Nomonhan incident escalates

Look, the Soviets aren't going to stop at Manchuria--the Red Army will probably march all the way to Nanjing and Guangzhou. Perhaps Japan can hold Korea--they certainly can take all of Sakhalin. I would probably call Vladivostok a bloody victory for the Japanese (the Soviet defensive strategy were ready to pull back from that position in case of Japanese Attack).

But they can't really hope to keep it.

And Logistics really are the only thing keeping Japan from getting totally ground into dust here. That said, roundly humiliating the IJA and disgracing the militarist government of Japan is going to have interesting political consquences.

Nomonhan was in 1939--the escalation would take some time as well. The consequences of Soviet Forces tied up in the pacific or stuck in China is going to change things big time.

The German-Soviet pact is indeed going to be shifted; The Soviet Union would not commit anywhere as many forces to secure Poland, and Stalin is not going to be able to make a hard sale against Hitler on the border. I think this means German Lithuania and a better deal for the Germans.

This also probably means Romania doesn't yield Moldavia to the Soviets either, although they are probably forced into the German camp anyhow.

So, the German attack against the Soviet Union starts slightly further to the East, against less divisions and a Soviet Union that's distracted in what's probably turned into a either a land-sea stalemate or a massive conflagration in China.

Can Germany defeat this Soviet Union? Better odds than OTL. Ironically, the best thing Stalin can do is cede territory in the far east and sell out Chiang so that he can throw what he needs to in the West. Sadly, I think this decision is probably going to made only after the Wehrmacht celebrates Christmas in the Kremlin.
 
A Soviet victory at Nomohan was possible do to the nature of the two force and the terrain. The terrain favored the Red Army such would not be the case if the Soviets atttempted to push deep into Manchuria. There the mountainous terrain would favor the Japanese in defense and unlike in 1945 the Japanese would have far more forces to comitte to the battle. These troops would be better trained and far better equipped than were the forces 6 years latter. Japan would have far more planes and troops to committe to the struggle as well as fortifications of key chock points.

It is doubtful with the growth of Nazi Germany that Stalin would be willing to comitte all of the resources that would be needed to achie a victory of the Kind that you are thinking of. As for Salkin Island remember that it is an island and that Japan would control the sea. Yes in 1845 Japan could be crushed but in 1939 it would take an all out effort.
 
I think I have been misinterpreted:

Japan's inital move would probably get Sakhalin and Vladivostok--but the Red Army's Counterattack would probably roll the IJA out of Manchuria and China.

That Japan is probaby going to distract the Soviet Union in 1941-2 with an ongoing war and probably will not attempt Pearl Harbor, I agree this could result in a Soviet Withdrawal and reluctant concessions to Japan so that the Red Army stuck in China and Manchuria can be redeployed to retake Moscow.

Can Japan win the war against the Soviets? No--but it can keep up the fight long enough and hard enough that the Soviet Union will probably sue for peace to resist Germany. However, I would expect the IJA to be roundly humiliated by this war. Some kind of conslidation will have to play out in China, but otherwise the Japanese can claim to have won their war with the Soviets through German distraction.
 
Japan vs USSR

If the USSR is not "distracted" in the west, it most certainly will eject Japan from most of North China/Manchuria/Manchukuo, Korea a bridge too far. However, that is not going to happen. If these two go at it in late 1939, a big winner is Finland - no "Winter War". Of course this means Leningrad quite close to border if Finland does not stay neutral after Barbarossa kicks off. Given Soviet forces fighting in the far east, drain on war materiel like ammo & fuel for this (starving somewhat western front stores), Germany reaching Moscow is a real possibility - and given the inability to evacuate all the faceless bureaucrats that did the grunt work in the system, and the position of Moscow as a hub for the rail system this will cause big problems for the Sovs - but that's another issue.
While the Sovs push the Japs back in Manchuria its not a cakewalk, and as the terrain begins to favor defense and weather gets bad things are relatively stable through winter early spring 1940. The northern half of Sakhalin is taken by the Japanese, Vladivostok is desptroyed as a base (coastal gun emplacementsdon't do well against dive bombers), and likewise Petropavlosk which is easy for the Japanese to invade. Pushing north out of Korea the Japanese can cut the TS RR making Vladivostok somewhat like the siege of Leningrad - no need to actually try and take it.
Japanese air can make logistic movement east difficult, although supplies will always get through.
With things going slowly the Sov way in Manchuria, but not well in Pacific Siberia, France falls per schedule. Now what?
If the Japanese ask for status quo ante in Manchuria, possesion of all of Sakhalin, and perhaps Petropavlosk/part of Kamchatka & Sov N. Pacific Islands will Stalin agree, or will the fighting go on? If they are still fighting when Barbarossa kicks off, its bad news for Stalin - will he then make peace & give up as above, hoping to get it back later?
I think the Japanese will still "occupy" French Indochina per OTL. Pearl Harbor less likely, certainly not if they are stil fighting Sovs - maybe if Sovs make peace soon as Germans invade. A lot might depend on naval losses during this campaign (including pilots) - heavy losses definitely no PH.
 
