Imperial 1914
Banned
Truth or myth Japan going North and attacked the Soviet Union instead of going South as OTL in 1941-42 in support of nazi Germany meant collapse of Soviet Union due to the Soviets being unable to fight in two fronts?
Truth or myth Japan going North in 1941-42 meant collapse of Soviet Union?
- Thread starter Imperial 1914
- Start date
Myth. The main impact of losing the far east (if they even lose) would be lost Lend Lease. However enough would still get in through the Northern and Persian routes. Remember LL was not really that impactful to the war effort until 1943, where it became a huge boon to the Soviets' counterattack. A lot more Soviet citizens starve, but the battle in Eastern Europe will be only very slightly more tilted in Germany's favor. Which is just not enough given how OTL went.
Japan going North could be part of a "Nazi beats the Soviets" TL, but it cannot be the main reason, as it's just not enough.
Japan going North could be part of a "Nazi beats the Soviets" TL, but it cannot be the main reason, as it's just not enough.
It was part of a novel (December 7, 1941: A Different Path) that reached Stars and Stripes level implausibility with the entire Allied war effort collapsing, Japan genociding Australia, Germany nuking New York, and America absolutely refusing to be involved in the Final Solution.
Myth.
Japan fought Britain and America with a navy. The used something like 13 divisions in the invasions of the Philippines, Burma, Malaya and the East Indies.
There was something like 600,000 Russian troops in their Far Eastern Army in 1942. Not enough to beat the full force of the Japanese army but more than enough to beat the 13 or 14 divisions the Japanese sent against USA and Britain historically. The rest of the army was engaged with China already so couldn't be diverted to face USSR.
Japan fought Britain and America with a navy. The used something like 13 divisions in the invasions of the Philippines, Burma, Malaya and the East Indies.
There was something like 600,000 Russian troops in their Far Eastern Army in 1942. Not enough to beat the full force of the Japanese army but more than enough to beat the 13 or 14 divisions the Japanese sent against USA and Britain historically. The rest of the army was engaged with China already so couldn't be diverted to face USSR.
Kaiser Wilhelm the Tenth
Banned
It would have committed Japan to a second massive land war, further pissed off the West, and done exactly nothing to alleviate the country's economic timebomb (in fact, the resultant Western sanctions would have made things worse!). A TTL Pacific War against the West would have gone very differently with an active Russian front from day one.
Even though Vladivostok is now lost to Lend-Lease, that's okay in the short term. Russia could have made do without LL- it would have made their situation more difficult, piled up the body count, and lengthened the war for the Allies, but they would not have collapsed.
Even though Vladivostok is now lost to Lend-Lease, that's okay in the short term. Russia could have made do without LL- it would have made their situation more difficult, piled up the body count, and lengthened the war for the Allies, but they would not have collapsed.
I think we first need to establish what Soviet troops were sent from Siberia/Russian Far East to Moscow right before the Battle of Moscow, and whether or not they'd still be available for deployment west if Japan went North.
The Persian route wasn't firmly established to maintain high capacity until later in the war and the White Sea route was extremely dangerous. No Siberian lend lease route, which was primarily used for food stuff, raw materials, clothes, and non military aid means a lot more people starve and freeze. Whether or not it's enough to cause a back breaking strain on manpower issues later in the war is up for debate.
Outside of cutting off lend lease and tying down Russian troops, the Japanese would be conquering empty, mostly undeveloped land. Most natural resources that Russia used came from Central/Western Siberia and the Urals as well as the Caspian, which is too logistically far away for Japan to take.
Conclusion: Japan going North does not allow Germany to beat the Soviets, but may cripple the Soviets enough to encourage Stalin to accept a conditional cease fire (assuming Hitler would be smart enough to do that, which is doubtful).
Japan is still screwed either way.
The Persian route wasn't firmly established to maintain high capacity until later in the war and the White Sea route was extremely dangerous. No Siberian lend lease route, which was primarily used for food stuff, raw materials, clothes, and non military aid means a lot more people starve and freeze. Whether or not it's enough to cause a back breaking strain on manpower issues later in the war is up for debate.
Outside of cutting off lend lease and tying down Russian troops, the Japanese would be conquering empty, mostly undeveloped land. Most natural resources that Russia used came from Central/Western Siberia and the Urals as well as the Caspian, which is too logistically far away for Japan to take.
Conclusion: Japan going North does not allow Germany to beat the Soviets, but may cripple the Soviets enough to encourage Stalin to accept a conditional cease fire (assuming Hitler would be smart enough to do that, which is doubtful).
Japan is still screwed either way.
I think that Hitler would actually agree to it, if only to give the Wehrmacht time to rearm and re-equip.
