Japan heads north 1937, impact on Europe

Say Japan invades the Soviet Union in 1937 instead of China.

How would this impact Europe

Would this impact the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

What would be the impact on the Eastern front
 

Deleted member 1487

Say Japan invades the Soviet Union in 1937 instead of China.

How would this impact Europe

Would this impact the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

What would be the impact on the Eastern front
Not sure why they would TBH. But let's say it happens. The Anti-Comintern pact is signed, so Germany is likely to be aiding Japan in some way, but isn't obligated to take direct action. Italy too, once it signs on, would also try and help someway, perhaps sending an expeditionary corps or some symbolic aid.
The USSR is actually in a bad way, as their 5 year plans are now tossed into disarray and their major military industrial expansion has yet to happen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_national_economy_of_the_Soviet_Union#Second_plan,_1933–1937

Hitler is probably delighted in one way, frustrated in another due to not being able to intervene. Perhaps he starts putting pressure on the Poles to sign on to the pact?
Poland and Japan actually had a surprising amount of cooperation in the interwar period, so there might be some aid from them too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan–Poland_relations

I'd think Europe as a whole would be happy to see the Soviets stuck in a Russo-Japanese War v2.0 and hope for a similar result. Depending on how long it lasts and how costly the USSR could be in a bad way come 1939-41 and not ready for a German invasion. I'd think they'd be even more eager IOTL to sign an alliance with someone after what was going on with Japan, not sure if it would be different than IOTL, especially given the Polish-Japanese silent alliance. Finland likely has a reprieve and the USSR might not be in a position to be as aggressive as they were from 1939-40 ITTL.

Given that the Soviets would not have nearly the OTL 1939 advantage in material and Japan wouldn't be tied down in China the Soviets would have a really bad time fighting the Japanese. Remember until Zhukov showed up with major reinforcements from European Russia in summer 1939 the Japanese were whipping the Soviets badly in the border conflicts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suiyuan_Offensive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanchazu_Island_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Khasan

Even in victory thanks to lopsided numbers the Soviets still took substantially heavier losses in 1939 than the Japanese:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol#Aftermath

Plus there is the issue of Soviet supply via the TSRR:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2752258?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Though by 1937 things were improving quite a bit sustaining a war over that sort of distance is going to be real tough, especially without US L-L, which IOTL took the pressure off of the TSRR to the tune of IIRC about 2 million tons of supplies.

Likely the fighting drags out and neither side and really defeat the other, but the Japanese gain some ground and it ends with both sides exhausted and not in a great position to fight anyone else for a while after. Of course the Japanese could then jump back in if/when Germany invades ITTL to claim the victory they'd be unable to achieve on their own.
 

Deleted member 1487

Could Japan gain outer Manchuria and Sakhalin?
Sakhalin for sure given their naval dominance, probably outer Manchuria too given the layout of the Far East rail lines (cut it in one place further west near the border, Chita, or to the East at Kuybyshevka, and Outer Manchuria is out of supply). See the rail line situation in 1945:
1000px-Manchuria_Operation_map-es.svg.png
 
Is there the possibility of a consolidated, better equipped China opportunistically taking a swing at what would presumably be a relatively unguarded Manchurian border in '41-42?
 

Deleted member 109224

Japan had 600,000 men mobilized in 1937 and 1,000,000 in 1939.

Meanwhile the USSR was in the middle of purging itself in 1937, IIRC.


Stalin won't be able to partake in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.


Populations in 1939:
Japanese Empire: 101,471,000
Japan: 71,380,000
Korea: 24,326,000
Taiwan: 5,765,000​
Soviet Union: 168,524,000


Manchukuo at its peak provided 170,000 to 220,000 men to Japan, but they understandably weren't very enthused soldiers.
By 1940, Manchukuo had somewhere between 36 and 44 million people.

During the war, the USSR mobilized 12,500,000 men.
Japan mobilized 6,095,00 men.


Even if the Japanese capture the railway, cut the Soviets off in the east, and manage to march west and take everything up to Lake Baikal, what next? The Soviets have more men and more manufacturing capacity and an absolute willingness to throw wave after wave of bodies at the outnumbered Japanese.

