OT: Would the USSR be defeated if Japan attacked?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: che200

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 would have kept his job if Moscow had fallen ?

Absolutely! Stalin expected to be replaced/assassinated during the first week of the war when it became obvious how badly he'd screwed up in both his belief that the Germans wouldn't attack, and his deployment of Soviet Armies. Instead, the highest leaders of the Party came to him hat-in-hand and begged him to re-assume direction of the USSR. His supremacy was never in doubt after that.

As to your "window" in 1942-43..., dream on. When the Soviet Union failed to "collapse like a house of cards" in the Summer of 1941, the best Germany could hope for became a stalemate. Hitler's prediction that "the whole rotten edifice would collapse" proved mistaken..., and after that the Germans were in the deep doo-doo.

[chesmart]

I said 41-42 when the factories were still relocating and Lend lease had not started to be effective. 43 onwards with lend lease russia could have won the war by herself. 

[spence]

The problem would not so much be enormous Soviet capabilities in a "Siberian War" as an almost total lack of Japanese logistical capabilities. They probably could have gotten Vladivostok but a drive into the hinterland was beyond their capabilities to keep their own soldiers warm and fed and supplied with any more than rifle ammunition. IJA logistical doctrine used "local supply" in China for the former two items...there was next to no "local supply" in Siberia.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Absolutely! Stalin expected to be replaced/assassinated during the first week of the war when it became obvious how badly he'd screwed up in both his belief that the Germans wouldn't attack, and his deployment of Soviet Armies. Instead, the highest leaders of the Party came to him hat-in-hand and begged him to re-assume direction of the USSR. His supremacy was never in doubt after that.

Realistically (fantastically?) the only window of opportunity was June 1941. A simultaneous attack on the Soviet Union from East and West might well have done the trick. If nothing else, the Japanese would have enjoyed the same advantage as the Germans over the first few months of dealing with a paralyzed and demoralized Stalin. At no other time would they have an opportunity to fight against a headless Russia. And that would be about the ONLY thing that might cancel out their overwhelming inferiority in just about every military matchup.

Of coure, if you think about all the necessary precursors that would have been required for the Japanese to actually DO that....well, basically it couldn't happen.

[Venividivici10044]

Well...I'll put a few thoughts down as I find this a particularly interesting speculation.

Europe: I feel that historically Germany lost the war during the Battle of Britain. I suspect that a follow-up Sea Lion campaign (after a successful BoB) would have been a disaster should the attempt been made. If one accepts this hypothesis (Germany loses it chance to win after the BoB), one can state that Germany never really had a chance for victory. My rationale - knock GB out of the war and you make it highly unlikely that the US will ever have the possibility of mounting an invasion. On the eastern side, if Germany had knocked GB out in 1940-41, Barbarossa would have been delayed, allowing Russia more time to better arm, train and deploy its forces. The further one goes, the more possibilities arise - would Hitler attack Russia next; would Russia attack Germany - who knows!

Asia: What would Japan want in Siberia? Minerals and Energy - How do you exploit them in the 1941 world? Security - attack first to cause the most damage possible, BUT what then? Russia has in 1941 large manpower reserves (even with Barbarossa in play), their regional armies destroyed your forces in Mongolia in 1939. So why would you attack? That is the question you would need to answer. I postulate that attacking Russia at this point in the war is suicidal for Japan. If you do attack, do you also simultaneously attack the US, the DEI, and British possessions? You would have to if you are going to have access to the DEI oil reserves. Russia will prove itself a massive hemorrhage for your forces and I suspect your expansion would be seriously jeopardized in the south. Now for a seriously wild Assumption...the US likely can't attack Germany via the Atlantic, but Japan weakened by the Russian debacle becomes the favored victory first priority, with lend lease going through Vladivostok (along with American forces should they be needed). Victory over Japan would take the US into 1944, during which time Russia would likely have Germany on its knees. A presumption here - Barbarossa occurs as planned and follows history, eastern reserves are siphoned to save Moscow; 1942 Caucasus drive results in Stalingrad - German capitulation occurs in 1943. 1943 Summer campaign occurs historically. Russia would not have the benefit of lend lease due to the loss of GB unless US convoys could make it to Murmansk, but would still have massive internal resources and manpower. Would they want US forces at that point - not likely.

