WI Japan wins the Battle of Khalkhin Gol

IOTL, Japan lost the Battle of Khalkhin Gol in August 1939.

WI, things had gone differently, and Zhukov was defeated?

How would things have turned out?

um eather su retaliates or japan casualties are unacceptable and they still sign a nonagression pact

Stalin would never tolerate the USSR to be seen as weak internationally, to have made no progress since the defeat of 1905. It would embolden further Japanese aggression in the Russian Far East, not to mention Hitler.

First Zhukov would be shot for incompetence. Second the Soviets will throw a million men at Manchuria. The 1939 invasion of Finland is averted.

tallwingedgoat said:

Stalin would never tolerate the USSR to be seen as weak internationally, to have made no progress since the defeat of 1905. It would embolden further Japanese aggression in the Russian Far East, not to mention Hitler.

First Zhukov would be shot for incompetence. Second the Soviets will throw a million men at Manchuria. The 1939 invasion of Finland is averted.

Click to expand...

I don't think Stalin's going to be that rash. The bit about shooting Zhukov might be right, though.

The effects might be that some more planes get transferred into China, or the USSR might even send an air unit (a squadron?). Cassus Belli isn't the problem, because Soviet diplomats will have 'no problem citing the 26 merchant ships the Japanese detained, sometimes by force' and the 'subversive border-crossings'. There might also be an earlier Machurian August Storm adventure, but this I doubt.

Another interesting possibility is that the Soviets put more of their Siberian reserves in between the borders. The Soviets will worry about the Japanese trying to do a major border incursion again. More so when the Germans invade, and this could have interesting implications in the battle of Moscow and such.

This paranoia could be 'justified' by (OTL) Matsuoka saying 'the basis of Japan’s foreign policy is the Tripartite Pact, and if the present war and the Neutrality Pact find themselves in contradiction with that basis and with the Tripartite Pact, then the Neutrality Pact will have no force' - and I think the Soviets were aware of the 'Kantokuen' and 'Hokushin' plans...

Slamet said:

I don't think Stalin's going to be that rash. The bit about shooting Zhukov might be right, though.

Click to expand...

Why not? Stalin did exactly that during the war with Finland. When the initial invasion failed, he committed a million men into action. The total force used against Finland was roughly 70% of Operation August Storm in manpower and aircraft, and actually involved more tanks.

Khalkhin Gol was a major campaign and losing to Japan would be a big deal in 1939 world politics. On paper Japan was a minor power and the Soviets were supposed to be much stronger. It would be a major upset which would draw sharp contrast with the German success in Poland. For the same reason Stalin had to beat Finland at all costs, he would have no choice but deliver a convincing victory against Japan or risk war with Hitler.

The effects might be that some more planes get transferred into China, or the USSR might even send an air unit (a squadron?).

Click to expand...

The Soviets were already doing that by 1938. Hundreds of Soviet airmen fought in China. The Chinese air force fighter inventory was practically all Russian aircraft at this time.

Slamet said:

I don't think Stalin's going to be that rash. The bit about shooting Zhukov might be right, though.

The effects might be that some more planes get transferred into China, or the USSR might even send an air unit (a squadron?). Cassus Belli isn't the problem, because Soviet diplomats will have 'no problem citing the 26 merchant ships the Japanese detained, sometimes by force' and the 'subversive border-crossings'. There might also be an earlier Machurian August Storm adventure, but this I doubt.

Another interesting possibility is that the Soviets put more of their Siberian reserves in between the borders. The Soviets will worry about the Japanese trying to do a major border incursion again. More so when the Germans invade, and this could have interesting implications in the battle of Moscow and such.

This paranoia could be 'justified' by (OTL) Matsuoka saying 'the basis of Japan’s foreign policy is the Tripartite Pact, and if the present war and the Neutrality Pact find themselves in contradiction with that basis and with the Tripartite Pact, then the Neutrality Pact will have no force' - and I think the Soviets were aware of the 'Kantokuen' and 'Hokushin' plans...

Click to expand...

Battle of Moscow and the "Strike North"/"Strike South" debate were exactly what I was thinking of. If Zhukov is still fighting in Siberia or gets shot (or even KIA), what happens to Moscow?

