quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs


Would the USSR surrender to Germany if Japan had gone North in 1941?

This kind of reminds a bit of Tannenberg: no way that Russia could defeat Germany in the East front in WW1, but by going on the offensive they were instrumental on avoiding France's defeat (or so some say). So for the Allies as a whole Tannenberg was successful (or so some say) -- while for the Russians it didn't matter, as they would lose with or without Tannenberg.

So, while Japan would most certainly be beat by the USSR, is it possible that if Japan attacked they would tie up so many troops in the winter of 1941 that Germany would have had a greater chance of defeating the Soviets? Kinda: the soviets would have at best a Pyrrhic victory?

If it worked that way, it would be to Japan's interests: they would stop the spreading of Communism (which was their biggest worry), they would end up with some territorial gains (although without resources), get themselves a buffer against USSR, would weaken the Chinese Communists.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Is your hypothesis also including the caveat, "and Japan did not attack the US, Great Britain, DEI, Phillipines or Burma"? Namely, are you supposing that Japan never moved elsewhere in aggression or that, IN ADDITION TO attacking the aforementioned 'Western' Allies, Japan ALSO attacked Russia in 1941?

Makes a big difference, IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

VERY UNLIKELY..., but Japan would have been in serious trouble.  Remember that her whole reason for going to war in December of 1941 was to seize the SRA before her dwindling stocks of oil and other resources were totally gone.  Getting into a war that would expend resources with no possibility of replacing them (and for the benefit of Germany rather than herself) would have been foolish at best.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

Fall of moscow would have seriously hurt the Soviet Rail infrastructure is it was a Major rail hub. Would Soviet russia surrender after losing moscow ? I seriously doubt it. they would use the 1812 war (where moscow did fall/well abandoned) as propoganda and just carry on fighting. Bear in mind a lot of the soviet manufacturing had been moved over the urals and was getting going again. Caucus oil falling in 41 could have crippled the USSR if germany could have held it. Moscow is just a name by comparison.

My 2p

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Is your hypothesis also including the caveat, "and Japan did not attack the US, Great Britain, DEI, Phillipines or Burma"? Namely, are you supposing that Japan never moved elsewhere in aggression or that, IN ADDITION TO attacking the aforementioned 'Western' Allies, Japan ALSO attacked Russia in 1941?

Makes a big difference, IMO.

That's correct, question is assuming that Japan would have chosen the North strategy (attack USSR) instead of the South strategy (attack UK/DEI/US). Apparently it wasn't until mid-41 that the South strategy was chosen, so the Japanese were apparently considering the North strategy seriously until the South decision was made.

They would be lap-beaten by the USSR, no doubt about that. But would the USSR in the end be defeated?


Thanks,
fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

VERY UNLIKELY..., but Japan would have been in serious trouble.  Remember that her whole reason for going to war in December of 1941 was to seize the SRA before her dwindling stocks of oil and other resources were totally gone.  Getting into a war that would expend resources with no possibility of replacing them (and for the benefit of Germany rather than herself) would have been foolish at best.

Notice that I didn't question if Japan would have been victorious: the kamikaze-South strategy, the kamikaze-North strategy and the China Incident were all stupid in strategic terms, and I don't think Japan could be victorious in any of these.

So whether they went for Pearl Harbor or Vladivostok, the Japanese would in the long term lose any gains. Eventually (say 42 or 43) they would end up trying to go for DEI, and would (most probably) be beaten completely.

Thanks,
fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

If Germany not wasted its time in the Balkans and in near Kiev but concentrated its attacks on Moscow and Leningrad they would have probably won the war, because Stalin would not have survived politically. If the Japanese made a surprise attack against the USSR instead of going south Stalin's chance of political survival would have been very low. Lend lease to USSR was most effective in 1943-44 onwards so in 41-42 there was a time window for the collapse of the USSR. the fall of Moscow would logistically have been a nightmare for Russia. Most of the railways passed through to Moscow so beside the political fall out there would have been a military one as well. the factory's that were moved to the Urals would have been not back up until 1943 as well so the answer to your question is yes Russia could have been defeated in 1942-43 but the leadership of the axis countries would have had to be different. Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo where the best weapons the allies had as they made to many mistakes at the wrong times. Time is against the axis countries because of the difference of industry resources and population but with a well coordinated campaign Russia would have fallen and then the war would have been a lot bloodier.

