OT: Would the USSR be defeated if Japan attacked?

[fbs]

Would the USSR surrender to Germany if Japan had gone North in 1941?

This kind of reminds a bit of Tannenberg: no way that Russia could defeat Germany in the East front in WW1, but by going on the offensive they were instrumental on avoiding France's defeat (or so some say). So for the Allies as a whole Tannenberg was successful (or so some say) -- while for the Russians it didn't matter, as they would lose with or without Tannenberg.

So, while Japan would most certainly be beat by the USSR, is it possible that if Japan attacked they would tie up so many troops in the winter of 1941 that Germany would have had a greater chance of defeating the Soviets? Kinda: the soviets would have at best a Pyrrhic victory?

If it worked that way, it would be to Japan's interests: they would stop the spreading of Communism (which was their biggest worry), they would end up with some territorial gains (although without resources), get themselves a buffer against USSR, would weaken the Chinese Communists.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
fbs

[Shark7]

I somehow doubt it. The Soviet Far East Army was quite large, and far better equipped than the Japanese. Remember that in 1939 the Soviets managed to soundly defeat a Japanese force of equal size. It would certainly slow any counter-offensives though.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: fbs


Would the USSR surrender to Germany if Japan had gone North in 1941?

This kind of reminds a bit of Tannenberg: no way that Russia could defeat Germany in the East front in WW1, but by going on the offensive they were instrumental on avoiding France's defeat (or so some say). So for the Allies as a whole Tannenberg was successful (or so some say) -- while for the Russians it didn't matter, as they would lose with or without Tannenberg.

So, while Japan would most certainly be beat by the USSR, is it possible that if Japan attacked they would tie up so many troops in the winter of 1941 that Germany would have had a greater chance of defeating the Soviets? Kinda: the soviets would have at best a Pyrrhic victory?

If it worked that way, it would be to Japan's interests: they would stop the spreading of Communism (which was their biggest worry), they would end up with some territorial gains (although without resources), get themselves a buffer against USSR, would weaken the Chinese Communists.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
fbs

Is your hypothesis also including the caveat, "and Japan did not attack the US, Great Britain, DEI, Phillipines or Burma"? Namely, are you supposing that Japan never moved elsewhere in aggression or that, IN ADDITION TO attacking the aforementioned 'Western' Allies, Japan ALSO attacked Russia in 1941?

Makes a big difference, IMO.

[Mike Scholl]

VERY UNLIKELY..., but Japan would have been in serious trouble.  Remember that her whole reason for going to war in December of 1941 was to seize the SRA before her dwindling stocks of oil and other resources were totally gone.  Getting into a war that would expend resources with no possibility of replacing them (and for the benefit of Germany rather than herself) would have been foolish at best.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Is your hypothesis also including the caveat, "and Japan did not attack the US, Great Britain, DEI, Phillipines or Burma"? Namely, are you supposing that Japan never moved elsewhere in aggression or that, IN ADDITION TO attacking the aforementioned 'Western' Allies, Japan ALSO attacked Russia in 1941?

Makes a big difference, IMO.

That's correct, question is assuming that Japan would have chosen the North strategy (attack USSR) instead of the South strategy (attack UK/DEI/US). Apparently it wasn't until mid-41 that the South strategy was chosen, so the Japanese were apparently considering the North strategy seriously until the South decision was made.

They would be lap-beaten by the USSR, no doubt about that. But would the USSR in the end be defeated?


Thanks,
fbs

[John Lansford]

The Japanese would have lost heavily to the mechanized Soviet armies.  The USSR had the cream of their forces watching that border, and the earlier debacle at Kolkin Gul (sp?) where Japan suffered 30,000 casualties, showed what would have happened if they had tried again. 

[wworld7]

No, they would not have been defeated.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

VERY UNLIKELY..., but Japan would have been in serious trouble.  Remember that her whole reason for going to war in December of 1941 was to seize the SRA before her dwindling stocks of oil and other resources were totally gone.  Getting into a war that would expend resources with no possibility of replacing them (and for the benefit of Germany rather than herself) would have been foolish at best.

Notice that I didn't question if Japan would have been victorious: the kamikaze-South strategy, the kamikaze-North strategy and the China Incident were all stupid in strategic terms, and I don't think Japan could be victorious in any of these.

So whether they went for Pearl Harbor or Vladivostok, the Japanese would in the long term lose any gains. Eventually (say 42 or 43) they would end up trying to go for DEI, and would (most probably) be beaten completely.

But, perhaps by going after the USSR, the North strategy would have lead to a very different European war (or perhaps not.. the USSR were a truly formidable opponent in WW2, and might have been victorious even with a war in two fronts).


Thanks,
fbs

[oldman45]

I think the Russians sent 15 divisions (anybody know the correct answer) west to protect Moscow. If they didn't send them and Moscow fell, the question would be with the fall of Moscow would the Russian armies collapsed and Russia surrender. I don't think so.

