Hello all. I am personally interested in the history of the Second World War and I would like to hear your opinion on the following hypothetical scenario of events:

What do you think would have been the consequences, and the subsequent conclusion of the war, if instead of focusing its military offensive into Southeast Asia in 1941, Japan chose to strike the USSR from the east in tandem with the Axis attack in the West?

Note: In the real event, Japan chose not to breach an existing nonaggression pact with the USSR, which the Soviets themselves later broke by attacking Japanese Manchuria in 1945.

An invasion from the east would most likely have drained the man-power and resources of Japan, therefore resulting in America remaining neutral. This of couser could have devistation effects on the outcome of the war, and would most likely have lead to an Axis victory. Without the resources of America, there would be no second front, and if Hitler was smart on the eastern front, he could have taken Russia. Japan would run out of resources later on, after capturing land that would prove to be all but useless to their war efforts. There are many if in warefare, and this question opens up many.

=== Original Message ===>>>>

Hello all. I am personally interested in the history of the Second World War and I would like to hear your opinion on the following hypothetical scenario of events:

What do you think would have been the consequences, and the subsequent conclusion of the war, if instead of focusing its military offensive into Southeast Asia in 1941, Japan chose to strike the USSR from the east in tandem with the Axis attack in the West?

Note: In the real event, Japan chose not to breach an existing nonaggression pact with the USSR, which the Soviets themselves later broke by attacking Japanese Manchuria in 1945.

Very interesting opinion. I can't help thinking that if the Japanese armed forces attacked from the east, the Axis would surely have beaten the Russians regardless of how many silly mistakes Hitler made along the way.

Don't you think with a bit of farsightedness and cooperation instead of greedily pursuing their limited short-term aims, the Axis could have had the war wrapped up for them?

Instead Japan chose to concentrate on Southeast Asia. They could have easily had all that once the USSR and UK were beaten and the US was left alone against a triumphant Japan, Germany and Italy.

-wilson-
=== Original Message ===>>>>

An invasion from the east would most likely have drained the man-power and resources of Japan, therefore resulting in America remaining neutral. This of couser could have devistation effects on the outcome of the war, and would most likely have lead to an Axis victory. Without the resources of America, there would be no second front, and if Hitler was smart on the eastern front, he could have taken Russia. Japan would run out of resources later on, after capturing land that would prove to be all but useless to their war efforts. There are many if in warefare, and this question opens up many.

Very possible indeed. Mind you, with the lack of oil, and lack of training required for the land that is Russia, how would Japan fair in that style of warfare. It would definately be interesting to see how the Japanese would react to Russian Tactics and Terrain, and the much larger front lines.

I think the Japanese did get a little too greedy with their takeover of the Southern Pacific. They should have concentrated on European holdings and other area rich in oil (Excluding the US holding) If they did that, and were able to capture enough resources, they could probably sustain a front in Russia, thus leading to the collapse of one of the major reasons Germany lost. Once completed, they could probably be able to co-operate to take out the UK. The US may, or may not, get invovled at that point, as their population beleived in Neutrality, but would the takeover of Europe and most of Asia scare them into reacting.
=== Original Message ===>>>>

Very interesting opinion. I can't help thinking that if the Japanese armed forces attacked from the east, the Axis would surely have beaten the Russians regardless of how many silly mistakes Hitler made along the way.

Don't you think with a bit of farsightedness and cooperation instead of greedily pursuing their limited short-term aims, the Axis could have had the war wrapped up for them?

Instead Japan chose to concentrate on Southeast Asia. They could have easily had all that once the USSR and UK were beaten and the US was left alone against a triumphant Japan, Germany and Italy.

-wilson-

I guess Japan would definitely die on soviet soil, USSR is so big.

The effect of a Japanese invasion in the East would probably have been to threaten important cities like Magadan and Vladivostok, disrupt the Trans Siberian Railway and most importantly deprive Stalin's generals of Siberian troops to fight the Germans in the West. It would not have been really necessary to capture and hold large swathes of territory, and the Japanese could use their ground forces already deployed against China. Coupled with fresh German offensives and superior tactics the effect on the USSR would have been catastrophic.

Japan pushed further and further into Southeast Asia until USA and the Allies simply said "Enough" and put into place sanctions that ultimately resulted in the attack on Pearl Harbour (so that Japan could continue the pressure southeastwards). However if Japan had switched tack and hit the USSR instead it is quite unlikely that the US would have jumped so readily to the defense of Communist Russia.

I believe its a good hypothesis though i think you involve italy a lil too much, italy was really weak and didnt contribute almost anything, i guess hitler shouldve tried to involve italy a lot more, i mean what were the effects of italy in this war?, did they do anything besides their lil fascism which ended with the lazy italians killing their own leader, i dont know i guess im really dissapointed at italy, hitler held them at such high esteem since they belonged to the roman decendency hitler was really into decendency and history.

Italy was the fuck up in this war, japan is to be admired since they did fuck the us up, till this day the only country to openly attack the US at war has been Japan, so give em some good slack, though i do think they had a handfull with almost all of asia and then US, to mind russia, i wouldve advice hitler to continue neutrality with russia, and then perhaps blitzkrieg their ass later on, once japan and italy perhaps if we can count on them, attack when least excpected.
=== Original Message ===>>>>

The effect of a Japanese invasion in the East would probably have been to threaten important cities like Magadan and Vladivostok, disrupt the Trans Siberian Railway and most importantly deprive Stalin's generals of Siberian troops to fight the Germans in the West. It would not have been really necessary to capture and hold large swathes of territory, and the Japanese could use their ground forces already deployed against China. Coupled with fresh German offensives and superior tactics the effect on the USSR would have been catastrophic.

Japan pushed further and further into Southeast Asia until USA and the Allies simply said "Enough" and put into place sanctions that ultimately resulted in the attack on Pearl Harbour (so that Japan could continue the pressure southeastwards). However if Japan had switched tack and hit the USSR instead it is quite unlikely that the US would have jumped so readily to the defense of Communist Russia.

Japan would probably not have lasted long against the russians owing to their lack of tanks and heavy artillery. This lack of tanks was due to japanese experience in Manchuria, where they deemed tanks to be superfluous to the infantry. Besides that, Japans industrial capacity was unsuited to the task of mass producing tanks and artillery.

Second to that, the Russians had the capacity to pour enormous numbers of troops drawn from surrounding areas into a battle, thanks to their tendency to conscript women and children as well as men. The japanese lacked the manpower to face such numbers. The Russians also had the numbers of armoured vehicles which, although inferior to panzers, would have been effective against the japanese tanks with their 45mm guns.

just my thoughts

If Japan strike URSS in to Siberia at 1941, their army didn't was a match for red amy but the time and resources that russia put into play could weaken the western front and cause a colapse that german forces use to enter at moscu. Sorry for my bad english but it is a bit rusted
=== Original Message ===>>>>

Hello all. I am personally interested in the history of the Second World War and I would like to hear your opinion on the following hypothetical scenario of events:

What do you think would have been the consequences, and the subsequent conclusion of the war, if instead of focusing its military offensive into Southeast Asia in 1941, Japan chose to strike the USSR from the east in tandem with the Axis attack in the West?

Note: In the real event, Japan chose not to breach an existing nonaggression pact with the USSR, which the Soviets themselves later broke by attacking Japanese Manchuria in 1945.

Hello ..there are interesting webpages that have as principal topic the 2WW. Any of you can show me some of those pages in english?
In Spanish www.elgrancapitan.com , is one of the best pages in 2WW.
Iskandar