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

Yes i agree its all hypothetical, there would have been ifs from both sides and battles are won by the sides that make the least mistakes. But the question was would the USSR been defeated had japan joined the fray against the ussr ? yes there was a time window from 42-43 where the USSR could have been defeated but with the axis countries making less mistakes than their opposition. Remember the divisions that stopped army group central were the reserve divisions that were transferred from Siberia, and do you think Stalin would have kept his job if Moscow had fallen ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Absolutely! Stalin expected to be replaced/assassinated during the first week of the war when it became obvious how badly he'd screwed up in both his belief that the Germans wouldn't attack, and his deployment of Soviet Armies. Instead, the highest leaders of the Party came to him hat-in-hand and begged him to re-assume direction of the USSR. His supremacy was never in doubt after that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

Fall of moscow would have seriously hurt the Soviet Rail infrastructure is it was a Major rail hub. Would Soviet russia surrender after losing moscow ? I seriously doubt it. they would use the 1812 war (where moscow did fall/well abandoned) as propoganda and just carry on fighting. Bear in mind a lot of the soviet manufacturing had been moved over the urals and was getting going again. Caucus oil falling in 41 could have crippled the USSR if germany could have held it. Moscow is just a name by comparison.

My 2p

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

Realistically (fantastically?) the only window of opportunity was June 1941. A simultaneous attack on the Soviet Union from East and West might well have done the trick. If nothing else, the Japanese would have enjoyed the same advantage as the Germans over the first few months of dealing with a paralyzed and demoralized Stalin. At no other time would they have an opportunity to fight against a headless Russia. And that would be about the ONLY thing that might cancel out their overwhelming inferiority in just about every military matchup.

Of couse, if you think about all the necessary precursors that would have been required for the Japanese to actually DO that....well, basically it couldn't happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Is your hypothesis also including the caveat, "and Japan did not attack the US, Great Britain, DEI, Phillipines or Burma"? Namely, are you supposing that Japan never moved elsewhere in aggression or that, IN ADDITION TO attacking the aforementioned 'Western' Allies, Japan ALSO attacked Russia in 1941?

Makes a big difference, IMO.

That's correct, question is assuming that Japan would have chosen the North strategy (attack USSR) instead of the South strategy (attack UK/DEI/US). Apparently it wasn't until mid-41 that the South strategy was chosen, so the Japanese were apparently considering the North strategy seriously until the South decision was made.

They would be lap-beaten by the USSR, no doubt about that. But would the USSR in the end be defeated?


Thanks,
fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Venividivici10044

Well...I'll put a few thoughts down as I find this a particularly interesting speculation.

Europe: I feel that historically Germany lost the war during the Battle of Britain. I suspect that a follow-up Sea Lion campaign (after a successful BoB) would have been a disaster should the attempt been made. If one accepts this hypothesis (Germany loses it chance to win after the BoB), one can state that Germany never really had a chance for victory. My rationale - knock GB out of the war and you make it highly unlikely that the US will ever have the possibility of mounting an invasion. On the eastern side, if Germany had knocked GB out in 1940-41, Barbarossa would have been delayed, allowing Russia more time to better arm, train and deploy its forces. The further one goes, the more possibilities arise - would Hitler attack Russia next; would Russia attack Germany - who knows!

Asia: What would Japan want in Siberia? Minerals and Energy - How do you exploit them in the 1941 world? Security - attack first to cause the most damage possible, BUT what then? Russia has in 1941 large manpower reserves (even with Barbarossa in play), their regional armies destroyed your forces in Mongolia in 1939. So why would you attack? That is the question you would need to answer. I postulate that attacking Russia at this point in the war is suicidal for Japan. If you do attack, do you also simultaneously attack the US, the DEI, and British possessions? You would have to if you are going to have access to the DEI oil reserves. Russia will prove itself a massive hemorrhage for your forces and I suspect your expansion would be seriously jeopardized in the south. Now for a seriously wild Assumption...the US likely can't attack Germany via the Atlantic, but Japan weakened by the Russian debacle becomes the favored victory first priority, with lend lease going through Vladivostok (along with American forces should they be needed). Victory over Japan would take the US into 1944, during which time Russia would likely have Germany on its knees. A presumption here - Barbarossa occurs as planned and follows history, eastern reserves are siphoned to save Moscow; 1942 Caucasus drive results in Stalingrad - German capitulation occurs in 1943. 1943 Summer campaign occurs historically. Russia would not have the benefit of lend lease due to the loss of GB unless US convoys could make it to Murmansk, but would still have massive internal resources and manpower. Would they want US forces at that point - not likely.