I concur with what you have stated above. If the war continues between Russia and Japan then it is very unlikely that Japan and the US would go to war. Indeed there may be more pressure on FDR not to get involved.

The Japanese Army would be fighting the enmey that they have always considered the biggest threat Russia. I am not sure if the Japanese would occupy IndoChina as it while possible could cause problems with the US at a time when Japan's entire military is fixed on daeling with the Soviets.

If the war was still going on when the Germans invaded then I suspect that the Japanese might very well want to continue fighting rather than make peace because the odds would totally shift in their favor.
 
Your 'incompetent' army ran over the British and gave serious troubles to the US. Anyway the Japanese had terrain on their side, and though it won't stop the invasion, it could inflict considerable losses and give time for the Japanese to withdraw. Japanese defensive doctrines preach of impressive defensive barriers incorporating seemingly less-useful materials and various booby traps (including one resembling an umbrella). This could catch the less-weary Soviet tactician.

While the IJA doctrine does focus on hand-to-hand combat (IMO not in the form of bayonets, but rifles and assorted infantry weapons, and direct sight artillery barrages), it incorporates good strategy such as envelopment (rarely, based on doctrine, engaging in frontal attacks. Of course in practice...) and night attacks.

IJA had a lot of surprise & good luck on their side, & a lot of Allied unpreparedness. It also showed staggering inflexibility (Guadalcanal, for instance), continuing to use the same failed methods. And despite a doctrine of attack, which demands excellent recce, IJA stinted on it or ignored it outright. It looked good on paper, & worked against an unsuspecting enemy playing for time. Zhukov would be neither, & IJA had slim chance of stopping his tanks. I may be overstating the ease, but given an advance of 40-50km/day, which I think he could achieve, it still can't be long from the Manchurian border to the Yellow Sea.
 
Another butterfly here: Given the anti-red feeling of much of US in 1939, before "Uncle Joe" is an ally and after he has stabbed the Poles in the back, AND the fact that fighting between the Sovs and the Japanese would necessitate more or less a halt in place vis a vis the Chinese would the US push as much of an embargo on the Japanese? would the Dutch & Brits go along by witholding oil from the "Southern Resource Area"? If no oil embargo, and less (if any) scrap iron etc embargo, rationale for PH attack goes away. even if embargo measures start ramping up after Barbarossa kicks off, Japan has had time to stockpile more.

IMHO Japan & Russia still going at it Spring 1941might well mean germans reach Moscow before snow falls.
 
IMHO Japan & Russia still going at it Spring 1941might well mean germans reach Moscow before snow falls.

You don't need Japan for that. You need Hitler to be less of an interfering maniac. Had he just butted the hell out, the Heer could've been in Moscow well within the 10 weeks scheduled for the operation.
 
I haven't read through all the arguments but it seems this would result in a shorter war with a Soviet victory and possible occupation of Japan in the end. No Pearl Harbor means America doesn't enter the war or gets into it only later. Ironically, it might also mean Germany keeping the Soviet Union out of Eastern Europe and no Warsaw Pact.
 
Um I think it would be wiser just to keep shelling Vladisvostok until no one is alive
Germans could not do it with Leningrad or Sevastopol. What make you think it is possible with Vladivostok, especially as hordes of BTs would turn everything flying Japanese flag into mincemeat on mainland?

possible invasion of Japan....
Impossible. Soviets didn't have navy to do it.

