alternatehistory.com

In 1939, Soviet and Japanese fought a battle at Khalkhin Gol in Mongolia.
Reportedly, the Japanese hoped they would get help from Germany (whith whom they had signed the Anticomintern pact). But instead, Germany went and signed a pact with the Soviets. The Japanese were defeated, the "go north" faction fell from grace and later they refused to join Germany in an attack on the Soviet Union after june 1941.

But what if Germany had used the incident to activate the Anticomintern pact and start a war against the Soviet Union? After all, there are many people on this board who insist that Hitler was completely obsessed with attacking Russia, so why not just do it at the first occasion?

Whatewer you believe about the plausibility, I think there are strong arguments that this course of action would have been better for Germany then what they did historically:
The alliance with Japan would be strengthened. Germany wold continue to play the "bulwark against communism" angle. They would have an excuse to further build up forces.
But then you will say: the Germans at that point could do nothing to directly attack the Soviets. Well, that's the beauty of it! Because Germany at that point was still too weak to directly confront the Soviet Union. Better to have this kind of "phoney war". The Germans can send weapons, advisors, and maybe an expeditionary force to Manchuria (like a second Legion Condor) to continue gathering experience. They can blocade Russia with submarines (now they have an excuse to build lots of them), and if they feel lucky they might even send the fleet to bombard Leningrad.
But it gets better! (I feel like in a teleshopping commercial:D). If they are really lucky, they may goad the Soviets into attacking a buffer state like Poland or Lithuania. Now the Germans have an excuse to send troops into Poland without scandalising the western powers, while the Soviets weaken themselves trying to reach Germany proper, thus makig them a more manageable foe.
What do you say to that?
Top