More wild cards - North African must be considered - do the Germans have enough forces to take Egypt, the middle east, and make a drive from the south should the Barbarossa campaign begin without GB still in the war? Another wild card - Hitler decides NOT to declare war on the US after the PH attack. Does the US thus declare war on Germany as they are a Japanese ally? GB is out of the war as discussed above; Russia at war with Japan; where do all those bombers for your strategic bomber command go - hmmmmm. How quick can you say - FIRESTORM on the home islands.

Like I mentioned in my opening...What a wild alternative history. I think the result would have ultimately been the same - US defeats Japan; Russia defeats Germany. The iron curtain falls across all of Europe. At best for the US, German forces in GB surrender to the US prior to a Russian invasion.

[stuman]

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 will slightly disagree with some of these posters. Stalin was in shock in the fall of '41. I think if Japan had focused on an all out attack on the USSR by late '41 it would have caused massive problems for the USSR. Would Russia have fallen ? Great point to ponder. But remember that most of the lend lease supplies from the US came the via Pacific, and we just stopped all of that if Jap. attacks. So I think the Russians were every bit as paranoid about the Jap. attacking as the Jap. were afraid of attacking the Russians. The Soviets did not at ALL want the Jap. attacking. They put up with a lot of Jap. bullshit ( sinking Soviets ships, etc. ) for several years.

Read this, interesting perspective, not the end all be all :
http://books.google.com/books?id=iPju1M ... q=&f=false

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Kull

Realistically (fantastically?) the only window of opportunity was June 1941. A simultaneous attack on the Soviet Union from East and West might well have done the trick. If nothing else, the Japanese would have enjoyed the same advantage as the Germans over the first few months of dealing with a paralyzed and demoralized Stalin. At no other time would they have an opportunity to fight against a headless Russia. And that would be about the ONLY thing that might cancel out their overwhelming inferiority in just about every military matchup.

Of couse, if you think about all the necessary precursors that would have been required for the Japanese to actually DO that....well, basically it couldn't happen.

Problem with this is that the Japanese would be attacking the Soviet Far Eastern Group of Armies BEFORE anything had been sent West. Basically they would have to deal with stronger forces on the ground than the ones who'd kicked their teeth in in 1939. Not a very appetizing prospect...

I agree with you..., "basically it couldn't happen".

[castor troy]

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

besides the fact that the Russians would probably have wiped the floor with the Japanese, what would the Japanese have gained if they would win? What they conquered in the SRA wasn´t available in the Russian held territories.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Venividivici10044

Well...I'll put a few thoughts down as I find this a particularly interesting speculation.

Europe: I feel that historically Germany lost the war during the Battle of Britain. I suspect that a follow-up Sea Lion campaign (after a successful BoB) would have been a disaster should the attempt been made. If one accepts this hypothesis (Germany loses it chance to win after the BoB), one can state that Germany never really had a chance for victory. My rationale - knock GB out of the war and you make it highly unlikely that the US will ever have the possibility of mounting an invasion. On the eastern side, if Germany had knocked GB out in 1940-41, Barbarossa would have been delayed, allowing Russia more time to better arm, train and deploy its forces. The further one goes, the more possibilities arise - would Hitler attack Russia next; would Russia attack Germany - who knows!

Asia: What would Japan want in Siberia? Minerals and Energy - How do you exploit them in the 1941 world? Security - attack first to cause the most damage possible, BUT what then? Russia has in 1941 large manpower reserves (even with Barbarossa in play), their regional armies destroyed your forces in Mongolia in 1939. So why would you attack? That is the question you would need to answer. I postulate that attacking Russia at this point in the war is suicidal for Japan. If you do attack, do you also simultaneously attack the US, the DEI, and British possessions? You would have to if you are going to have access to the DEI oil reserves. Russia will prove itself a massive hemorrhage for your forces and I suspect your expansion would be seriously jeopardized in the south. Now for a seriously wild Assumption...the US likely can't attack Germany via the Atlantic, but Japan weakened by the Russian debacle becomes the favored victory first priority, with lend lease going through Vladivostok (along with American forces should they be needed). Victory over Japan would take the US into 1944, during which time Russia would likely have Germany on its knees. A presumption here - Barbarossa occurs as planned and follows history, eastern reserves are siphoned to save Moscow; 1942 Caucasus drive results in Stalingrad - German capitulation occurs in 1943. 1943 Summer campaign occurs historically. Russia would not have the benefit of lend lease due to the loss of GB unless US convoys could make it to Murmansk, but would still have massive internal resources and manpower. Would they want US forces at that point - not likely.