The Red Army won at Normohan, so I'm not sure why you think it'd lose.
Taking into account that Chris possess (or rather being possessed by) an ability to generate a TL "anyone beating Russkies into bloody pulp" daily, I do suspect there's mighty passion driving his thinking and not much logic or boring facts.
wait, how do they take the port, what makes the IJAF so good, etc?
Well, I do doubt that Vladivostok would be able to withstand combined attack of IJA and IJN indefinitely, but I don't understand how fall of the city would benefit Japanese. Soviet Pacific Fleet as it was in 1939 can be happily ignored in any"Big Soviet-Japanese War" scenario.
How do they bomb the railroad? When did the Japanese acquire strategic bombers?
RR literally hugs the border in many areas (courtesy of Mother Nature and terrain), so it likely would be weeks before Red Army would bew able to push frontline far enough as to make Transsib unreachable for ordinary Japanese bombers. However, I'd like to remind Chris that RR linked Murmansk to Central Russia operated under similar conditions in 1941-1944 and it did not prevent Soviets from moving shitload of Lend-Lease supplies through it.[
quote=Faeelin;2135689]
The Empire of Japan attacked America nd Great Britain in 1941, despite their clear superiority in, well, everything.

Yet in 1941, with Moscow itself threatened, the Japanese remained studiously neutral. Rather than wondering what this entails, people write about the ever victorious Samurai killing the Tatar hordes. [/quote]As I said, I truly believe that a lot of predictions in this thread are generated by passion and not cold rational thinking.

It was ideal country for the use of armored and the Japanese failed to have enough tanks available to counter the Soviets.
Nomonhan was freaking 700 kms of roadless plains from closest railway station, for Allmighty's sake. Anyone would be hard-pressed to find less convenient spot to wage mechanized warfare of 1940 fashion (BTW, it never hurts to remind that "weak and inferior" BTs were indeed able to go through aforementioned railway station under their own power and reached Nomonhan in good enough condition to whoop Japanese).
Bad weather over Manchurian airfield also limited the ability of the Japanese to use the airforce to neutralize the soviets.
Yes, Stalin ordered Zeus Lord of Sky and Thunder to make weather perfect on Soviet side of the border and lousy on Japanese. Zeus Pater obliged.
Nomonhan was in 1939--the escalation would take some time as well. The consequences of Soviet Forces tied up in the pacific or stuck in China is going to change things big time.
Yes, that's why Stalin always stopped at the border and offered defeated Japanese status quo antebellum. You probably need somebody less capable at the Soviet helm for Big Nomonhan War to happen.

Can Japan win the war against the Soviets? No--but it can keep up the fight long enough and hard enough that the Soviet Union will probably sue for peace to resist Germany.
Soviet Union sued for peace every time IOTL. So, it would be Japanese who would define if they had enough. War would end 12 hours after that.

If the Japanese ask for status quo ante in Manchuria, possesion of all of Sakhalin, and perhaps Petropavlosk/part of Kamchatka & Sov N. Pacific Islands will Stalin agree
Not likely. He would have Manchurian industry at this point and huge "no-man land" from Manchuria to South of Peking (100 mln of Northern Chinese don't count) to excercise in "dynamic defense" against Japanese at this point (it is not likely to draw more troops that USSR kept East IOTL). And yes, I fully expect Soviets to occupy Manchuria long before Japanese would be able to silence Vladivostok forts.

I haven't read through all the arguments but it seems this would result in a shorter war with a Soviet victory and possible occupation of Japan in the end.
No occupation. Soviet Navy were as good as non-existent.
Ironically, it might also mean Germany keeping the Soviet Union out of Eastern Europe and no Warsaw Pact.
Yeah, something like Nazi United Europe. Faterland anyone?
 
Guys

Taking the initial assumption, that Stalin decides to push further after the initial Soviet victory then it depends on by how much and how the various factors respond to changing events. For instance how much extra does Stalin commit to attacking the Japanese. Given the situation in the east he might not have concerns about an early German attack but resources he puts into the war in the east means less available for either the west and/or internal development.

Similarly, presuming the Soviets start biting deep into Manchuria how do the Japanese respond. How much do they pull in from their reserves and southern China to bled out the Soviets?