BobTheBarbarian
Banned
Debatable. Most of the impact would revolve around loss of troops and materiel on the Soviet side and a huge amount of Lend-Lease aid (50% went through Vladivostok). Alvin D. Coox believed that a Japanese invasion of Siberia would have enabled Germany to win on the Eastern Front, and Soviet General A.K. Kazakovtsev believed that "if the Japanese enter the war on Hitler's side [in 1941] our cause is hopeless."
In addition to this we would need to factor in Lend Lease aid and regional production, which the Japanese estimated in 1945 to amount to 400 planes, 150 tanks, 30 armored cars, and 550 artillery pieces per month.
"On the whole, between June 22, 1941 and May 9, 1945, a total of 344,676 men, 2,286 tanks, 4,757 guns and mortars, 11,903 motor vehicles, and 77,929 horses were removed from the Far Eastern and Trans-Baikal Fronts to bolster the desperate fighting against the Wehrmacht, the vast majority of whom arrived before early 1943." (source)
In addition to this we would need to factor in Lend Lease aid and regional production, which the Japanese estimated in 1945 to amount to 400 planes, 150 tanks, 30 armored cars, and 550 artillery pieces per month.
Last edited:
The problem is Soviet demands at the minimum would be a withdrawal to pre Barbarossa borders, which puts the Russians very close to German land as well as Romanian oil.
The Persian and Artic ports were also too small. Vladivostok was the only Pearl Harbor sized port the Allies could reach at this point.
Said route lacks the logistical capability to increase capacity over night, and if it became the predominant route, the Germans would most likely send more U-Boats and dive bombers to Norway/Finland to intercept the convoys.
Considering how close the Reich came to causing the USSR to collapse in 1941 IOTL I believe Japan invading the USSR (however unlikely that is) would certainly seal their fate either in the short term or the long term.
People here are overly optimistic for the Soviets (or rather, overly pessimistic for the Axis).
While not certain doom, a japanese attack against the Soviets in 1941 would have nothing short of catastropic consequences, and might well result in german victory (in any sense that matters) in the east. After the Soviet State significantly underperfomed ( got unlucky) in Barbarossa, they really skirted on the edge of collapse in 1942. Another few hundred thousand guys trying to kill you and messing things up is not the thing a society redefining the limits of what a modern nation state can survive wants to deal with.
While not certain doom, a japanese attack against the Soviets in 1941 would have nothing short of catastropic consequences, and might well result in german victory (in any sense that matters) in the east. After the Soviet State significantly underperfomed ( got unlucky) in Barbarossa, they really skirted on the edge of collapse in 1942. Another few hundred thousand guys trying to kill you and messing things up is not the thing a society redefining the limits of what a modern nation state can survive wants to deal with.
Generally my response to anyone proposing seemingly obvious victory scenarios for the Axis is that one should look at the global situation.
Germany may be incensed at the sight of a few Soviet divisions leaving the European front, but Japan itself will not gain anything of value for attacking the Soviet Far East, seeming that it was Southeast Asia that had all the oil, rubber, and other natural resources that they needed in order to fuel their war effort and compensate for the crippling allied embargoes. After all, it doesn't matter how many tanks or Mitsubishi Zeroes the IJA can spare for an invasion of the Far East if there's no fuel for them. Not to mention that such territories remaining unconquered means that the Western Allies will have quite a few more war resources and armies at their disposal to throw at the Germans and Italians.
Indeed, Germany urged Japan to focus on a southern drive against the Western Allies’ colonial possessions for the majority of 1941. It was only when their offensive into Russia bogged down that they started to desperately beg for a Japanese offensive into the Far East, but the Japanese declined, perhaps with good reason given that the IJA would need a significant buildup for an invasion and the empire as a whole did not have the resources to spare for that.
Germany may be incensed at the sight of a few Soviet divisions leaving the European front, but Japan itself will not gain anything of value for attacking the Soviet Far East, seeming that it was Southeast Asia that had all the oil, rubber, and other natural resources that they needed in order to fuel their war effort and compensate for the crippling allied embargoes. After all, it doesn't matter how many tanks or Mitsubishi Zeroes the IJA can spare for an invasion of the Far East if there's no fuel for them. Not to mention that such territories remaining unconquered means that the Western Allies will have quite a few more war resources and armies at their disposal to throw at the Germans and Italians.
Indeed, Germany urged Japan to focus on a southern drive against the Western Allies’ colonial possessions for the majority of 1941. It was only when their offensive into Russia bogged down that they started to desperately beg for a Japanese offensive into the Far East, but the Japanese declined, perhaps with good reason given that the IJA would need a significant buildup for an invasion and the empire as a whole did not have the resources to spare for that.
Last edited: