We know that Japan never attacked Russia during WWII despite having considerable forces available along the long Manchuria -China/Russia border. (Edit: For the purposes of this poll, I’m considering the Japanese-Soviet border clashes of 1937 and 1939 to be prior to WWII, lets say WWII starts from the Russian experience, at the start of Barbarossa.) Suppose that Germany doesn’t get turned back by Soviet forces in WWII, but instead the blitz continued until the collapse of the Soviets. At what point, all else being equal, do you think would Japan have attacked the Russian frontier (if ever)?
The fall of Moscow would have been the breaking point. It would be evident who was going to win, and the Japs would have taken the oppurtunity to make gains.
Not sure if it would be an outright invasion, but it would certainly be a “new deal” on the Russian/Japanese Border. “Your capital has fallen, your country is in shambles, we will attack unless you relinquish ___________ hectares of land for our control. This way there will be no bloodshed.”
OK. Japan would only be taking Vladivostok. Thats it. They didn’t have any other capabilities to do anything more and the return on investment is negative due to the deplorable nature of the terrain.
Just imagine a space the size of 15 Mongolia with dense forests, unimproved roads, no electrical, nothing and subtract 30 degrees. The only thing is to march along the railroad line and get cut off easily by flanking attacks from the wilderness. Great fun.
And those so called Japanese tank corps? You might just call them “tin coffin death traps” easily sabotaged with land mines and other obstacles. Japan had no means to control any logistical train longer than about 200 miles, just look how they did in China from 1931-1945… they didn’t get farther than a few hundred miles in the interior and this is substantially improved road system.
It it beyond any imagination to consider anything from Japan more than what they did in 1904-5 during that war against Russia.
Russia already proved who were better trained and better equipped in fighting during 1939, and thats after the great purges so technically Japan was no match for the Soviets.
I think they would just take Vladivostok and the coast. As IL said, there are nothing to gain in Sibir.
IMO Japan would never have committed to anything substantial against Russia unless they managed to attain most or all of their primary objectives in the Pacific and Southern Asia (“liberation” of India, uncontested influence over the Pacific, etc…).
It would have to after the German/European Axis capture of Moscow, no more, no less.
I could honestly see the IJA seizing Vladivostok primarily. It was about the only area strategically useful within that region at the time, and still holds importance today. After that, maybe operations to secure the vast coastline, though this is just an assumption and it would’ve been difficult for them. As others have stated, these territories would yield little unto them.
Of more importance, I could see them sending most of the Manchurian and Korean divisions meant to guard the border into the frying pan with China, something they truly wanted at the time.
If you had to point to the biggest Axis blunder of WW2 it would be that Japan never attacked Russia. Yes, they may not have gotten very far and the terrain did suck, but the real estate was improtant enough to Stalin that he had 100,000s of troops stationed there just in case it was attacked. Once Stalin found out that Japan had no intention of attacking they diverted those troops, and that was what made stalingrad possible. It can be argued that w/o that victory the Germans may have broken the Russians, captured Stalingrad and than than the oil fields. Hitler’s idea that was w/o oil Russia would lose the war (and he was probably right).
