WI Japan defeats the USSR at the battles of Lake Khasan and Khalkin Gol?

BigDave1967

Banned
What if Japan defeats the Soviets in the battles of Lake Khasan and and Khalkin Gol? Would Japan try to take Vladivostok? I have a feeling Japan would be emboldened by victory over the USSR and try to take most if not all of Siberia east of Lake Baikal. That would be a big help to Nazi Germany during Barbarossa in my opinion.
 
The question is just how they would do it. Lake Khasan is possible but Khalkin Gol would be close to impossible.
 
I have a feeling Japan would be emboldened by victory over the USSR and try to take most if not all of Siberia east of Lake Baikal. That would be a big help to Nazi Germany during Barbarossa in my opinion.

The usual question is 'why does Japan want Siberia?'.

It's literally... Siberia. A place second only to the Sahara in terms of pop-culture references to barren wastelands.

Second, this would not really help the Nazis, as the 'far eastern troops come to save the day' myth is just that - a myth. New reinforcements did arrive, but they were from the Urals and Central Asian bits of Russia, not Siberia. The Soviets' Far Eastern Armies stayed largely in the Far East for most of WWII.

Basically, imagine you're invading the US east coast and someone parachutes a load of soldiers into the Nevada desert. You're probably grateful for the effort, but if they can't advance much further than that you'd almost rather they hadn't bothered.

And all this is moot, because the Japanese armed forces were not in any fit state to open another massive land front, given that they were at the time trying to annex large sections of the third biggest country in the world.
 
That would be a big help to Nazi Germany during Barbarossa in my opinion.

Actually a big loss, Japan throwing their dwindling supply of oil away in a meatgrinder against superior Soviet forces whilst the Commonwealth and quite possibly the Americans devastate the Japanese fleet means that the Allied powers can focus all their resources on Germany by the end of 1942.
 

BigDave1967

Banned
The usual question is 'why does Japan want Siberia?'.

It's literally... Siberia. A place second only to the Sahara in terms of pop-culture references to barren wastelands.

Second, this would not really help the Nazis, as the 'far eastern troops come to save the day' myth is just that - a myth. New reinforcements did arrive, but they were from the Urals and Central Asian bits of Russia, not Siberia. The Soviets' Far Eastern Armies stayed largely in the Far East for most of WWII.

Basically, imagine you're invading the US east coast and someone parachutes a load of soldiers into the Nevada desert. You're probably grateful for the effort, but if they can't advance much further than that you'd almost rather they hadn't bothered.

And all this is moot, because the Japanese armed forces were not in any fit state to open another massive land front, given that they were at the time trying to annex large sections of the third biggest country in the world.

Japan would have to take that along with China to accomplish their plans in Asia. Here's a copy of the Tanaka Memorial Japan's dream of World Empire

http://mailstar.net/tanaka.html
 
The Battles were in reality quite insignificant border clashes - both sides "only" wanted (or resisted) minor border changes. Even a Japanese win would thus not change the overall strength of the Soviet Union. But long before Barbarossa a Soviet defeat might lead to a change in doctrine and equipment on the soviet side. So teh Soviet Union might evven GAIN from a defeat.

A Japanes victory might also lead to the believe that SU is "ripe" for conquest - Japan might even be open to a negotiated peace with China (long shot I know, but if Japan REALLY wants Siberia...). An acceptable peace agreement with China (US/UK POV) might prevent (ideally) or delay (probably) OTLS Pacific war. Japan will be fighting the SU in cobelligerence with Germany - nO US Japan war = no DOW by GErmany to the US. Japan might even be at war with teh US while still being at peace with UK/France...
 
Siberia wasnt a barren wasteland even in the 30´s there was a reason why the Japanese stayed the longest of all nations intervening in the Russian Civil War. The question is if they can take and hold the iron, coal and oilfields (which I doubt).
 
Siberia wasnt a barren wasteland even in the 30´s there was a reason why the Japanese stayed the longest of all nations intervening in the Russian Civil War. The question is if they can take and hold the iron, coal and oilfields (which I doubt).