More wild cards - North African must be considered - do the Germans have enough forces to take Egypt, the middle east, and make a drive from the south should the Barbarossa campaign begin without GB still in the war? Another wild card - Hitler decides NOT to declare war on the US after the PH attack. Does the US thus declare war on Germany as they are a Japanese ally? GB is out of the war as discussed above; Russia at war with Japan; where do all those bombers for your strategic bomber command go - hmmmmm. How quick can you say - FIRESTORM on the home islands.

Like I mentioned in my opening...What a wild alternative history. I think the result would have ultimately been the same - US defeats Japan; Russia defeats Germany. The iron curtain falls across all of Europe. At best for the US, German forces in GB surrender to the US prior to a Russian invasion.

if Sea Lion would have gone off and would have been succesful (which there was a chance for what? 0.5%?), then I doubt the Russian would have Germany on it´s knees because without a Western front and the Western Allied bomber offensive the Nazis pretty sure would achieve a draw against the Russian on the offense. The fight against the Western Allied took a lot of manpower, war material and resources, even before D-day so I wouldn´t underestimate this. I also wouldn´t underestimate the German in holding back the Russian if the West is "secure". Even though it looks like a cakewalk for the Russian from 44 on in real life, the losses they took were horrendous. And this with the Nazis having the West not secured.

But as many have pointed out it´s all just a "if".

[Venividivici10044]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Venividivici10044

Well...I'll put a few thoughts down as I find this a particularly interesting speculation.

Europe: I feel that historically Germany lost the war during the Battle of Britain. I suspect that a follow-up Sea Lion campaign (after a successful BoB) would have been a disaster should the attempt been made. If one accepts this hypothesis (Germany loses it chance to win after the BoB), one can state that Germany never really had a chance for victory. My rationale - knock GB out of the war and you make it highly unlikely that the US will ever have the possibility of mounting an invasion. On the eastern side, if Germany had knocked GB out in 1940-41, Barbarossa would have been delayed, allowing Russia more time to better arm, train and deploy its forces. The further one goes, the more possibilities arise - would Hitler attack Russia next; would Russia attack Germany - who knows!

Asia: What would Japan want in Siberia? Minerals and Energy - How do you exploit them in the 1941 world? Security - attack first to cause the most damage possible, BUT what then? Russia has in 1941 large manpower reserves (even with Barbarossa in play), their regional armies destroyed your forces in Mongolia in 1939. So why would you attack? That is the question you would need to answer. I postulate that attacking Russia at this point in the war is suicidal for Japan. If you do attack, do you also simultaneously attack the US, the DEI, and British possessions? You would have to if you are going to have access to the DEI oil reserves. Russia will prove itself a massive hemorrhage for your forces and I suspect your expansion would be seriously jeopardized in the south. Now for a seriously wild Assumption...the US likely can't attack Germany via the Atlantic, but Japan weakened by the Russian debacle becomes the favored victory first priority, with lend lease going through Vladivostok (along with American forces should they be needed). Victory over Japan would take the US into 1944, during which time Russia would likely have Germany on its knees. A presumption here - Barbarossa occurs as planned and follows history, eastern reserves are siphoned to save Moscow; 1942 Caucasus drive results in Stalingrad - German capitulation occurs in 1943. 1943 Summer campaign occurs historically. Russia would not have the benefit of lend lease due to the loss of GB unless US convoys could make it to Murmansk, but would still have massive internal resources and manpower. Would they want US forces at that point - not likely.

