"To dropbearabroad: I'm going to make a leap of faith and assume you are not actually a troll even if I find your ideeas absurd."
Gee, thanks. I'm willing to give you the same benefit of the doubt, for now.
In response to your points:
"The Soviet Union can't fight a high intensity war on two sides of the world at once. Even in 1945, with a much more powerful and experienced army they did not try that"
Yes they can, as our history shows. IOTL the Soviets successfully fought the highest intensity conflict in history. This scenario does not even present two simultaneous high intensity conflicts, you don't have your Germans fighting the Soviets, remember? Any Baltic campaign campaign is small scale compared to OTL's operations. Even if the Soviets pursued two simultaneous major offensives in Manchuria and the Baltics they would use fewer troops than they devoted to the Russian front against the Wehrmacht IOTL. The manpower is demonstrably there. The Red Army's capabilities and logistics are undeveloped in comparison to OTL's 1945, which is why I have every time clearly stated that there would be higher casualties and a longer timescale required than OTL's August 1945 operation. But the Soviets have plenty of both.
"Manchuria is rough terrain, just look at a map. And Korea is even rougher. It's not good terrain for maneuver warfare"
Yes, so's France when you look at it (seen any pictures of the Ardennes?). You don't need a tabletop to play with tanks, it helps but is not essential. The obvious illustration is that Zhukov's maneuver units did conquer that very same Manchuria in 1945. In this scenario it would be a slower, but so what? The result will be the same.
"August Storm only worked because the Soviets had 4 years of experience with maneuver warfare, a huge technological advantage, and powerfull logistigs courtesy of lend-lease. In 1939, they don't have that."
Agreed, but that's why I have continually pointed out it would take much longer than the month of August Storm. I've guessed a year or so. Slower, higher casualty rates and more mistakes but the Soviets still win.
"An offensive into Manchuria won't be one continuous Blitzkrieg like you imagine. It's more likely to be a series of short advances separated by long periods of buildup."
I've never said it would be a continuous blitzkrieg. See above, and the many previous references to a much longer timescale. I think I've made that very clear in my posts so I'm not sure where you misunderstanding of these statements comes from?
"The Japanese will most likely have local superiority of numbers, since they have shorter supply lines."
If the Soviets relied only on the Far Eastern Military District (25 divs or so) then yes, but in any large scales invasion I think it's pretty safe to conject that they'll build up a larger force first. Like the 89 divs they used for August Storm (again, it happened historically). Supply lines do affect the number of deployable forces, but so does the total manpower pool. Unless the Japanese decide to abandon China they have to keep the bulk of their army fighting the Chinese. It would take time for the Soviets to build up an invasion force but they have that time, and they sure have the men.
"By attacking an entrenched enemy, the Soviets give up most of their advantages. The Japanese proved to be very good at defending strategic positions, as the Pacific war showed."
Of course, but that's why the Soviets would build up a sufficient force, a la August Storm, first. The Japanese were doughty defenders, and the Soviets would take losses, but there's a lot more room to maneuver in Manchuria than on Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal. That's why maneuver formations are handy for just this situation, they cut through the gaps into the rear and leave the infantry and artillery to reduce the fortified positions. And again, it happened historically. At Khalkhin Gol Zhukov cut the 23rd ID to ribbons, in August Storm he cut the KA to ribbons in just this way.
"In time, even the Japanese will be able to learn and adapt to Soviet tactics, even in battles of maneuver."
Why do you think that? They didn't IOTL. They didn't develop such tactics after Khalkhin Gol, they didn't learn them after British tanks cut through their lines in Burma, they didn't figure out how to defeat American tanks in the Pacific campaign. When August Storm hit them they had no tactics to defeat the Soviets in 1945. In those 6 years they did not develop their own mechanized units to fight a similar battle or the antitank weapons to stop a tank force or even capable antiarmour infantry tactics. So no, the Japanese showed in OTL that without a new POD (several major defeats even larger than the ones described above maybe??) they weren't going to do this in a hurry. And after a few years it's too late.
"The Japanese air-force can bomb the advancing enemy, thus interfering with it's offensive."
I'm sure they would, but it won't turn the tide. Again I will repeat, it won't be a month long campaign, but a year or so. The Japanese air force will interrupt an offensive but it won't stop it.
"The Japanese fleet can raid all along the Far East coast. And the soviets will have to detach troops to deal with any landings."
Of course they can, good for them. The Japanese can make as many landings on Kamchatka and elsewhere as they like and it will mean nothing. The only strategically important site on the Soviet Pacific coast is Vladivostock, which is a series of fortress. Even if the Japanese took Vladivostock it means little. The Japanese don't gain anything useful to them, and the Soviets will build up an army inland to retake it. That would be expensive and costly to be sure but much less so than any of the major Red Army operations of OTL. So in the course of a major war it won't matter in terms of the outcome.
"If the Soviets attack through the Baltics, like you suggested, they must advance on a narrow front between the Baltic coast and the Polish border, so they can't use any numerical superiority."
Oh yes they can. Not in the same way as in Manchuria where there will be nice big holes in any defensive line the KA can form, but in a battering ram approach. Throw enough men at the defenders and you can win that way. It's brutal and expensive but attrition wins wars too. Plus the Red Army would be able to make use of its mass of artillery in this scenario. Just look at how the Soviets fought IOTL. Soviet losses will still be less than those of many of their operations of 1941 and 1942 IOTL.
"the locals will be hostile and this has nothing to do with any SS or CIA involvement. Read about the July uprising in Lithuania."