And if the Army's "Strike North" is proving sucessful, would we even see Pearl Harbor? OTOH, if the army gets creamed by SU (and maybe we even see August Storm way early), does Japan go South earlier, or sit back and recoup it's losses?

If the Kwantung Army won the engagement then it might just have resulted in Japan throwing more resources into the war. Mongolia would definately be the fighting ground and the Japanese would have to send more of their modern fighter to the region.. I suspect that Japan would have to rely on advice from Germany and develope a more capable armour fighting force.

Would a military reform be a sufficiently realistic POD?

Let's say, for example, that 1) there's a more unified Japanese command (JIA and JAAF aren't at odds so much) and 2) either German advisors are present or Ogisu is a better logistician. This allows a stronger position for Japan and longer fighting.

Another couple of ideas - what if Zhukov isn't there to start with - POD him called back to Moscow, sent elsewhere. sick, purged, or even killed in a freak accident.

I believe that Japan would have to develope a more powerful main battle tank years earlier. Thus the improvements made in 1944-45 would have to come much sooner and might have if German technical aid could have been provided sooner.

hiiamthief said:

um eather su retaliates or japan casualties are unacceptable and they still sign a nonagression pact

Click to expand...

I believe that this sentence should have be written as follows: "Either the USSR retaliates or Japanese casualties are unacceptable and they still sign a nonaggression pact."

If you push the "Shift" key on your keyboard, you can then type in capital letters. I suggest you try to do this.

And "SU" refers to Syracuse University. The correct abbreviation for the Soviet Union is "USSR". It stands for "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", which is the actual name of the entity.

Okay, what's with all of the anal-retentiveness over "SU"? Does anyone actually think that Germany invading SU is at all ambiguous? I get tired of all of this stupid sniping on standards that don't really exist. I've never referred to Syracuse University and this kind of nit-picking isn't really helping anything.

If Japan percieves the Soviet Union as weak instead of strong they may opt to move north instead of south. This war would almost certainly be a long one, and the conseqeunces of Germany smashing across the Soviet Union with complete tactical and strategic surprise are going to be far worse than OTL--now after the Germans encircle large forces on the border the Soviets are going to struggle to replace them--and are likely to lose Moscow in the 1941 campaign.

That's going to mean a LONG war...

Anaxagoras said:

And "SU" refers to Syracuse University.

Click to expand...

abbriviations can stand for more than one thing.

Blue Max said:

Okay, what's with all of the anal-retentiveness over "SU"? Does anyone actually think that Germany invading SU is at all ambiguous? I get tired of all of this stupid sniping on standards that don't really exist. I've never referred to Syracuse University and this kind of nit-picking isn't really helping anything.

Click to expand...

ur rit im sory y dont we all just thro standurd out windo??? that wud b great.

Blue Max said:

If Japan percieves the Soviet Union as weak instead of strong they may opt to move north instead of south. This war would almost certainly be a long one, and the conseqeunces of Germany smashing across the Soviet Union with complete tactical and strategic surprise are going to be far worse than OTL--now after the Germans encircle large forces on the border the Soviets are going to struggle to replace them--and are likely to lose Moscow in the 1941 campaign.

That's going to mean a LONG war...

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure.

First if the Soviets succeed in crushing Japan decisively they would dispel the myth of Soviet incompetence, hence deterring Germany from launching Barbarossa. If German war plans are delayed to 1942, Soviet industrialization would have reached a point of neigh invulnerability, exactly what Stalin was counting on and Hitler was afraid of.

Second should the Soviet-Japanese War get bogged down, the joining of the war by Germany would not necessarily spell doom for the Soviets. Not only would the Red Army be much more experienced, but much of it would be in the Far East, making any prospect of quick encirclements in the west impossible. The biggest blunder Stalin made was to move the Red Army west to the German border, away from its hardened supply depots. As a consequence they were encircled and overwhelmed in the opening weeks of the conflict.

Anaxagoras said:

ur rit im sory y dont we all just thro standurd out windo??? that wud b great.

Click to expand...

Damnit, will you give it a rest? It's really tiring seeing your stupid Syracuse University rant every time someone uses the former ISO-3166-1 code for the Soviet Union.

tallwingedgoat said:

I'm not so sure.

