USSR: Having to fight a two-front war in 1938/9

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Eh, the USSR could just focus on the Germans, and let the Japanese freeze their balls in Siberia. If the Japanese are smart they don't go very far inland, and certainly don't cross the Amur. They can always be dealt with after the Germans are repelled.
 
This is just a little bit of cream on top of a cake called "This Will End Badly", but it should be pointed out that Romania is not part of the Axis, and thus doesn't take part in this 1940 Barbarossa. Which is pretty inconvenient, to say the least.
 
^^^ How?

fill@r

First it means they don't get nearly as much oil from Ploesti. They also will have to assault Odessa and southern Ukraine without Romanian support. The Romanians contributed hundreds of thousands of men to Barbarossa; their absence will be felt.

Further the Germans will lack their Balkan springboard; Hungary, Yugoslavia, etc will be pro Axis but not officially committed to the war. This denies Germany access to vital raw materials, fuel, etc.

Compounding Germany's problems, without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact they won't have received any economic assistance from the Soviet Union. This assistance was critical to Nazi Germany lasting as long as it did. Nazi Germany will also have to conquer all of Poland without any assistance; IOTL there were still Polish forces in the East that were attempting to take up defensive positions. German forces were at the end of their logistic tether, so it would take them several several, even another month, to fully conquer Poland. In the meantime hundreds of thousands of Polish soldiers will slip away to Romania and the Soviet Union. Stalin, without the M-R pact, will do everything he can to hinder Hitler.
 
So, in essence: There is no way we can get USSR to fight a 2-front war in 1938/39 (or a bit later in 1940/1).

Shame really. It could be dramatic if that had been the case.

The Finnish war alone cost USSR some 48,000 dead according to USSR sources although Finland estimated it much higher (source: Werth)

I could see a development like:

1938:
Purges starting to subside but no real military leadership in place
Munich where USSR is not invited

1939
Czech occupation
Polish occupation but leaving a rump state as a buffer between USSR and Germany.
Winter war, but even worse for USSR
Japan Kwantung army doing their tricks
War of attrition in the East. Both being sucked into something they really don't want to fight

1940:
Fall of France
Winter war not settled yet, dragging on until September as Finland is getting volunteers from Britain
Japan wants to close down operations in Mongolia as it is not doing anything for them, but how?
Japan is not embargoed so there is no immediate threat to US interests


Barbarossa in 1940 might not be possible, but then surely in 1941 as OTL.

But, alas, it seems impossible.

It is difficult to change the course of history, but we can speculate.

Ivan
 
As people mentioned Japan will not attack the Soviets and Stalin kept plenty of troops near the Japanese border at all times during the war anyway.
 
The Finnish war alone cost USSR some 48,000 dead according to USSR sources although Finland estimated it much higher (source: Werth)

Well, that is a hugely lowball number. For example Krivosheyev, in Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century, puts the number of Soviet dead or missing at almost 127 000.

What ever the real total number, we can compare it to the well-documented Finnish losses and extrapolate. The defender lost a bit under 26 000 men as dead or missing. Given the nature of the campaign, including Soviet "human wave" attacks, the Finnish "motti" tactics, and the seriously better winter gear and preparation for the conditions by the Finns, it is pretty unlikely the attacker would have lost just under twice the number of men in comparison to the defender. Four or five times that, if not more, seems very likely.


1940:
Fall of France
Winter war not settled yet, dragging on until September as Finland is getting volunteers from Britain

I find it pretty unlikely for the war to drag on as long as that, simply because of the huge disparity of forces and Finland running out of trained reserves. What numbers of British volunteers are you thinking about? I'd say that at the very best, even with a realistic number of foreign volunteers and additional weapons and supplies, the Finns might manage just barely until June when a new and determined Soviet summer campaign would finally crush the remaining opposition and take Helsinki.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
As people mentioned Japan will not attack the Soviets and Stalin kept plenty of troops near the Japanese border at all times during the war anyway.
And if Japan was dumb enough to do it, they'd just be freezing in Siberia, and not be a priority with the Germans coming. The Japs would never get very far, and can always be dealt with later if needed (but the USSR probably had enough troops in Asia to deal with them anyways, while fighting the Germans).
 
Well, see, that's where I am heading:

To create a scenario where USSR will have to send additional troops to Far East and thereby entice Germany into an attack, either earlier or at the time of OTL.

