What if : Japan

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002, 15:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

#31

Post by Lord Gort » 19 Jun 2002, 15:26

Hey, i am just back from Switzerland, fantastic country, Lake Geneva, wow what a place. I dont eman to show off, wait a sec, yes i do.


This is a sticky one isnt it.

Both in the timing if their entry and coice of enemy the Japanese were stupid. The timing of the Japanese defies reason. The could have attacked the British in the far east in june 1940 with far reaching effects. Instead they chose to sign an alliance with hitler in september 1940, a few days after Hitler had abandoned the idea of invading Great Britain. Again the Japanese attacked the US a few days after the Germans had been turned back at Moscow.

If the Japs had attcked the SU then the SU would have lost
The divisions in the east of the SU would have stayed, and Stalin could not have thrown them all in to battle at the last minute

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#32

Post by Victor » 19 Jun 2002, 21:18

Skorzeny wrote:Obviously no point in reasoned debate on the Japanese Topic as you can't stand any other opinion.
Don't you think that the same can be said about you?
I'll give you an example of your "open-mind":
Skorzeny wrote: Your ridiculous viewpoint on LL is ample proof on that.
Skorzeny wrote:Have a nice day!!
Thank you! I will! :D


Panzer general
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: 29 May 2002, 23:28
Location: The Netherlands

#33

Post by Panzer general » 20 Jun 2002, 13:43

Victor wrote: And what would Japan gain from this? Absolute zero. They wouldn't be able to attack the US and British as they did and will end up loosing the war faster. I don't see why they would be stupid to waste their chance of achieving their own goals for the sake of the German goals?
Thats always the big fault that many people make to protect only their own goals. Sometimes its better to work together. And achieve your own goals on an easier way after u work together. Only clear your own part of the street of snow won't make the street safe for u neither for others! And sorry to tell u but USA was neutral at that time! They enter the war in 1942.

Victor wrote:Btw, care to back up your premonition about the "imminent" Soviet collapse with some actual proof (like how many divisions that were shifted west would the Japs tie down?)
MMM Remember Germany was only so 50 Km away from Moscow in a couple of months! Stalin was planning to evacuate the government to another city and thinking about to sign a peace treaty with the Germans. He was desperated at that moment. But their were some valuable resouces from the east he used to defend Moscow. Because their was no treat of Japan!
Victor wrote:Japan wouldn't have the resources necessary to concentrate on its own goals if it would waste a large part of them in a war with USSR.
Its hard to say if Japan had not enough troups to achieve their own goals.
Victor wrote:Btw, Germany lost the Battle of Britain in 1940, when it was on the peak of power and Britain was at its lowest. What makes you think that it would win just like that??
Maybe u remember that Hitler primair object was the east(Leibensraum!) So some of his best troups were already locate in the east and didnt go to the west in 1940! So if this troups were available to attack england after the fall of Russia I dont believe the english would have any chance against a enemy with more experience and more and better equipment.

So its about tactics and work together with your allies to achieve your goals and that of your partners.
Victor wrote: :? What are you really trying to say here?
See above :-) but if u can't find it I will repeat it for u!

Grtz

Panzer general

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#34

Post by Victor » 20 Jun 2002, 16:43

Panzer general wrote: Thats always the big fault that many people make to protect only their own goals. Sometimes its better to work together. And achieve your own goals on an easier way after u work together. Only clear your own part of the street of snow won't make the street safe for u neither for others!
I agree with you that it’s better to work together to achieve something (like clearing the snow on the whole street :) ), but this does not apply in politics. Every country watches out for its own interests. There is no such thing as altruism in politics, only interests.

IIRC, the Japanese had oil reserves for only 6 months of war when they attacked Pearl Harbor. So I guess they did not have too much in early 1941, especially since they were under embargo. So here are their choices:

1. attack the SU, waste their resources without achieving much else than tying down Soviet forces and hope that the Germans defeat the Russians in Europe. It was clear in autumn 1941 that they would not and that the war would last much longer. So the Japanese would eventually crumble since they would run out of gas or they would have to retreat from China and sign a peace treaty with the SU.

2. retreat from China and beg the US to lift the embargo, renounce at any militaristic activities and commit mass seppuku! :D

3. take their chance at striking the US Pacific Fleet hard enough and grab as much land as possible (including the oil rich East-Indies) and establish a defensive perimeter in the Pacific and hope that the US will sue for peace.

