baby dying of starvation DOES mean there was starvation.

Finally, Mr. Ljadw, your best quote:
......because the SU was invincible.....
So was the Black Knight, until King Arthur cut off his Arms and Legs. ROFLMAO !


And, for Mr. Nota, from his posting # 74:
...to (sic) bad for the axis they never had common goals...
Yeah, too bad we avoided sinking " into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. "


Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

Return to “What if”