Put it this way: IOTL they opted to go south. As an AHer who believes this could happen, it is now on you to explain why they choose to go north ITTL. What makes the vast plains of Siberia more attractive to this naval-dominated nation?
 
Put it this way: IOTL they opted to go south. As an AHer who believes this could happen, it is now on you to explain why they choose to go north ITTL. What makes the vast plains of Siberia more attractive to this naval-dominated nation?

The general reasoning is usually revealed with the final OP comment on these sorts of threads, "Wouldn't that be really good for Germany" and variants thereof. It's continued popularity is thinking in terms of what Japan can do for Germany, yet that it is also what makes it a Sea Lion-level scenario.
 
Put it this way: IOTL they opted to go south. As an AHer who believes this could happen, it is now on you to explain why they choose to go north ITTL. What makes the vast plains of Siberia more attractive to this naval-dominated nation?

The same reason the wast plains of China was so attractive to the "naval dominated nation"?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The same reason the wast plains of China was so attractive to the "naval dominated nation"?

Because some bonkers Army officers thought they should push for more resources for their branch? (I know that's a simplified view, but largely functional - the China incident was caused at a relatively local level over a single missing soldier.)
 

BigDave1967

Banned
Because some bonkers Army officers thought they should push for more resources for their branch? (I know that's a simplified view, but largely functional - the China incident was caused at a relatively local level over a single missing soldier.)

Manchuria was invaded over a supposed two foot wide section of railroad track that was supposedly bombed.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Manchuria was invaded over a supposed two foot wide section of railroad track that was supposedly bombed.

Now that's what I call a pretext.
Not as bad as the War of Jenkins' Ear, though. The difference being that the Japanese one/s was/were pushed at the local level - rather than as government policy.
 
Manchuria was invaded over a supposed two foot wide section of railroad track that was supposedly bombed.

Mandchuria was invaded because the Kwantung army was full of madmen with imperialist ambitions so great they declared their own war against China.

When they decided to do the same with the Soviets, they were completely crushed and they lost most of their influence on japanese politics...
 
Mandchuria was invaded because the Kwantung army was full of madmen with imperialist ambitions so great they declared their own war against China.

When they decided to do the same with the Soviets, they were completely crushed and they lost most of their influence on japanese politics...

Maybe there's a WI in that. Is it plausible for them to have some border clashes with the Soviets before '37, and losing badly then delays or the war with China?
 

BigDave1967

Banned
Mandchuria was invaded because the Kwantung army was full of madmen with imperialist ambitions so great they declared their own war against China.

When they decided to do the same with the Soviets, they were completely crushed and they lost most of their influence on japanese politics...

The Japanese couldn't condemn the action or apologize to China because it would mean a loss of face(losing dignity,prestige etc). Even today in Japan that is a really bad thing(to lose face).
 
Put it this way: IOTL they opted to go south. As an AHer who believes this could happen, it is now on you to explain why they choose to go north ITTL. What makes the vast plains of Siberia more attractive to this naval-dominated nation?

Well two things to this:

1) the vast plains of Siberia are actually fairly rich in resources if you can exploit them and the conquest of the Russian Maritimes alone would be an attractive bit of leverage to the Japanese government (they attempted to do this in 1918 but were forced out by local and foreign pressure)

2) The Army was, as late as 1941, pushing for a Northern Strategy against the Soviets in order to claim these resource rich areas and to "strike a blow against communism"

So really it was part funding war and part ideological foolishness that drove the Japanese army to be constantly suggesting such an absurd idea.

Mandchuria was invaded because the Kwantung army was full of madmen with imperialist ambitions so great they declared their own war against China.

When they decided to do the same with the Soviets, they were completely crushed and they lost most of their influence on japanese politics...

That's basically the gist of it. The crushing defeat (and the exposure of the woeful inferiority of Japanese tanks and artillery) at a stroke killed any serious thoughts of pursuing a Northern Strategy and handed the ball straight to the Navy Brass for where the resources went.
 
Top