I am counting on a scenario where Japan, due to honour or face, have determined to win round 2; hence they are a real threat in Far East.

It is a scenario without any real strategic consideration. More one of these where it just gets out of hand and starts to have a life of its own.

Look at Vietnam as an example: who would have thought (in 1963) that it would end up with 50,000+ dead and 250,000 in-theatre forces?

Can such a scenario be a possibility? I think it could, but it might require a lot of "small decisions ending up in major commitments". However, that is quite often how it is in real life, anyway.

The other factor is the Finnish war: with serious losses in both men and materiel, USSR is getting stretched.

NOW we can let Barbarossa get off the gorund in 1939/40/41 and voila, USSR is sitting with a 2-front war.

WI if this happens?

Stalin?
Purges in the military is biting?
No embargo of Japan?
No PH?
German "victory"?
No lend-lease?


and so on.

Ivan
 
Well, see, that's where I am heading:

To create a scenario where USSR will have to send additional troops to Far East and thereby entice Germany into an attack, either earlier or at the time of OTL.

I am counting on a scenario where Japan, due to honour or face, have determined to win round 2; hence they are a real threat in Far East.

It is a scenario without any real strategic consideration. More one of these where it just gets out of hand and starts to have a life of its own.

Look at Vietnam as an example: who would have thought (in 1963) that it would end up with 50,000+ dead and 250,000 in-theatre forces?

Can such a scenario be a possibility? I think it could, but it might require a lot of "small decisions ending up in major commitments". However, that is quite often how it is in real life, anyway.

The other factor is the Finnish war: with serious losses in both men and materiel, USSR is getting stretched.

NOW we can let Barbarossa get off the gorund in 1939/40/41 and voila, USSR is sitting with a 2-front war.

WI if this happens?

Stalin?
Purges in the military is biting?
No embargo of Japan?
No PH?
German "victory"?
No lend-lease?


and so on.

Ivan

Japan attacks, they get curb stomped by the Soviet forces already in the far east. Since the ussr didnt pull any troops out of the far east iotl, the initial german attacks are just as unsucessful.

Meanwhile, the japanese army fails to take southeast asia and the dei, causing them to run out of oil, and surrender with american battleships shelling the coast with impunity sometime early in 44.

This frees most of the WAlly troops that fought in the pacific during 43 and 44 to be sent to Europe.

The war is over with a total nazi defeat sometime in early 45.
 
The WI in this is that Japan gets a bloody nose in first round and is coming on heavy for round two as now national honour and face is involved.

National honor is always involved; so what? The point that has already been made, which you don't seem to want to recognize, is that "coming on heavy" in Japan's case still just doesn't match up to the mass that the USSR would bring to bear upon them on land. A serious attempt at invasion by the Japanese would have met with disaster once Soviet logistics caught up (as mentioned). In the meantime, the pinpricks inflicted could not possibly have reached any decisive positions. It's friggin' Siberia, after all.
 
Correct. I am really trying to see if Japan can somehow deploy enough troops to be a serious threat to USSR.

If not possible, yes, I shall declare myself defeated in this.

Still, it could be a nice WI to see what USSR would/could do if they had a 2-front war to battle.

Ivan
 
Correct. I am really trying to see if Japan can somehow deploy enough troops to be a serious threat to USSR.
I hate to make absolute statements about what are, ultimately, imaginary situations, but I'd have to say "No chance." Japan was too small, and they knew it. Also, their infantry tactics were well out of date (although I'm not sure they knew THAT).
 
Perhaps an earlier PoD might have been a more successful North China buffer strategy, or a more aggressive Suiyuan campaign by the Japanese, leading to a greater Japanese presence along the border with Mongolia. While the Japanese would not have been much more of a threat at this point, the Soviets could have felt threatened enough to neutralize their presence. If the Japanese lost Manchuria as a result, I can see them trying to reclaim it when Germany launched Barbarossa, but I don't see this succeeding. As for how the Soviets would have fared against the Germans, this would have been more influenced by whether Germany planned Barbarossa differently than by any Japanese actions.
 
Well, yes. That sort of concludes it then.

OK, off to something else then.

Thanks for a lot for good thoughts and feedback on a seemingly worthy option to discuss.

Ivan
 
Top