[Rob Brennan UK]

Fall of moscow would have seriously hurt the Soviet Rail infrastructure is it was a Major rail hub. Would Soviet russia surrender after losing moscow ? I seriously doubt it. they would use the 1812 war (where moscow did fall/well abandoned) as propoganda and just carry on fighting. Bear in mind a lot of the soviet manufacturing had been moved over the urals and was getting going again. Caucus oil falling in 41 could have crippled the USSR if germany could have held it. Moscow is just a name by comparison.

My 2p

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

Fall of moscow would have seriously hurt the Soviet Rail infrastructure is it was a Major rail hub. Would Soviet russia surrender after losing moscow ? I seriously doubt it. they would use the 1812 war (where moscow did fall/well abandoned) as propoganda and just carry on fighting. Bear in mind a lot of the soviet manufacturing had been moved over the urals and was getting going again. Caucus oil falling in 41 could have crippled the USSR if germany could have held it. Moscow is just a name by comparison.

My 2p

I think you underestimate the value of rail, without it all the oil in the world is useless to the Soviets sitting in the Caucuses. Transporting by other means in bulk while not wasting half of their load moving it would severely limit available fuel where it's needed. Also remember that the USSR was very short on trucks, cars, etc until Lend Lease came into play. Almost all of the Soviet supply/distribution system depended on Moscow's rail hub.

[John Lansford]

Losing Moscow would have been more politically damaging to the Soviets than anything else; everything of military value had already been moved.  The Germans could not have taken Moscow in 1941 anyway; their forces that reached the outskirts were at the end of their supply line and were exhausted. 
 
Perhaps if they had run their fall offensive differently they could have reached Moscow quicker, but that would have left very large armies behind the spearheads that would still need to be eliminated, and the forces around Moscow were very well prepared and dug in.  This wouldn't have been a few days' battle, it would have been more like Stalingrad with house-to-house fighting and fanatical Soviets taking a heavy toll for every block lost.

[vinnie71]

If Moscow had fallen, it would have been difficult for the Soviet regime to survive. Remember even Stalin stayed on in Moscow. Rather than make the analogy with Napoleon, it would be better to make the analogy with the Russian Civil War. The Soviets held Moscow (and the larger cities containing major industry etc) throughout the Civil War and despite facing defeat several times from insurgent armies on different fronts, they ultimately prevailed.

The point I'm trying to make is that Moscow was not only a railroad hub and major industrial city (which is how the German OKH viewed it) but it was the hub of the Soviet system. Therefore its fall would have precipitated anti soviet/nationalistic uprisings in rear areas, decapitated the party machinery (including the NKVD) and in all probability would have led to the collapse of Soviet armies. I'm not equating the collapse of the Soviet system with a defeat of Russia, but it would have been hard for anyone in Russia to organise resistance on a large scale to the Axis in a meaningful way (surely not before the Urals). In 1942, the Axis would have rolled over Russia or created a bunch of client states in the Caucasus, Central Asia etc.

Frankly the fall of Moscow would have helped the Germans to rearrange the map - for a very long time...

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Is your hypothesis also including the caveat, "and Japan did not attack the US, Great Britain, DEI, Phillipines or Burma"? Namely, are you supposing that Japan never moved elsewhere in aggression or that, IN ADDITION TO attacking the aforementioned 'Western' Allies, Japan ALSO attacked Russia in 1941?

Makes a big difference, IMO.

That's correct, question is assuming that Japan would have chosen the North strategy (attack USSR) instead of the South strategy (attack UK/DEI/US). Apparently it wasn't until mid-41 that the South strategy was chosen, so the Japanese were apparently considering the North strategy seriously until the South decision was made.

They would be lap-beaten by the USSR, no doubt about that. But would the USSR in the end be defeated?


Thanks,
fbs

Then my answer is that the Japanese would have pushed the Russians around for a bit in the Far East through weight of numbers and captured some Russian territory and resources, including oil. However, the amount of built up resources would have been insufficient in the long run to fuel their war machine and left them wanting.

IMO, they HAD to have the SRA for its petrochemical heavy production. Siberian coal, gold and gems wouldn't have done them as much good.

When the bear counterattacked (an inevitability) in 1943 or so, the Japanese would have been ground to dust on the Asian continent.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

VERY UNLIKELY..., but Japan would have been in serious trouble.  Remember that her whole reason for going to war in December of 1941 was to seize the SRA before her dwindling stocks of oil and other resources were totally gone.  Getting into a war that would expend resources with no possibility of replacing them (and for the benefit of Germany rather than herself) would have been foolish at best.

Notice that I didn't question if Japan would have been victorious: the kamikaze-South strategy, the kamikaze-North strategy and the China Incident were all stupid in strategic terms, and I don't think Japan could be victorious in any of these.

So whether they went for Pearl Harbor or Vladivostok, the Japanese would in the long term lose any gains. Eventually (say 42 or 43) they would end up trying to go for DEI, and would (most probably) be beaten completely.

Thanks,
fbs

The point was that having gone to war with Russia, they would have been physically unable to move South (where the needed resources were) before their own stockpiles were too depleted to do so. Once Japan had been economically isolated by the Western powers embargoes, South was the ONLY direction that could allow for the Empire's continued existence as a world power.