Hmmm! What would I do?
Panzer general wrote: And sorry to tell u but USA was neutral at that time! They enter the war in 1942.
The US were practically involved in the war with Germany from 1940. Their pro-British attitude was very obvious and even provocative. The oil embargo on Japan, which had only small reserves, and the increase in aid for China was practically a declaration of war. It is clear that the US wasn’t neutral at all!
Panzer general wrote: MMM Remember Germany was only so 50 Km away from Moscow in a couple of months! Stalin was planning to evacuate the government to another city and thinking about to sign a peace treaty with the Germans. He was desperated at that moment. But their were some valuable resouces from the east he used to defend Moscow. Because their was no treat of Japan!
It was in December 1941, that’s more that 5 months since the invasion! Not a "couple of months"! The troops were exhausted and improperly supplied. The Luftwaffe was almost grounded by the severe temperatures and couldn't provide the necessary aid. I don't think the Germans could have gone any further. Maybe the Russians wouldn't have pushed AGC as far as they did without troops from Siberia, but the Germans wouldn't have taken Moscow.

In the meantime the Japanese would have wasted their oil reserves without achieving too much and would simply crumble.
Panzer general wrote: Its hard to say if Japan had not enough troups to achieve their own goals.
It's not only about the troops. It's more about the oil that makes the carriers and airplanes move around the ocean.
Panzer general wrote: Maybe u remember that Hitler primair object was the east(Leibensraum!) So some of his best troups were already locate in the east and didnt go to the west in 1940!
Care to name these elite divisions that didn't take part in the invasion of France? As I recall all the panzer, Waffen-SS divisions and Fallschirm regiments took part in the battle.
Panzer general wrote:So if this troups were available to attack england after the fall of Russia I dont believe the english would have any chance against a enemy with more experience and more and better equipment.
It doesn't matter how good the German land forces were (and in 1940 they were the finest in the world), but how to get them across the Channel and supply them there. The RAF and RN were a hard nut to crack in 1940. They got even stronger later.
Panzer general wrote: So its about tactics and work together with your allies to achieve your goals and that of your partners.
You probably mean strategy, not tactics. Tactics are some thing else. They help you win an battle, not the war.
Last edited by Victor on 04 Mar 2005, 15:42, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#35

Post by Victor » 20 Jun 2002, 16:45

Lord Gort wrote: Both in the timing if their entry and coice of enemy the Japanese were stupid. The timing of the Japanese defies reason. The could have attacked the British in the far east in june 1940 with far reaching effects. Instead they chose to sign an alliance with hitler in september 1940, a few days after Hitler had abandoned the idea of invading Great Britain. Again the Japanese attacked the US a few days after the Germans had been turned back at Moscow.
Their timing was the only one possible.

They could not have attacked the Brits in 1940 without risking major economic sanctions from the US. This would immediately mean an earlier Pearl Harbor. I don’t think that they were ready for it. The first alliance with Germany was signed in November 1936! The one in 1940 included Italy. But it was mainly directed against the US, not Britain.
The German-Japanese ties were not close or effective, because of the distrust, claims of racial superiority (from both sides) and of course the distance between the two countries. The Japanese were not informed about the intention to attack the SU and neither were the Germans informed about the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Lord Gort wrote: The divisions in the east of the SU would have stayed, and Stalin could not have thrown them all in to battle at the last minute
Care to share with us the number of divisions that were relocated from the Far East and which "saved" Moscow? Or are you just guessing?

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002, 15:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

#36

Post by Lord Gort » 20 Jun 2002, 23:56

Hitler should have urged the Japanese to attack the Soviet Union in 1941. Whether they would have done so and whether in that event, Roosevelt would not have ordered the american navy in the pacific to engae in defacto war on the japs is anotehr question. After all in justifying lend lease to russia Roosevelt said..."ihave today found the defence of the USSR vital to the defence of the US".