Don't think the Russians can win in Manchuria quickly. Their performance in Poland suggests serious weaknesses in logistics which given the resistance the Japanese will put up once on the defensive means I expect them to bit deep but heavy losses on both sides.

If it continued after that then again events decide matters. I can't see Stalin trying the winter war with a major conflict in the east. Also, if the Red Army is pushing deep into Manchuria the Japanese are not going to have the attention and resources to occupy much if any of French Indo-China when France falls, presuming that is not butterflied. They will have far more important things on their minds than seeking to cut western aid to the nationalists.

Again how do the other powers respond. Given fear of Communism does this make the west less hostile to Japan. Possibly a little although the probably lack of Japanese pressure on the French colonies is likely to be more important. Coupled with the fact that, unless Hitler does something to aid Japan or denounces Stalin - which I don't think he will do at this point Stalin will still be seen very much as both the primary aggressor and a de-facto ally of Hitler.

This is all likely to change when [presuming no major butterflies] Hitler attacks Russia, presuming for simplicity sake its in June 41. The fact there are less Russian forces in the west are less important than other factors. There are actually a number of things that could favour the Soviets in this scenario. [It could mean less on the frontier and hence less captured/destroyed in the early battles. Also when troops are withdrawn from the Far East to fight the Germans they will have more combat experience and some of the dead wood of the 41 Red army may already have been pruned. Experience in the heavy fighting might also have helped weapons and tactics development.]. However most impacts will still be negative for the Soviets. Less forces in the west will mean a slightly faster German offensive and probably more panic in the SU. Given the need to pull back forces from Siberia there will be less capacity to ship people and resources east, outside the reach of the attacking Germans. Also how much equipment and casualties have been consumed in the east? Possibly the needs of a major conflict will have put a priority on production rather than new developments so some weapons could be delayed in deployment.

Also how will the other nations react to the sudden change. Will Britain and the US welcome the SU as an ally - [leaving aside for the moment that the US is still largely neutral]. If this is used to trigger a boycott of goods to Japan that could really hurt. They would probably have consumed more of their reserves in the fighting and have little time for planning a strike south, not to mention having a major war distracting them and tying up forces which can not train for such an attack or the fact they don't have the vital bases for attacking Malaya or Sumatra. Also, since by this time they will very likely have lost most of Manchuria and had markedly less progress in China they will have less resources to play with.

The next big question is does either power seek to make peace? Stalin might want to or think he can hold onto his gains with say only some of the forces left behind in the east. Working on the Japanese having been significantly weakened as well. not wanting to display weakness by asking for terms or simply totally misjudging the danger from the Germans. I suspect the Japanese army will not want to make terms even if Stalin is offering a return to the status quo ante. They would want to regain face after such a defeat and also think that with the Soviets weakened by having to send forces westwards they will have the chance to make gains in Siberia. [Would expect them by this time to have picked up northern Sakhalin but probably nothing else of significance]. If there is no allied boycott then the navy and rest of the Japanese government will go along with that.

This could be bad in the near term at least for the allies as it removed the trigger for US intervention that occurred OTL. Also Britain has the awkward problem that Stalin is demanding an immediate dow on Japan [as well as his unrealistic demands for masses of supplies and an immediate 2nd front]. Given how weak the defences are in the east this is something that Britain will want to avoid doing especially as it would also make US support against Japan even more unlikely.

For the Soviets it is very bad in that they will have suffered military losses in the conflict and now have to fight on two fronts. Also there will be no L-L via Vladivostok, historically the major route for it. Furthermore, although this will be unknown to TTL a later US involvement in the war.

Still likely in the end that Hitler and the Japanese junta will foul it up bigger than the allies. Plus Britain does have a better position in the east while with some months to get a/c, subs and some modern ground units east they should be able to avoid the catastrophic defeats of OTL. However Soviet losses will be even higher, especially if Stalin insists on interfering and wild counter-attacks as OTL, or even no retreats in the east. The other big question will be when the US gets involved. Without a Pearl strike they might put greater effort into the war in Europe 1st and possibly [although unlikely] not join the Pacific conflict at all.

Anyway, some thoughts on the scenario.

Steve
 
Top