First if the Soviets succeed in crushing Japan decisively they would dispel the myth of Soviet incompetence, hence deterring Germany from launching Barbarossa. If German war plans are delayed to 1942, Soviet industrialization would have reached a point of neigh invulnerability, exactly what Stalin was counting on and Hitler was afraid of.

Second should the Soviet-Japanese War get bogged down, the joining of the war by Germany would not necessarily spell doom for the Soviets. Not only would the Red Army be much more experienced, but much of it would be in the Far East, making any prospect of quick encirclements in the west impossible. The biggest blunder Stalin made was to move the Red Army west to the German border, away from its hardened supply depots. As a consequence they were encircled and overwhelmed in the opening weeks of the conflict.

Click to expand...

First of all, Anaxagoras is going on my ignore list. I encourage you all to do the same, so that we can freeze him out this pointless tripe.

Okay, but Khalkhin Gol is 1938, so a full scale war isn't likely to immediately follow. And count on Stalin being a moron, just like OTL--his Finland experience certainly didn't improve his handling of Barbarossa, so I doubt that a longer war with Japan would help things either.

Shooting Zhukov and Blucher is in the cards; further forces to the Far East are probably inevitable. That said, there's no real way for the Syracusians to defeat Japan any more than the other way around--Japan probably holds Korea and grabs Sakhalin, while losing Manchuko. This kind of Land/Sea split probably ejects the IJA from China--and forces all of their efforts squarely against Syracuse University.

This Stalemate is likely to tie up a large number of Syracusian Troops.

Meanwhile, Stalin is still going to have the Red Army assume a forward defense posture just like OTL--and now a weaker Red Army can not contest Smolensk or Kiev for as long as OTL; Moscow and Leningrad fall and Syracuse University's got a hell of a situation on their hands--they might even agree to concede considerable territory to Japan to redeploy their army against Germany.

It's going to be a longer, harder war.

Blue Max said:

Okay, but Khalkhin Gol is 1938

Click to expand...

It was '39, but otherwise good.

So, if the Japanese get those large consessions, will they get enough oil to stop Pearl Harbor?

And if the war's extended, how does it effect the Winter War in Finland?

Osakadave said:

So, if the Japanese get those large consessions, will they get enough oil to stop Pearl Harbor?

Click to expand...

maybe, i think they would have to cut back on their oil usage still. like choke the ijn. of course if the embargo still happens than chances are the will still be low on oil.

Sakhalin, coincidentally, has a small amount of Oil being produced at this time, and apparently has several Billions of Barrels of Oil in hand. Developing this resource now inside Japanese Borders is going to be HUGE. There will be no Pearl Harbor if Japan can make its own oil.

Also, if the IJA gets ejected from China the whole need for Oil is kind of mitigated.

If the Syracusians sue for a desperate peace to free up the troops Japan comes away from this war a big winner. I predict: Manchuria would be returned, Mongolia and the Maritime Province, as well of Sakhalin and the southern tip of Kamchatka are all given to Japan.

The Chinese question will linger on, and a desperate Syracuse Pullout and a gentleman's agreement with Japan to end support for the Nationalists as part of the peace deal is going to leave the region balancing on eggshells.

One can only hope that after this arrangement and the IJA humilated on the battlefield that Japan would avoid ever attacking another European power.

Blue Max said:

First of all, Anaxagoras is going on my ignore list. I encourage you all to do the same, so that we can freeze him out this pointless tripe.

Click to expand...

I'm emotionally crushed.

But seriously, I don't see it as a "pointless tripe" in the least. One of the things I love about AH.com is that its members seem to consider proper grammar, spelliing, ect. to be things worth making an effort about. This is one of the things that sets it apart from other discussion boards on the net, and one of the reasons I like coming here.

If people got in the habit of spelling Germany as "Jermany" or of never capitalizing any words at all, I think people would object to it. If they didn't, we would soon find ourselves with a discussion board that possessed a quality of writing, grammar, and spelling no different from that of your average pre-teen gossip sight.

People may think I go too far in my opposition to the use of "SU" to descibe the Soviet Union. But I am merely expressing my concern that our discussion board does not find itself on a slippery slope in terms of the quality of its writing.