More wild cards - North African must be considered - do the Germans have enough forces to take Egypt, the middle east, and make a drive from the south should the Barbarossa campaign begin without GB still in the war? Another wild card - Hitler decides NOT to declare war on the US after the PH attack. Does the US thus declare war on Germany as they are a Japanese ally? GB is out of the war as discussed above; Russia at war with Japan; where do all those bombers for your strategic bomber command go - hmmmmm. How quick can you say - FIRESTORM on the home islands.

Like I mentioned in my opening...What a wild alternative history. I think the result would have ultimately been the same - US defeats Japan; Russia defeats Germany. The iron curtain falls across all of Europe. At best for the US, German forces in GB surrender to the US prior to a Russian invasion.

if Sea Lion would have gone off and would have been succesful (which there was a chance for what? 0.5%?), then I doubt the Russian would have Germany on it´s knees because without a Western front and the Western Allied bomber offensive the Nazis pretty sure would achieve a draw against the Russian on the offense. The fight against the Western Allied took a lot of manpower, war material and resources, even before D-day so I wouldn´t underestimate this. I also wouldn´t underestimate the German in holding back the Russian if the West is "secure". Even though it looks like a cakewalk for the Russian from 44 on in real life, the losses they took were horrendous. And this with the Nazis having the West not secured.

But as many have pointed out it´s all just a "if".

Germany would still have to employ massive garrisons in GB and the West. I agree that some manpower would be free for the East, BUT I still stand by the thought that the war was won in the east. I readily agree that North Africa, Italy, and D-day did take away from the Wehrmacht but not enough to make a difference. These are merely opinions that I have; not attempting to express anything but. As before...fascinating ideas.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Venividivici10044

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Venividivici10044

Well...I'll put a few thoughts down as I find this a particularly interesting speculation.

Europe: I feel that historically Germany lost the war during the Battle of Britain. I suspect that a follow-up Sea Lion campaign (after a successful BoB) would have been a disaster should the attempt been made. If one accepts this hypothesis (Germany loses it chance to win after the BoB), one can state that Germany never really had a chance for victory. My rationale - knock GB out of the war and you make it highly unlikely that the US will ever have the possibility of mounting an invasion. On the eastern side, if Germany had knocked GB out in 1940-41, Barbarossa would have been delayed, allowing Russia more time to better arm, train and deploy its forces. The further one goes, the more possibilities arise - would Hitler attack Russia next; would Russia attack Germany - who knows!

Asia: What would Japan want in Siberia? Minerals and Energy - How do you exploit them in the 1941 world? Security - attack first to cause the most damage possible, BUT what then? Russia has in 1941 large manpower reserves (even with Barbarossa in play), their regional armies destroyed your forces in Mongolia in 1939. So why would you attack? That is the question you would need to answer. I postulate that attacking Russia at this point in the war is suicidal for Japan. If you do attack, do you also simultaneously attack the US, the DEI, and British possessions? You would have to if you are going to have access to the DEI oil reserves. Russia will prove itself a massive hemorrhage for your forces and I suspect your expansion would be seriously jeopardized in the south. Now for a seriously wild Assumption...the US likely can't attack Germany via the Atlantic, but Japan weakened by the Russian debacle becomes the favored victory first priority, with lend lease going through Vladivostok (along with American forces should they be needed). Victory over Japan would take the US into 1944, during which time Russia would likely have Germany on its knees. A presumption here - Barbarossa occurs as planned and follows history, eastern reserves are siphoned to save Moscow; 1942 Caucasus drive results in Stalingrad - German capitulation occurs in 1943. 1943 Summer campaign occurs historically. Russia would not have the benefit of lend lease due to the loss of GB unless US convoys could make it to Murmansk, but would still have massive internal resources and manpower. Would they want US forces at that point - not likely.

More wild cards - North African must be considered - do the Germans have enough forces to take Egypt, the middle east, and make a drive from the south should the Barbarossa campaign begin without GB still in the war? Another wild card - Hitler decides NOT to declare war on the US after the PH attack. Does the US thus declare war on Germany as they are a Japanese ally? GB is out of the war as discussed above; Russia at war with Japan; where do all those bombers for your strategic bomber command go - hmmmmm. How quick can you say - FIRESTORM on the home islands.