Had Japan invaded Siberia in 1941, the German drive to Moscow would have succeded. The russian counteratatcks in december would not have been mounted. The Bolshevik regime would either have fallen or made a second peace of brest litvosk. For what saved Moscow in decemberwas only Stanlins desperate denuding of the siberian front for reserves to throw into battle, tipping the scales at the last second by a hair.The mere fact of a japanese attack in the auttum might have brought a russian collapse. In mid october panic gripped the Bolshevisk to the highest level in governemnt, with whole departments fleeing Moscow ina disgraceful tumult, and Stalin ordering women and childern as well as the old to dig anti tank trenches.

Victor there was a slight nastiness in your reply to my post, people are entitler to opinions. You could have asked politley. I will be getting information on how many divisions the Russians threw in.

Panzer general
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: 29 May 2002, 23:28
Location: The Netherlands

#37

Post by Panzer general » 21 Jun 2002, 12:14

Victor wrote:. attack the SU, waste their resources without achieving much else than tying down Soviet forces and hope that the Germans defeat the Russians in Europe. It was clear in autumn 1941 that they would not and that the war would last much longer. So the Japs would eventually crumble since they would run out of gas or they would have to retreat from China and sign a peace treaty with the SU.

2. retreat from China and beg the US to lift the embargo, renounce at any militaristic activities and commit mass seppuku!

3. take their chance at striking the US Pacific Fleet hard enough and grab as much land as possible (including the oil rich East-Indies) and establish a defensive perimeter in the Pacific and hope that the US will sue for peace.
Victor I think u should review your view of point about the Russians in 1940 and 1941. If they were so strong in your opinion how was it possible for Germany to reach so far? I will also mention that the world at that time wasn't so sure that the allies would beat Germany and Japan as u do!

Oke and maybe u have read Guderians book Achtung Panzer! ?If Hitler didn't had change the plan to move troups away from Moscow to the south, Moscow was certainly taken by the Germans. Stalin was so afraid at that time! He was planning to arrange a meeting with the Germans to sign a peace treaty. So the Russians weren't beating anybody up, they were running! Only some tactical wrong decisions of Hitler and the use of east Army groups had prevented the fall of Moscow and so the collapse of Russia.

Grtz

Panzer General

IAR80
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 15 Mar 2002, 22:05
Location: Satu Mare, Romania

re

#38

Post by IAR80 » 21 Jun 2002, 17:31

I just checked to see how this topic is faring and although people have posted, nothing new was said.
So I've decided to breathe new life into the discussion.
Undoubtebly, Germany skimmed inches close to a total and decisive victory on the Eastern Front, but the whole campaign was ruined by Hitler interviening. This bears a striking resemblance to how the Battle of Britain was eventually lost.
Regardless, the Soviet Union barely held on in 1941 and a japanese intervention would have decided the fate of this campaign once and for all. In the short term, just like Victor said, this move would actually be counter-productive. But let's analyse the situation. Japan desperately needed oil and raw materials above all else, both of which could only be found south and/or in China. As the war in China is dragging on, only one option remains: south.

HOWEVER

First, a campaign against USSR in 1941 would not have the same fate as the other border "skirmishes", first because the japanese learned valuable lessons and second because Zhukov was no longer in command there. One very important lesson was effective artillery barrages and here I must mention the 150mm heavy mortars which were issued to special regiments trained for fast and accurate artillery support. Also the Japanese airforce would quickly gain air supremacy and counterbalance the Soviet Union's superiority in tanks. Also at a individual level the japanese soldier was better trained than its russian counterpart in mid-1941. So the japanese army was indeed able to pose a threat to the russian divisions in the Far East. Of course, Victor will inquire as to the actual results of this campaign and also to the change in the timetable of future military operations. To this I answer this: first the japanese would quickly be able to capture Vladivostok, Habarovsk, the island of Sahalin and Ulan-Ude in Mongolia, effectively cutting off Russia from foreign supply and set up the base for future operations, second, this intervention is a short one from June to September-October the latest, then dig in around Vladivostok and Habarovsk to deny LL, this would not affect future plans in any way, at worst be pushed back by chinese guerillas around the main chinese coastal cities. How would this affect the war in european Russia? Unless the japanese intervention catches Stalin totally off-guard and the japanese armies aren't stopped and slowly move along the Transsiberian westwards towards the mammoth russian factories, the actual effect of troops initially meant for the defense of Moscow being sent to the Far East might jst be the final prod to throw the Kremlin into the hands of the Wehrmacht. If this isn't enough, then the lack of LL, especially in the area of war material and food might influence the war in Europe in a more positive way for Germany. Serious effects would be seen in the campaigns in present day Tahiland and Bangladesh, so I don't see how the main war effort carried by the IJN would be affected by such an intervention.
Considering the worst case and the japanese intervention fails to cause the fall of Moscow, would the soviets win without LL?

