"The Ultimate World War II What-If: Japan Attacks Russia" Topic

….Instead of America

"Fighting a war on two fronts is the military equivalent of driving a car while texting. It's just a really bad idea, as Germany can attest. One reason Germany lost two world wars is because its forces were split between East and West. America and Britain also fought World War II in Europe and Asia.

In contrast, the Soviet Union could concentrate its forces against Germany, thanks to a 1941 neutrality pact with its long-time rival Japan. This became painfully obvious to Hitler during the 1941–42 Battle of Moscow, when the Red Army's well-trained and well-equipped Siberian divisions reinforced the battered Soviet armies defending Moscow. Trained to operate in the harsh cold of Siberia, these fresh troops shattered the frozen German spearheads and sent them reeling from the gates of Moscow…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Yawn.

As far as I am concerned, this "Ultimate What-If" is a non-starter.

The premise is that the Soviet Union has some form of vital interests in it's Pacific provinces.

Can anyone suggest what those might have been? Yeah, sure, if you want to be a world power, reaching the Pacific coast an building a year-round port is probably a noteworthy achievement. But the Russian Empire had already fought and lost one war with Japan there, and somehow it did not prove to be an existential threat to Russia, nor provide any significant boost to Japan other than some prestige.

The Soviet Union, by December of 1941, was not fighting for prestige. Couldn't have cared less about prestige. Wasn't going to expend any resources on prestige.

So the Japanese attack. So what? Let the troops that are already there handle it if they can. If they can't, oh well.

What's the tally sheet if the Japanese win?

Japan: Gets a few thousand square miles of nothing, with a widely distributed population of Mongol horsemen.

Soviets: Lose a few thousand square miles of nothing, that was still 20 or 30 years (and billions of rubles) away from being anything useful.

Japan would have hadto cross 1,000+ miles of uninhabited Siberian wasteland before they got to any important Soviet assets. An army with no oil (since they didn't go south) is not particularly likely to do that -- certainly not in less time than it takes for things to proceed to a resolution on the front that really matters, where the Germans are already on top of lots of important Soviet assets.

Don't object to the link. It's on topic. But I see the content as 2 penny click-bait.

Yawn.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

There are a lot of resources in Siberia.

But the Japanese tried to invade, and got their butts kicked at Nomonhan.

The Army wanted to. The Navy won the coin toss.

Mark +1. Non starter. Russia was too busy fighting for survival to care what Japan did and Japan had much more low hanging fruit within easy reach going South.

If you truly want to understand the way WWII played out think logistics over politics. Germany, Italy and Japan were all short various strategic resources. For the Germans they were in the East, not England. For the Italians the Balkans and North Africa. And for Japan in Southeast Asian and the Southwest Pacific. And that's just where each of them went. Lee

It all hinges on the idea that Siberia is somehow the land of plenty where oil just bubbles to the surface, the exact same proposition with the Saudi oilfields.

Except that in 1941, Soviet oil production was about 85% in the Caucasus, about 7-8% in WESTERN Siberia an the rest scattered in other places.

Saudi oilfields only accounted for less than 1% of total world production (less that Rumania) in 1940, since most drilling projects had started around 1936 and were mostly test drilling, rather than oil production (which would have been slow for lack of local oil refineries.

Coming back to the OP, the bulk of the Siberian oil was about 1200km from the Japanese starting line, how much of a realistic plan is that compared to grabbing the Shell oilfields in the Dutch Indies ???

Siberia at the time was trees, a big crater and tons of despondent Soviets surrounded by barbed wire. Unless the Japanese can time-travel and invade the USSR in the 1960's and 1970's …

If Germany/Japan want plenty of cheap, accessible oil they have to invade Venezuela.

But the Japanese tried to invade, and got their butts kicked at Nomonhan.

Did they get their butts handed to them?
Check out this Wikipedia article.
link
Check out the number of forces involved. The Russians outnumbered the Japanese by roughly 2:1, and in tanks and armored cars by roughly 5:1.
Then check losses.
The Japanese came up against a foe willing to throw the kitchen sink at them, and willing to take more losses than they were.
So, yes. The Japanese were defeated by someone …. Hmmmm. Sounds like the Russians fighting the Germans, doesn't it?

Let's just say it was a very sobering experience. One that might have profited the Germans to study, if the Japanese has been willing to share information. Which they certainly were not. Heck, Pearl Harbor was as much a surprise to Hitler as to the Yanks.
And as noted above, what would it profit them to invade Siberia, when they couldn't even invade Mongolia? Let the Army stick to China, and let the Navy take the easy pickings oil fields down South.

Generally in the long and short run … the Japanese would get lose. It took the USSR a week or so to mop up the thousands of IJFs in Manchuria, etc., in '45. After the Russians turned East. After the defeat of the Nazis.

Albeit the IJFs were not as capable as they were in '41. Even considering what happened at Khalklin-Gol link before WWII. The Russians learned a lot since then. And were much better armed as well as experienced, etc.

So the Japanese attack. So what? Let the troops that are already there handle it if they can. If they can't, oh well.

I think you're missing the point here. Even if those forces in the Far East completely destroyed the attacking Japanese, they still aren't available to go west to help save Moscow. In which case the Soviet Union may very well have collapsed (in theory, at least), in which case the Japanese are free to do as they please in Siberia.

