What if Japan went to war with the Soviet Union instead of China

Status
Not open for further replies.
What about a limited confrontation in Outer Manchuria and northern half of Manchuria along the Amur estuary where Japanese navy and amphibious forces could navigate? Beyond that --- Khalkin Gol was the stepping stone to beyond Manchuria --- would not worth the effort. Regardless of the outcome, Japan was pale in front of the SU for its national power, just like Russia is stronger than Japan today in the OTL. With a limited confrontation in Outer Manchuria and northern half of the Sakhalin island, Japan really need to develop the land. To lessen the strain of the conquered land to support the occupying military, that would mean sizable demilitarization of the forces.

Not to mention, there would be numerous chances of cooperation between Fascist Italy and Japan for crossly improving their equipment. Even then, engaging the SU/Russia in Siberia would not be wise.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if after Japan took Manchura in 31, Japan invested more in their Army (at the expense of their Navy), and instead of going after China again, Japan launched an all out attack on the Soviet Union in 1937?

I would imagine Japan loses, but the impact on the Soviet Union and their role in Europe would probably be fairly big. This has fairly big effects on China's internal conflicts and politics. This also probably means no Pearl Harbor.

1) This is not going to be the same thing as Khalkhin Gol and is not a Soviet walkover, even with Japan doomed to lose long-term in any war that stays one-on-one. This should be a multi-year, consuming mess for the USSR even in victory.

2) How will Marshal Blyukher do in command? This is before the purge of the Far Eastern military district command.

I have the general impression that Soviet command and professionalism would be superior to the 1938-1941 period since it is pre-purge in the Far East.
And I think the Soviet tech quality advantage will be less than in the 1939-1945 period, although I would expect Soviets to be have superior quality in artillery and armor weapons anyway.

3) Considering different options a) Soviets win in a year, b) Soviets win in two years, c) Soviets win in three years or d) war still continuing through June 1941-

Will the Soviets be in a poorer position to handle German aggression (fatigue and expenditure of resources and personnel, bad habits from fighting a lighter enemy) or will the Soviets be in a better position to handle German aggression (because of more combat experience and mobilization) in the west in these various scenarios a through d?

4) The Soviet conquest of Manchuria and Korea is not a foregone conclusion. The Soviets could judge they have enough other things to worry about that they don't try to seize/hold one or both of those territories after expelling the Japanese from their territory.
 
Last edited:
IOTL,
From Soviet Union's perspective, Stalin himself had stated his grudges against Russian loss in the Russo-Japanese War so regardless of the effect by the purge the stationed Red Army officers would be alert of Japanese intention in Manchuria. Richard Sorge was one famous Soviet spy in Japan and later executed. Geographically, only Manchuria (Inner and Outer, if you like that nomenclature) and the Sakhalin Island were worth developing. Imperial Russian settlements in Vladivostok and on the island were proofs. Could Japan hold on to them? In 1920s during the Siberian Intervention by Japan of the Russian Civil War, Japan did but Japanese military forces were expelled from the mainland and later coerced to give up the northern half of the island.

In an ATL, occupying the whole of Manchuria and the island would be a reasonable limit because garrison and development after invasion would be more important. How much landmass could Japanese military realistically hold onto in face of the Red Army and airforces? Given also the cross improvement of the military with Italy and few European nations, Japanese land forces could deploy tank destroyer/self propelled guns in coordination with infantry and the air forces to take advantage of the mountainous landscape in the northern landscape of Manchuria. Japanese navy and amphibious forces would be navigating on the Amur and Ussuri rivers supplying and coordinating with the air forces. It would be how much the SU's willingness to give territory up to maintain a fragile peace with Japan. Actually, during the years of the invasion of Poland, the Winter War and just before the OB, it would be about time for Japan to secure national gain. So from 1931 to 1940, there would be an optimistic window of about 9 summers.
 
Last edited:
Another alternate history was that Japan would have kept the whole Sakhalin Island since 1925, thru the loss of ww2. The Kuril Islands would still be lost. Then the natural gas and oil reserves away from the island shore would be exploited by conglomerates of Japanese companies. The southern landmass of the island shall be developed by local Japanese governance. Would there be a better life for the local population than it is under Russia? The island has experienced Earthquakes so Japanese mitigation for building structure can help. Geothermal power generation for electricity could also be exploited.
 
What if they coordinate with germany and atack at the same time in 41?
Germany and Japan were very far apart. The SU kept sizable division in the East. The chance of Japan for territorial expansion happened during the Russian Civil War. The Far Eastern Republic had connected with Japan and Japan had occupied the Northern half of Sakhalin until 1925 when American led intervention make Japan to give up the occupation. If Japan own the whole island, the hydrocarbon production on and near the island would be the property of Japan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top