alternatehistory.com

At some point when anyone talks about a Nazi victory we get to the discussion about Japan invading the USSR. It is brushed aside with a few sentences of Japan impaling themselves upon Soviet forces, until they are pushed back, or give up. Our basis for this are two single battles from 1938 and 1939.

First there was the Battle of Lake Khasan was two weeks in 1938 between 7,000 Japanese, and almost 25,000 Soviets. The Soviets "won" yet for Japan the incident showed what was considered a perfect tactical example of how to take a hill at night. The next battle was the famous Khalkhin Gol which saw an intellegence officer with 37,000 soldiers and 200 tanks go against Georgy Zhukov, over 50,000 soldiers, and near 500 tanks. Inside of this battle Zhukov made an attack, which at the time was seen as foolish, in which he had two armored columns not supported by infantry push forcward and encircle the Japanese.

I always find it odd how we accept proof of Japan not being able to fight the Soviets from small battles between a pivotal figure in WWII, and access to supplies against an intellgence officer with fewer forces.

So does Japan deserve the brush off when we speak of it fighting the USSR? I do not think it does. For at the same time we speak of poor Soviet tactics, and methods over in Finland, or against the Germans we scoff at the thought of a successful Japan. Just the same do we go on at length about the Japanese fighting spirit, and ability against UK, or US troops, only to turn them into bumbling fools if we set them against the Russians.
Top