Like I mentioned in my opening...What a wild alternative history. I think the result would have ultimately been the same - US defeats Japan; Russia defeats Germany. The iron curtain falls across all of Europe. At best for the US, German forces in GB surrender to the US prior to a Russian invasion.

if Sea Lion would have gone off and would have been succesful (which there was a chance for what? 0.5%?), then I doubt the Russian would have Germany on it´s knees because without a Western front and the Western Allied bomber offensive the Nazis pretty sure would achieve a draw against the Russian on the offense. The fight against the Western Allied took a lot of manpower, war material and resources, even before D-day so I wouldn´t underestimate this. I also wouldn´t underestimate the German in holding back the Russian if the West is "secure". Even though it looks like a cakewalk for the Russian from 44 on in real life, the losses they took were horrendous. And this with the Nazis having the West not secured.

But as many have pointed out it´s all just a "if".

Germany would still have to employ massive garrisons in GB and the West. I agree that some manpower would be free for the East, BUT I still stand by the thought that the war was won in the east. I readily agree that North Africa, Italy, and D-day did take away from the Wehrmacht but not enough to make a difference. These are merely opinions that I have; not attempting to express anything but. As before...fascinating ideas.

depends on what you mean by "massive". France was beaten but compared to the massive number of divisions in the East, the troops that were stationed in France just to keep France occupied is something I wouldn´t call massive. Granted, it would probabyl take more units to occupy Britain but that´s nothing compared to what it cost the German when they suffered years of major bombings. The ground war was won in the East by the Russian but without the Western Allied I doubt it would have gone the same for the Russians as with the bombing campaign of the Brits and Americans.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

besides the fact that the Russians would probably have wiped the floor with the Japanese, what would the Japanese have gained if they would win? What they conquered in the SRA wasn´t available in the Russian held territories.

Keep in mind that the Japanese seriously considered going after the USSR. It's not for resources, but for self-protection. The strategic reasoning for the Army to go after Manchukuo and China was to create a buffer against Communism. When Germany got their huge gains in 1941, and everybody from Churchill to Roosevelt thought that the soviets would fall, there were several people in Japan that advocated to go after the USSR because otherwise they wouldn't be able to reap a share of Hitler's victories. And, remember, the Caucasus also had a lot of oil.

If I was in the Japanese shoes by 2nd semester 1941, the USSR and its oil would look like a much more attractive target than taking on the might of the USA/UK/Netherlands/Australia/New Zealand. They Japanese were no fools -- it is recorded in several high-level conferences they didn't expect to win a war against the USA, but were looking to negotiate a settlement from a favorable position.


Thanks,
fbs

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: fbs

Keep in mind that the Japanese seriously considered going after the USSR. It's not for resources, but for self-protection. The strategic reasoning for the Army to go after Manchukuo and China was to create a buffer against Communism. When Germany got their huge gains in 1941, and everybody from Churchill to Roosevelt thought that the soviets would fall, there were several people in Japan that advocated to go after the USSR because otherwise they wouldn't be able to reap a share of Hitler's victories. And, remember, the Caucasus also had a lot of oil.

If I was in the Japanese shoes by 2nd semester 1941, the USSR and its oil would look like a much more attractive target than taking on the might of the USA/UK/Netherlands/Australia/New Zealand. The Japanese were no fools -- it is recorded in several high-level conferences they didn't expect to win a war against the USA, but were looking to negotiate a settlement from a favorable position.

Thanks,
fbs

They would have been if they followed your logic. The Caucasus is 4,000 miles West over a RR that would have been destroyed in the fighting. Not to mention that the Germans would have gotten there way ahead of the Japanese (given your hypothesis, not reality) and they wanted the oil for themselves.

[pad152]

There were many large border clashes between Japanese and Russian forces, every time Russian forces counter attacked they beat the Japanese. Looking at the data in database with the editor, Russian forces have very high experience levels, if you go to war with Russia (in game) your going to lose!