User avatar
Skorzeny
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 16 Jun 2002, 12:30
Location: Jagverband Mitte

#39

Post by Skorzeny » 22 Jun 2002, 10:11

Excellent!

Intelligent analysis giving us a plausible "what if" scenario, which is what this forum is all about. All entirely possible, and the effect of closing the main Pacific port to LL shipments would be disasterous for the Russians.

Anyone who thinks LL was immaterial to the ultimate Russian victory is, quite plainly, mad. IMHO.

Perhaps someone remembers the propoganda of the Soviet occupation, on how they "did it all themselves", how they are "supermen", and can do no wrong.

The Allied victory was due, as has been said, to massive cooperation on all fronts, of which LL is an integral part, and to denigrate LL is an affront to those who gave their lives, such as the allied seamen, for it to take place.

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#40

Post by Victor » 22 Jun 2002, 13:46

Panzer general wrote: Victor I think u should review your view of point about the Russians in 1940 and 1941. If they were so strong in your opinion how was it possible for Germany to reach so far?
Because the Germans were good, that is they managed to get so far. But the situation in December 1941 was extremely bad. They were for a while on the brink of disaster.
Panzer general wrote: I will also mention that the world at that time wasn't so sure that the allies would beat Germany and Japan as u do!
I'm an optimist! :D
Panzer general wrote: Oke and maybe u have read Guderians book Achtung Panzer! ?If Hitler didn't had change the plan to move troups away from Moscow to the south, Moscow was certainly taken by the Germans. Stalin was so afraid at that time! He was planning to arrange a meeting with the Germans to sign a peace treaty. So the Russians weren't beating anybody up, they were running! Only some tactical wrong decisions of Hitler and the use of east Army groups had prevented the fall of Moscow and so the collapse of Russia.
No, I haven't read Guderian's memoirs. But they are from the same class as Manstein's (which I read). Hitler was responsible for the loosing of the war, the generals had nothing to do with it! I don’t buy that.
Sure Hitler made a lot of blunders, but this was not one of them. The wrong decision was,IMO, to bring Guderian's Panzer Group back to AGC, instead of letting him take the rest of the Ukraine and stop the shifting of the industry east. But this is a subject for another topic.

But, isn't this a "little" off topic?
Panzer general wrote: The Allied victory was due, as has been said, to massive cooperation on all fronts, of which LL is an integral part, and to denigrate LL is an affront to those who gave their lives, such as the allied seamen, for it to take place.
I agree with you that the war was won by the contribution of ALL Allies, but LL was not as essential as many think. It helped a lot, but it was not the thing that saved the Soviets from collapse.

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#41

Post by Victor » 22 Jun 2002, 13:47

Lord Gort wrote: Had Japan invaded Siberia in 1941, the German drive to Moscow would have succeded. The russian counteratatcks in december would not have been mounted. The Bolshevik regime would either have fallen or made a second peace of brest litvosk. For what saved Moscow in decemberwas only Stanlins desperate denuding of the siberian front for reserves to throw into battle, tipping the scales at the last second by a hair.
I prefer to wait until you provide numbers before I take your word for it. You simply ignored all my arguments. I already stated that the situation of the Germans was not that good. They weren’t on a shining road to victory. The troops were exhausted and improperly supplied. The Luftwaffe was almost grounded by the severe temperatures and couldn't provide the necessary aid.
Lord Gort wrote: Victor there was a slight nastiness in your reply to my post, people are entitler to opinions. You could have asked politley.
I am sorry! I was in a very bad mood in last two days, because of a computer virus.

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#42

Post by Victor » 22 Jun 2002, 13:48

IAR80 wrote: So I've decided to breathe new life into the discussion.
What would we do without you? :roll:
IAR80 wrote: Serious effects would be seen in the campaigns in present day Tahiland and Bangladesh, so I don't see how the main war effort carried by the IJN would be affected by such an intervention.
That is because you don't read what I write! OIL! IRON! These are two things Japan can't afford to throw away in a campaign with the Red Army. I really don't see the Japanese fighting a 3 front war: Russia, China and Pacific.