Maybe the Japanese create a White Russian satellite state and offer Soviet defectors protection if the serve this state. That'd be one way to even the odds a tiny bit I suppose, although it hardly evens things.



Here's a big what if: What happens if the Japanese take over Kolmya and other gulags? Imagine the global horror upon the Japanese publicizing the horrors there.
 

thaddeus

Donor
Spanish Civil War might be shortened with reduced Soviet involvement? (assuming they would send the barest minimum of equipment?)
 
Japan had 600,000 men mobilized in 1937 and 1,000,000 in 1939.

Meanwhile the USSR was in the middle of purging itself in 1937, IIRC.


Stalin won't be able to partake in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.


Populations in 1939:
Japanese Empire: 101,471,000
Japan: 71,380,000
Korea: 24,326,000
Taiwan: 5,765,000​
Soviet Union: 168,524,000


Manchukuo at its peak provided 170,000 to 220,000 men to Japan, but they understandably weren't very enthused soldiers.
By 1940, Manchukuo had somewhere between 36 and 44 million people.

During the war, the USSR mobilized 12,500,000 men.
Japan mobilized 6,095,00 men.


Even if the Japanese capture the railway, cut the Soviets off in the east, and manage to march west and take everything up to Lake Baikal, what next? The Soviets have more men and more manufacturing capacity and an absolute willingness to throw wave after wave of bodies at the outnumbered Japanese.

Maybe the Japanese create a White Russian satellite state and offer Soviet defectors protection if the serve this state. That'd be one way to even the odds a tiny bit I suppose, although it hardly evens things.



Here's a big what if: What happens if the Japanese take over Kolmya and other gulags? Imagine the global horror upon the Japanese publicizing the horrors there.

ussr might have had more men but logistically couldnt support that many in the far east. Depending on their relationship with hitler (who is allied to the japanease) they will also need to leave a significant force on their western border
 
I don’t think the Soviet purges were reaching the Far Eastern military districts yet.

How would outer Mongolian forces perform? Would the Soviets convince Chinese communist troops to attack the Japanese flank or reinforce Mongolian or soviet defensive efforts?
 
Last edited:
I don’t think the Soviet purges we’re reaching the Far Eastern military districts yet.

How would outer Mongolian forces perform? Would the Soviets convince Chinese communist troops to attack the Japanese flank or reinforce Mongolian or soviet defensive efforts?

Even if it is not to scale the Soviets should be able to manage some bomber raids on Japan and sub attacks on shipping. How much will Japan divert to air and sea defense?
 
I don’t think the Soviet purges we’re reaching the Far Eastern military districts yet.

How would outer Mongolian forces perform? Would the Soviets convince Chinese communist troops to attack the Japanese flank or reinforce Mongolian or soviet defensive efforts?

Lake Khasan showed the IJA had the advantage. It should be noted that the engagement was triggered in part by the defection of G. S. Lyushkov, commander of NKVD forces in the Soviet Far East, who revealed the extent of the purges already going on among the RKKA by that point.
 
ussr might have had more men but logistically couldnt support that many in the far east.

It's not like the Japanese could either, though.
Plus, Chiang is liable to get in on the action as well.

IMO, most likely outcome is the Soviets use the opportunity to build up a new officer corps where the wheat is separated from the chaff, with disastrous results for the Germans later on.

Territorial changes most likely deeply in Soviet favor in Manchuria; Sakhalin to Japan, maybe Kamchatka as well
 
Spanish Civil War might be shortened with reduced Soviet involvement? (assuming they would send the barest minimum of equipment?)

If Japan sends troops in force any Soviet involvement in the Spanish Civil War ends the moment Japan seriously invades.
 
...
Meanwhile the USSR was in the middle of purging itself in 1937, IIRC. ...

The purges were still confined to senior leaders, & those who were clearly not of the Stalinist line of Marxist thinking. The crippling levels of arrests & midlevel officer dismissals/imprisonment occurred 1938-39.