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

They would have been if they followed your logic. The Caucasus is 4,000 miles West over a RR that would have been destroyed in the fighting. Not to mention that the Germans would have gotten there way ahead of the Japanese (given your hypothesis, not reality) and they wanted the oil for themselves.

It's not really my logic. My logic would be to evacuate China and endure the hard times. I think that attacking the USSR would be stupid and suicidal for Japan, but I have the benefit of hindsight. Foreign Minister Matsuoka promoted going after the USSR, and the Army had plans to attack Siberia if Moscow fell. Even Tojo was at one point inclined to go North instead of South. Apparently he was persuaded by the argument that the USA might attack if they went after the USSR.

Imagine that you are Japanese, and you don't really have exact information on the Red Army, but you know you've won in 1905, then Russia surrendered in WW1, and then you lost in 1937 and 1939, and now the Red Army is in disarray and had one million losses already. Who was to say definitively that the USSR was not up for grabs?

On that environment it's not far fetched to see Japan trying to get in the bus for the spoils. Japan went after the USA knowing very well that USA had an advantage of "steel by 20 to 1, oil more than 100 to 1, coal 10 to 1, planes 5 to 1, shipping 2 to 1, labor 5 to 1; overall 10 to 1". They were certain they couldn't win against the USA, while the USSR was on the brink of defeat.

So I believe that attacking the USSR was a real (although stupid and unlikely) possibility. But we're digressing around that; the thread was meant to ask that assuming Japan had attacked, if the USSR would fold. We can't spend too much time arguing that Japan would never have attacked -- I don't think they were particularly logic about their strategy.


Thanks,
fbs

[joe chod]

But if Iran attacked Turkey from the rear.....would Greece help?  
 
Rumsfeld says it works for him! 

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

They would have been if they followed your logic. The Caucasus is 4,000 miles West over a RR that would have been destroyed in the fighting. Not to mention that the Germans would have gotten there way ahead of the Japanese (given your hypothesis, not reality) and they wanted the oil for themselves.

It's not really my logic.

If "It's not really your logic..", then why did you say this?


quote:

"ORIGINAL: fbs

Keep in mind that the Japanese seriously considered going after the USSR. It's not for resources, but for self-protection. The strategic reasoning for the Army to go after Manchukuo and China was to create a buffer against Communism. When Germany got their huge gains in 1941, and everybody from Churchill to Roosevelt thought that the soviets would fall, there were several people in Japan that advocated to go after the USSR because otherwise they wouldn't be able to reap a share of Hitler's victories. And, remember, the Caucasus also had a lot of oil.

If I was in the Japanese shoes by 2nd semester 1941, the USSR and its oil would look like a much more attractive target than taking on the might of the USA/UK/Netherlands/Australia/New Zealand. The Japanese were no fools -- it is recorded in several high-level conferences they didn't expect to win a war against the USA, but were looking to negotiate a settlement from a favorable position.

Thanks,
fbs"

[Venividivici10044]

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

They would have been if they followed your logic. The Caucasus is 4,000 miles West over a RR that would have been destroyed in the fighting. Not to mention that the Germans would have gotten there way ahead of the Japanese (given your hypothesis, not reality) and they wanted the oil for themselves.

It's not really my logic. My logic would be to evacuate China and endure the hard times. I think that attacking the USSR would be stupid and suicidal for Japan, but I have the benefit of hindsight. Foreign Minister Matsuoka promoted going after the USSR, and the Army had plans to attack Siberia if Moscow fell. Even Tojo was at one point inclined to go North instead of South. Apparently he was persuaded by the argument that the USA might attack if they went after the USSR.

Imagine that you are Japanese, and you don't really have exact information on the Red Army, but you know you've won in 1905, then Russia surrendered in WW1, and then you lost in 1937 and 1939, and now the Red Army is in disarray and had one million losses already. Who was to say definitively that the USSR was not up for grabs?

On that environment it's not far fetched to see Japan trying to get in the bus for the spoils. Japan went after the USA knowing very well that USA had an advantage of "steel by 20 to 1, oil more than 100 to 1, coal 10 to 1, planes 5 to 1, shipping 2 to 1, labor 5 to 1; overall 10 to 1". They were certain they couldn't win against the USA, while the USSR was on the brink of defeat.