Of course they'll be hostile but it takes more than hostility to make partisans effective. This is not going to be any Tito-like miltary force. As I clearly related to you, the vaunted Forest Brothers of OTL killed less than 2000 Soviet troops in a decade, even with active Western support. That's peanuts in terms of the millions that the Red Army suffered. As I told you, the partisans can be everything they were in our history and they will still be irrelevant in terms of the outcome of the war. The partisans didn't stop the Red Army sweeping through and conquering the Baltic states IOTL, it will be the same in your scenario. They will cause some trouble but eventually the NKVD hunt them down, just as happened historically.
"It's the Soviets who will be having logistics issues, because land transport was less efficient then sea transport."
Of course the Soviets will have logistics problems, that's why I keep saying that Red Army operations would proceed far slower than for August Storm. But no, land transport is not less efficient than sea transport. Logistics are far easier to maintain through a land combat zone than a maritime one. The Soviets will have logistics issues, but the Germans in East Prussia have a noose round their necks.
"The terrain will have poor infrastructure an will have lots of forests and swamps, creating logistics problems"
Which is why I said it would be an attritional battle, not one of maneuvre. Yes there will be logistical problems to be overcome, but they will slow down the Soviets, not defeat them.
"there is no way the Soviets can starve out East Prussia. It would be something with no correspondence during the actual ww2"
Of course it happened in WW2. The Japanese starved the Americans on Bataan, the British and Americans starved the Germans in Tunisia, the Americans and Australians starved the Japanese throughout the Pacific, the Russians starved the Germans at Stalingrad. In a military context to starve your opponent does not mean just cutting of his food (which I’m assuming is what you think) but of any essential resource – ammo, fuel, medical supplies, reinforcements. It’s a common military strategy, deprive the enemy of essential supplies, reduce his effectiveness to the point he is not a threat and then crush him. That’s what would happen to any East Prussia garrison.
“The comparison with Sealion is unwarranted: the Germans would not be conducting an overseas invasion, they only have to ship supplies from one friendly harbor to another friendly harbor in close proximity; they don't have to worry about a huge enemy fleet bearing down on them and have air cover over the entire route”
Again you misunderstand a rather straightforward concept. I very clearly said it was adifferent situation to Sealion but the logistics burden is still the problem. There was no way Sealion would work for a number of continually discussed reasons, but the logistics issue is a key one. There simply weren’t enough ships or planes to supply a German invasion force. In this scenario there are not enough ships and planes to keep an East Prussia garrison supplied for an extended period. And the Germans will not have air cover the whole way. The Luftwaffe units based in East Prussia will eventually be degraded by the Red Air Force to the point they can’t protect the ports. As I continually tell you, Soviet losses will be high but numbers combined with better aircraft and experience, plus the German’s untenable long term supply situation, will decide the outcome just as IOTL.
“If everything else fails, they can ship reinforcements and supplies overnight, like the Japanese did on Guadalcanal”
The Japanese lost at Guadalcanal, so yes I agree with you there. The Germans can reinforce by night, but they will still lose in the long run. You seem to be thinking in terms of weeks, this war run for years.
“If the Red Air Force goes on the offensive, they will be quickly attrited, since OTL proves that Bomber offensives are costly things, especially without adequate fighter support”
Of course they would suffer heavy casualties, this is a full scale war we’re talking about. Both sides will be attrited, they question is who can best afford to take those casualties? Once again I remind you of what happened IOTL. In the 1st week of Barbarossa the Red air force was slaughtered on the ground, but three years later they dominated the Luftwaffe. The scenario here is a little different but the basic lesson is the same. The Soviets build far more aircraft, have far more replacement pilots, and they have access to a lot more fuel. Eventually they win.
“If the Red Army goes on the offensive, it will suffer heavy losses and morale will drop, since this is not the Great Patriotic War”
In your scenario the Soviet Union is defending itself against two aggressor states who have declared war on her. Their morale will be just fine, real people are far more complex than cartoon figures. Soviet morale survived the catastrophic defeats that the Nazis thought would make the Soviet Union crumble within a few months, you appear to be suffering from a similar delusion.
“If the SU doesn't attack neutrals, then it doensn't mean that Germany has to immediately go and invade Poland. If they want to attack the soviets ine Europe, the best thing would probably be to ask for an alliance with Turkey, since Turkey was willing to cooperate with the western allies for operation Pike.”
The Turks most definitely refused to join the Axis in fighting the Soviet Union IOTL even when the Wehrmacht was on what looked like a victory parade across the steppes. There is no way at all the Turks will sign up for this ridiculous scheme. They weren’t stupid. Of all the possible ways to strike the USSR this is by some way the most preposterous. Turkey will definitely say no.
Your idea for widening an alliance seems to be that the Germans will ask another state, in this case Turkey, to declare war on the USSR while Germany stays safe behind neutral Poland. Try and think about it from the Turks' perspective for a minute? They are being asked to fight a war against the largest army in the world, at a time before anyone even knew the Red Army was weak, but the Germans won’t even join the battle? And any suggestions of a German expeditionary force as making the difference would be laughed at by the Turks themselves. If you want someone to join this Axis alliance you will need to play on more than historic enmity, they will need to be convinced they aren’t being hung out to dry just to help Germany. And in OTL the Turks clearly showed, even when the Wehrmacht was seen as all-conquering, that they weren’t interested. Like I said, they weren't stupid. In this scenario the Soviets have just whipped the Japanese at Khalkhin Gol, everyone thinks the Red Army is not only huge but strong and the Wehrmacht has not yet even fought a battle. It will take more than empty words to get even friendly countries to sign up to this little adventure, particularly when Germany has done nothing as yet.