Even if those forces in the Far East completely destroyed the attacking Japanese, they still aren't available to go west to help save Moscow. In which case the Soviet Union may very well have collapsed (in theory, at least), in which case the Japanese are free to do as they please in Siberia.

For this statement to be a reasonable proposition, we would have to have some evidence that the Soviets transferred a substantial body of troops from the far east, that they were used in the defense of Moscow, that they had some impact on the battles around Moscow, and that they were transferred at some point in time around or after the timeframe when the Japanese decided to go South instead of North (ie: into the Pacific instead of into Siberia).

Is there ANY such evidence available? Other than breathless accounts by Germans about hordes of fresh Siberian infantry, that is?

Soviet records, as far as I have been able to see, show only 14 divisions transferred from the the eastern military districts to the western during the entire time from the start of Barbarossa until the counter-attacks around Moscow. 14 divisions, among which 2 were "Mountain Cavalry" divisions (small -- about the size of a regiment, with very low combat power on open steppes). Of those 14 divisions I believe only EIGHT were transferred to the formations involved in the battles around Moscow (Western Front and Kalinin Front, with none going to the Bryansk Front).

Of those 8, only THREE were actually from the Far Eastern military district where the Japanese were likely to be engaged. TWO were from the Trans-Baikal military district, which put them several hundreds of miles inland from where the Japanese were likely to attack. But they are still transfers from "Siberia", so I don't object if they are counted too. THREE were from the Central Asian military district. It is a bit of a stretch to envision them participating in any initial combat actions with the Japanese. These would probably be back-up echelons for war against Japan, but I really can't see the STAVKA being too fussed about providing depth against the Japanese when Moscow is under threat.

Of the FIVE divisions that were from the Far Eastern and Trans Baikal military districts, and that actually fought in the battles around Moscow, TWO had been transferred before November of 1941 (when Japan decided on their Southern option).

That leaves a grand total, depending on how you want to count them, of something like THREE divisions that fought around Moscow, that might not have been transferred if the Japanese had decided to attack the Soviet Union instead of the United States.

58th Tank Division: Transferred from Far Eastern to 16th Army of the Western Front, November 1941

78th Rifle Division: Transferred from the Far Eastern to the 16th Army of the Western Front, October/November 1941

82nd Mechanized Division: Transferred from the Trans Baikal district to the 5th Army of the Western Front, November 1941

I don't see much information indicating any of these divisions actually made a difference. The 32nd Rifle Division, which transferred from the Far Eastern district to the 5th Army of the Western Front earlier (before November) seems to have been heavily engaged and fairly effective in the Moscow battles. But the three above? Don't see them having made much of a name for themselves.

And note that these 3 divisions were all transferred BEFORE Japan attacked the US. By the time the Japanese actually attacked the US, the transfers had all been done. So the entire hypothesis that a Japanese decision to attack the Soviets instead of the US would have made any difference on the defense of Moscow also rests on the cases either that the Army could have attacked in the North faster than the Navy could attack Pearl Harbor, or that Sorge's spy activities were the key influence driving Stalin's decisions prior to actual Japanese military actions. That second issue is highly dubious -- if Sorge had been screaming at the top of his lungs that Japan was about to attack the Soviets, I see little evidence that Stalin would have made a single decision differently. After all Stalin had studiously ignored all intelligence flows that pointed toward Barbarossa in the first place.

After all of that, it still comes down to … 3 Divisions? On the scale of the battles of the eastern front, that's hardly worth a sneeze! With all of the accounts of endless masses of fresh Siberian troops suddenly appearing, are we to believe that the Germans would have taken Moscow if not for those 3 divisions?

Nope. I don't buy it. In a Red Army army of 400+ divisions, having an extra 3 divisions available is not a game changer. Not in the East, not in the West, not in front of Moscow, not behind Vladivostock.

The "Siberian Divisions" saving Moscow is just another myth of WW2 on the Eastern Front.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Only 3 divisions were transferred from the far east and 2 from the transbaikal. There were 4 rifle divisions and 7 fortified areas (not sure what that consists of left in the far east after the withdrawals. 3 rifle divisions, 2 tank divisions and other supporting troops were still in the tranbaikal region. So it wasn't as if the soviets had totally stripped defenses. Not sure what the mongolians had available at that time.

Not long ago I was reading more about the battle for Moscow and it stated that the "siberian" units weren't instrumental in stopping the germans advance but they were heavily involved in the soviet counterattacks. If they had been delayed by a japanese attack it may or may not have had a noticeable effect on the Moscow front. Despite their record I don't know if 5 divisions more or less would have significantly changed anything in the east front meat grinder. The soviets would likely have shifted a few divisions from a less crucial front to Moscow if the eastern divisions hadn't been available.

Plus as others have said what would Japan have gained and the Soviet Union lost if the Japanese had successfully invaded? One of the lend lease supply routes a few small cities and a lot of forest. It would have cost them a lot for no significant gain and not taken anything critical from the soviets.

Interesting. When I posted my little addition Mark1's much better explanation wasn't visible. Today when I came back I see my redundancy. Nice post, Mark1!