So I believe that attacking the USSR was a real (although stupid and unlikely) possibility. But we're digressing around that; the thread was meant to ask that assuming Japan had attacked, if the USSR would fold. We can't spend too much time arguing that Japan would never have attacked -- I don't think they were particularly logic about their strategy.


Thanks,
fbs

The rationale for the Japanese attack was not to defeat America, but instead to conquer resources and erect a buffer region that would dissuade the US from fighting a protracted war. I think the hope was that psychologically the US would be crushed and sue for peace. Maneuvers by the US did force Japan to attack as they were deprived of vital resources and financial capital.

With regard to "massive" about German garrisons in GB and France; likely a poor choice of words. My intent was to state that the amount of forces required would be substantial and serve as a drain on reserves. I stand by my thoughts though - Germany never had a chance for victory after the Battle of Britain. I don't think Russia would have capitulated even if the West had folded and Japan attacked. BUT that's my opinion [&o]

[chesmart]

          Germany against USA , England , commonwealth and Russia no chance but Germany and japan vs Russia at a time when Russia has lost most of its military equipment and has most of the factories in the west either captured or relocating east is another story. At the same time if USA is not at war there is no lend lease to USSR. USSR had huge armies , resources and a lot of brave soldiers but Stalin has made to many mistakes in the beginning of the war. By the time the Wehrmacht reached Moscow there only intact and fresh units with decent equipment were the Siberian armies. Now can Russia defeat japan in 4-5 months and then send these troops west over the trans Siberian railway ? I do not know the load carrying capacity of the railway but i think it is not feasible to do so. Then one of the first aims of the Japanese would be to damage the railway as it is the only link to the west that is operable all year long. 

[TSCofield]

First off it would be very hard to say what would have happened if Japan had attacked from the East. Depending on the date of the attack there is a chance of success.

Lets face it, when Hitler first attacked Stalin became desperate; he was close to the breaking point by mid August of 1941. If Japan had attacked at that point it may have been enough to tip Stalin and the Soviet Union over the edge. In the border skirmishes prior to WW2 the Soviets weren't dealing with the disaster on the German Front. The entire army was in shambles.

Even if the Japanese hadn't broken through and taken large chunks of Siberian territory (which I doubt they really wanted) what it would have done is put increasing pressure on a tenuous supply situation in the Soviet Union. The Russians had a stable eastern area so they could concentrate on fighting the Germans. If they had to constantly keep these far flung units supplied there would have been some real logistic difficulties fighting the Wehrmacht. I'm not sure that the rebuilding of the Soviet Army in the west would have occurred if a large percentage of the equipment had to go east to resupply and re-equip units fighting the Japanese. Even if 30% of the supplies were diverted that would have been significant. It may have been enough to prevent the resupply of Leningrad in 1942 or it could have led to the loss of the Caucuses to the Germans.

One more thing to consider. One of the reasons the US supplied Stalin as much as he did was because he was fighting a common enemy in Germany. Yes there was some lend lease supplies prior to the US Declaration of War but most of them didn't start until after the US became involved in the war. IF the Japanese didn't attack the US there is some doubt as to the involvement of America. FDR would have been involved in some ways but I doubt he would have gotten the US to declare war on Japan or Germany just because Japan attacked Russia. Even if the US became involved I doubt it would have happened prior to mid 1942. Would the British have held the Middle East in that instance? What would Turkey have done. They were on the fence but I don't doubt they would have come in on the Axis side if it looked like Germany would take the entire middle East. Japan may not have wanted oil from the Caucuses but they might have been able to use some of the oil from the middle east.

It is all academic. Physically the Soviets could have stopped Japan in any assault but there would have been a drain on the Soviets that I am not sure they could overcome. Even if the Japanese failed to take a single inch of territory what would have happened is that the manpower pool that the Soviets relied upon to prevent the total collapse of the Soviet Empire would have been diminished. It may not have guaranteed a Japanese victory but it would have made it more possible for the Germans to win.