...
IMO, most likely outcome is the Soviets use the opportunity to build up a new officer corps where the wheat is separated from the chaff, with disastrous results for the Germans later on. ...l

Actual operational & combat experience will count for something, tho fighting the Japanese of 1937-38 would not be the same as fighting the Wehrmacht of 1941. Purges aside the largest weakness of the Red Army in 1941 was the effect of expansion from a bit over 100 infantry divisions in September 1939 to over 300 in 1941. The training organization could not cope with such, and several fundamental changes in doctrine and mobilization plans complicated things. Even if a not a single officer were purged training standards could not have been kept up to a level that could cope with the Wehrmacht of 1941. A war with Japan might offset that with a earlier mobilization/expansion, starting 1937 vs late 1939. That could lead to better doctrine, a more coherent training program, and slower more organized expansion.
 

Deleted member 1487

The purges were still confined to senior leaders, & those who were clearly not of the Stalinist line of Marxist thinking. The crippling levels of arrests & midlevel officer dismissals/imprisonment occurred 1938-39.
IIRC it never hit the Far East forces except for a few of the senior officers and then only after they failed in the border battles.

Actual operational & combat experience will count for something, tho fighting the Japanese of 1937-38 would not be the same as fighting the Wehrmacht of 1941. Purges aside the largest weakness of the Red Army in 1941 was the effect of expansion from a bit over 100 infantry divisions in September 1939 to over 300 in 1941. The training organization could not cope with such, and several fundamental changes in doctrine and mobilization plans complicated things. Even if a not a single officer were purged training standards could not have been kept up to a level that could cope with the Wehrmacht of 1941.
Very true.

A war with Japan might offset that with a earlier mobilization/expansion, starting 1937 vs late 1939. That could lead to better doctrine, a more coherent training program, and slower more organized expansion.
Maybe...though without the industrial expansion of the later 5 year plans that will be tough to properly supply and will mean mostly locking in production older equipment that would be enough against the Japanese, but pretty bad against the Wehrmacht. I'd question how much it would help overall doctrine and organization given the likely level of casualties and unique circumstances in the East vs. Europe. It might distort doctrine, as armored warfare isn't going to be a major factor in the fighting against Japan. Plus there is the issue of how much supply and reinforcements could be pushed down the TSRR, which throttles the Soviet ability to conduct the method of war they evolved IOTL fighting in Europe, while ITTL they also need to keep up a large quality force in Europe to deal with the potential of an invasion. Likely the situation in the East means the newest and least quality forces get sent to supplement the resources already existing in the Far East, while the best are retained in the west to prevent a potential western invasion (Stalin was ever fearful of a two front war). Given those sorts of constraints on the Soviet war effort and the likely high casualty rates it seems to me like this will distort Soviet doctrine and training to try and keep up with having to quickly replace pre-war forces in the area with large masses of quickly and poorly trained conscripts with limited material support.

@BobTheBarbarian thoughts?
 

thaddeus

Donor
Spanish Civil War might be shortened with reduced Soviet involvement? (assuming they would send the barest minimum of equipment?)

If Japan sends troops in force any Soviet involvement in the Spanish Civil War ends the moment Japan seriously invades.

there was a long thread speculating on no/shorter SCW, and that Italy might invade Yugoslavia, that seems to me one of the more plausible scenarios. certainly they could occupy Albania earlier.

against that backdrop Germany might gain Austria? so well before Czechoslovakia.

if we arrive in 1939, and Soviet-Japanese war has been ongoing for year or more, assuming Poland has remained neutral, what is the German move?
 
Last edited:
.... It might distort doctrine, as armored warfare isn't going to be a major factor in the fighting against Japan. ...

There were many deficiencies outside armor doctrine in 1941. Direct current experience would push the Red Army towards up dating infantry, artillery, reconissance, & logistics doctrines. & not taking some of the wrong course taken 1939-41.
 
There were many deficiencies outside armor doctrine in 1941. Direct current experience would push the Red Army towards up dating infantry, artillery, reconissance, & logistics doctrines. & not taking some of the wrong course taken 1939-41.

On the flip side, Poland and Finland resulted in them completely abandoning independent armored formations.
 
Top