In rest, nice theory, but WHAT DO THE JAPANESE GAIN FROM THIS? Does this give them a better chance of defeating their main enemy: the US?

IAR80
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 15 Mar 2002, 22:05
Location: Satu Mare, Romania

re

#43

Post by IAR80 » 22 Jun 2002, 16:04

I agree that losses are in a war, however I must draw your attention to two things:
1. IRON: Of course, for tanks and airplanes, mainly. The japanese tanks were indeed inferior to the russian ones, even the BT series. However, air support would counterbalance this because the Japanese Air Force would eliminate the VVS from the skies over far eastern Russia with little effort and, more importantly, little losses. Then the effort would fall on close air support and tank busting. These blitzkrieg tactics were not unfamaliar to the japanese as they developed their own ampibious aero-naval version of such a campaign and it worked . Therefore the losses in tanks would be there, but nowhere near a disaster, thanks to the high quality of the japanese pilots. The one sector where shortages could occur is heavy (152mm) artillery shells.
2. OIL: Sure, such a campaign would require fuel, but a campaign in the Far East would use up less fuel than a trip to the Hawaii and back of a whole carrier battlegroup. Much less, I dare to say.
What I would like to underline is that such a campaign would not at all be a costly gamble like the one started in Dec 1941, this is my opinion, although I will be documenting myself further.
It is obvious that if the japanese seized the border areas between Cita, Habarovsk, Vladivostok(west to east) and dug in, the soviets would be in no position to dislodge them once Barbarossa had started, and the SU would be deprived of LL, which would have had quite an impact in 1942.
Now this discussion should focus on the actual posibility of such an intervention causing the fall of Moscow.
What would the japanese gain?
Again, in the short term, nothing.
But neither would the Pearl Harbour attack, or the campaign in the Philipines, or the seizing of the Dutch Indies be affected in any significant way, even though there would be the very real posibility of the whole japanese armed forces running on fumes. In the long term, with Russia and UK defeated, seizing most of southern Asia and also forcing China into surrender, by 1942 Japan would stand some chance of resisting the US, at least survive until Hitler would offer some kind of help.
I agree this is a tricky road, but if Moscow falls in 1941 due to Japan attacking the SU, by 1942, when things go bad for Japan, Hitler would be in a position to send some help, at least advisors to start with.

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002, 15:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

#44

Post by Lord Gort » 22 Jun 2002, 16:14

Well viruses are no reason to get cranky. I will have the figures although they are proving elusive. Total number will be presented within the week, but tommorow i will have the figures of how many moved westwards before june 41. Many divisions were redeployed after Mariata because of soviet fear, also they took long times to deploy from the otehr side of the urals hence the long time to send them.


I remind you all that at the beggining of december the Germans had before Moscow more than 800k men, about 10k guns and mortars, about 1000 tanks, and more than 600 aircraft. In soviet forces there were 719k men, more than 5700 guns and mortars, 720 tanks, and, 1170 aircraft.


All was not lost, and a Japanese attack would have drawn away the siberian divisions that STAVKA threw into battle in a counter offensive. I have not ignored any of your arguments and labour to find the relevant records on numbers of Siberian divisions employed in the december-january countr offensive ( which incidentally was one of the only times Hitler made a good military decision.

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#45

Post by Victor » 22 Jun 2002, 19:04

Lord Gort wrote: I remind you all that at the beggining of december the Germans had before Moscow more than 800k men, about 10k guns and mortars, about 1000 tanks, and more than 600 aircraft. In soviet forces there were 719k men, more than 5700 guns and mortars, 720 tanks, and, 1170 aircraft.
Well, actually the Germans had less then 600 aircraft and the Soviets had 1,376. The Germans were exhausted after 5 months of intense combat, with few replacements. Their supply lines were over-extended. Plus the Luftwaffe operated from primitive airfields, under extreme weather conditions, which grounded most of the aircraft. On the other side the VVS operated from modern and well-equipped airfields and were able to put many planes in the air, which was a very important advantage. Their supply lines were also much shorter.
Lord Gort wrote: Well viruses are no reason to get cranky.
They are if you can loose a few months work!

Post Reply

Return to “What if”