More wild cards - North African must be considered - do the Germans have enough forces to take Egypt, the middle east, and make a drive from the south should the Barbarossa campaign begin without GB still in the war? Another wild card - Hitler decides NOT to declare war on the US after the PH attack. Does the US thus declare war on Germany as they are a Japanese ally? GB is out of the war as discussed above; Russia at war with Japan; where do all those bombers for your strategic bomber command go - hmmmmm. How quick can you say - FIRESTORM on the home islands.

Like I mentioned in my opening...What a wild alternative history. I think the result would have ultimately been the same - US defeats Japan; Russia defeats Germany. The iron curtain falls across all of Europe. At best for the US, German forces in GB surrender to the US prior to a Russian invasion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Venividivici10044

Well...I'll put a few thoughts down as I find this a particularly interesting speculation.

Europe: I feel that historically Germany lost the war during the Battle of Britain. I suspect that a follow-up Sea Lion campaign (after a successful BoB) would have been a disaster should the attempt been made. If one accepts this hypothesis (Germany loses it chance to win after the BoB), one can state that Germany never really had a chance for victory. My rationale - knock GB out of the war and you make it highly unlikely that the US will ever have the possibility of mounting an invasion. On the eastern side, if Germany had knocked GB out in 1940-41, Barbarossa would have been delayed, allowing Russia more time to better arm, train and deploy its forces. The further one goes, the more possibilities arise - would Hitler attack Russia next; would Russia attack Germany - who knows!

Asia: What would Japan want in Siberia? Minerals and Energy - How do you exploit them in the 1941 world? Security - attack first to cause the most damage possible, BUT what then? Russia has in 1941 large manpower reserves (even with Barbarossa in play), their regional armies destroyed your forces in Mongolia in 1939. So why would you attack? That is the question you would need to answer. I postulate that attacking Russia at this point in the war is suicidal for Japan. If you do attack, do you also simultaneously attack the US, the DEI, and British possessions? You would have to if you are going to have access to the DEI oil reserves. Russia will prove itself a massive hemorrhage for your forces and I suspect your expansion would be seriously jeopardized in the south. Now for a seriously wild Assumption...the US likely can't attack Germany via the Atlantic, but Japan weakened by the Russian debacle becomes the favored victory first priority, with lend lease going through Vladivostok (along with American forces should they be needed). Victory over Japan would take the US into 1944, during which time Russia would likely have Germany on its knees. A presumption here - Barbarossa occurs as planned and follows history, eastern reserves are siphoned to save Moscow; 1942 Caucasus drive results in Stalingrad - German capitulation occurs in 1943. 1943 Summer campaign occurs historically. Russia would not have the benefit of lend lease due to the loss of GB unless US convoys could make it to Murmansk, but would still have massive internal resources and manpower. Would they want US forces at that point - not likely.

More wild cards - North African must be considered - do the Germans have enough forces to take Egypt, the middle east, and make a drive from the south should the Barbarossa campaign begin without GB still in the war? Another wild card - Hitler decides NOT to declare war on the US after the PH attack. Does the US thus declare war on Germany as they are a Japanese ally? GB is out of the war as discussed above; Russia at war with Japan; where do all those bombers for your strategic bomber command go - hmmmmm. How quick can you say - FIRESTORM on the home islands.

Like I mentioned in my opening...What a wild alternative history. I think the result would have ultimately been the same - US defeats Japan; Russia defeats Germany. The iron curtain falls across all of Europe. At best for the US, German forces in GB surrender to the US prior to a Russian invasion.

if Sea Lion would have gone off and would have been succesful (which there was a chance for what? 0.5%?), then I doubt the Russian would have Germany on itīs knees because without a Western front and the Western Allied bomber offensive the Nazis pretty sure would achieve a draw against the Russian on the offense. The fight against the Western Allied took a lot of manpower, war material and resources, even before D-day so I wouldnīt underestimate this. I also wouldnīt underestimate the German in holding back the Russian if the West is "secure". Even though it looks like a cakewalk for the Russian from 44 on in real life, the losses they took were horrendous. And this with the Nazis having the West not secured.

But as many have pointed out itīs all just a "if".