Also, by the time the Japanese got into the war, the Germans had already failed in front of Moscow (the Japanese just hadn't heard about it yet).

[chesmart]

If Germany not wasted its time in the Balkans and in near Kiev but concentrated its attacks on Moscow and Leningrad they would have probably won the war, because Stalin would not have survived politically. If the Japanese made a surprise attack against the USSR instead of going south Stalin's chance of political survival would have been very low. Lend lease to USSR was most effective in 1943-44 onwards so in 41-42 there was a time window for the collapse of the USSR. the fall of Moscow would logistically have been a nightmare for Russia. Most of the railways passed through to Moscow so beside the political fall out there would have been a military one as well. the factory's that were moved to the Urals would have been not back up until 1943 as well so the answer to your question is yes Russia could have been defeated in 1942-43 but the leadership of the axis countries would have had to be different. Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo where the best weapons the allies had as they made to many mistakes at the wrong times. Time is against the axis countries because of the difference of industry resources and population but with a well coordinated campaign Russia would have fallen and then the war would have been a lot blodier.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: che200

If Germany not wasted its time in the Balkans and in near Kiev but concentrated its attacks on Moscow and Leningrad they would have probably won the war, because Stalin would not have survived politically. If the Japanese made a surprise attack against the USSR instead of going south Stalin's chance of political survival would have been very low. Lend lease to USSR was most effective in 1943-44 onwards so in 41-42 there was a time window for the collapse of the USSR. the fall of Moscow would logistically have been a nightmare for Russia. Most of the railways passed through to Moscow so beside the political fall out there would have been a military one as well. the factory's that were moved to the Urals would have been not back up until 1943 as well so the answer to your question is yes Russia could have been defeated in 1942-43 but the leadership of the axis countries would have had to be different. Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo where the best weapons the allies had as they made to many mistakes at the wrong times. Time is against the axis countries because of the difference of industry resources and population but with a well coordinated campaign Russia would have fallen and then the war would have been a lot bloodier.

This kind of thinking drives me nuts. IF Germany had done this or that than everything would have been different. What about the other IF's? If Stalin had not insisted on a forward deployment of his armies into the "buffer zone", the Germans could never have cut them up by suprise. If he hadn't insisted on continuous "offensives" that squandered men and resources, the Germans could never have made it anywhere near Moscow. If you want to play the "if" game, then the Soviets have a lot more "if's" to play.

[chesmart]

Yes i agree its all hypothetical, there would have been ifs from both sides and battles are won by the sides that make the least mistakes. But the question was would the USSR been defeated had japan joined the fray against the ussr ? yes there was a time window from 42-43 where the USSR could have been defeated but with the axis countries making less mistakes than their opposition. Remember the divisions that stopped army group central were the reserve divisions that were transferred from Siberia, and do you think Stalin woul have kept his job if Moscow had fallen ?

[spence]

In WitP: AE the window of opportunity for Japan would seem to be in the early game. That would be the WINTER of 1941-42. I've heard that a Siberian winter is really a WINTER. The Japanese would need the same sort of winter equipment and supply that their German brethren lacked. They would also need to convert the rails to their own gauge just as their German brethren were forced to do. They had an even smaller motorized pool than the Germans. Logistically they would start any such campaign already "in the deep kim-shi"

When they fought the Russians in 1939 they were unable to provide their artillery with ammunition on anything like the scale of Russian artillery. Their tanks were hard pressed dealing with BT-5s and BT-7s. Their air force was overwhelmed by the numbers of sorties of Red Air Force. Logistically they got their head handed to them when, for all intents and purposes; they were trying to keep one reinforced division combat-supplied at a time when they were not running any major offensives/operations anywhere else (China was relatively quiet at the time). It seems highly unlikely that Japan
could muster any extra logistic capability to sustain such a campaign. The game might permit it but IMHO that could only be because the game overstates Japanese real logistic capabilities.

[chesmart]

Remember logistics and winter fighting the russians had problems as well as evidenced by the russo-finnish war, The lessons from that war were still being learnt in 1940-41, Granted the germans and the japanese were worse prepared. That was closer to russian main russian and population centres and they were fighting an army which was very small but which hurt them a lot. Winter war in siberia how well connected was siberia to the main industrial centres ? How efficient were the railways west-east in 1941 ? Remember everything has to go by rail to siberia. At the same time you have to see what problems they were having by moving there factories literally brick by brick to the urals, So production in 41-42 was still recovering, Logistically in 41-42 the russians were still amateurs. Now see this way IF the japanese are succesful in holding the siberian divisions that were sent west for the battle of moscow what would have happened ? the russians had run out of fresh troops to put in front of army group centre and those divisions fresh and experienced in winter war were what stopped Guderain's panzers at the gates of Moscow, and some of them were literally destroyed down 10% effective s because of Stalin's no retreat or be shot orders. Those men were what delayed the German war machine and winter than demoralized and stopped them. Most of them died in the winter offensives following the battle of Moscow.