Discussion in 'What If - Pacific and CBI' started by Blau Himmel, Oct 1, 2008.
When Japan was fighting against the SU, in august 1939, it was stabbed in the back by Germany .
You mean when Japan fought Russia in 1938/1939 over border skirmishes, Germany signed the non-aggression pact with Russia, so Japan felt they were betrayed?
What would Japan gain by fighting in the Soviet Union? Don't forget that Japan was a naval power with a thirst for oil.... Siberia did nothing g for the Empire.
Reference the Battle of Nomonhan .
Correction about population of Vladivostok during ww2 would not have reached 1 million.
In 1926, population of Vladivostok was 108,000. In more than a decade, no major event would have increased the population tenfold. The Russian Civil War increased only more than fourfold.
The Unknown World War II in the Northern Pacific -- this paper is likely useful to a similar what-if scenario.
The sum is 2,471,400 -- this number is about 70 years after. Given that the land where the cities or towns are located would be on the paths of Japanese troops, my estimate of 1 million would be the total population of the land, not a single city.
Given that the area has been sparsely populated, control of a few major settlements and land or sea transportation routes would be crucial than spread the occupation troops across the vastness. Excluding Chita, all other cities are close to the sea of Japan or the estuaries of the Amur. So the navy would play a crucial role in landing amphibious troops along with land forces advancing onto the settlements.
Beyond the urban centers, did Japan have enough humanpower to develop the natural resources if occupied. Mining and timbering would be a sensible start.
As much thought as you are giving this...It never occurred to you to look at various literature concerning data from the Soviet 1937-39 census?
Had you done so, you would have learned that the population of the Russian Far East was fairly close to to the data you have given from 2011.
This is further broken down
Khabarovsk Kray 1,431,000 Urban: 648,000
Maritime Kray 907,000 Urban: 465,000
All I can say are sources -- do they dictate scenario ? How did you search and get the pdf file ?
To sum up, this what-if would only benefit Japan if Japan could have already held more lands in what is nowadays Russian Far East than it had, for example, the whole Sakhalin island instead of just the southern part.
2) Also, Japan military developed infantry that they would have mechanized effectively and economically with the likes of tank destroyers, RPG et cetera; they could then hold their own.
3) Their occupation of lands in what is nowadays Russian Far East would have been stabilized enough and internationally recognized.
These points were very hard to achieve.
Japan was more interested in China than Russia. There was absolutely nothing to gain from breaking the non-aggression pact it had signed after Khalkin Ghol and attacked Russia again.
I'd hardly say nothing to be gained but the risk reward ratio wasn't there. Indeed the Soviets would likely have made a better ally than Germany for Japan.
As has been pointed out to you more than once...Japan was getting most of the Soviet oil production from Northern Sakhalin, albeit they did have to pay for some of it.
So, capturing and holding all of Sakhalin Island, will be of little overall benefit to Japan.
Capturing and holding more territory, not including Sakhalin Island, in the Soviet Far East, will be of even less economic benefit to Japan.
Even the German Army was not mechanized effectively and economically throughout WW2.
It took the Soviets the better half of World War II to do this, and that was with the help of American Lend-Lease.
It took the Americans a good two years to do it, and that was without fighting any major land campaigns.
Now, given the relatively low level of Japanese industrialization, and a relative lack of petroleum sources(even if the entire Japanese/Soviet oil production of Sakhalin Island is taken into account), Japan still lacks the petroleum resources to support her Army, Navy, and Air Forces.
Not to mention that if Japan can effectively and economically mechanize her Army prior to World War II. Then that would mean that she has the industrial and petroleum resources to support such a large mechanization. Which, in turn, would mean that Japan has absolutely no need for any Soviet territory.
Manchukuo was stable, but very few nations chose to diplomatically recognize it. Very few nations chose to do so -
El Salvador(1934), Dominican Republic(1934), Italy(1937), Spain(1937), Germany(1938), and Hungary(1939).
Stability will, by no such stretch of the imagination, guarantee international diplomatic recognition.
These points are impossible for Japan to achieve in the "real" world.
They only become "very hard" to achieve in Fantasy Land.
Takao, may I ask if you have specifically following my posts on this site? At any rate, your comments seem to indicate that I meant some other ideas than I intended to. Maybe you can contribute to this what-if thread than to refute claims and I was contributing, merely, which may mean constructive ideas.
Anyway, Sakhalin did yield oil but not enough; I have indicated that previously.
Given the other two points, Japan could think of achieving to take what is now part of Russian Far East along the Amur estuary as the river is navigable from its mouth upstream to certain extent. Given that Japan had been experienced in navigation; then that added another dimension to Japan. Your points seem to indicate economically exploit the occupied Soviet lands to be only reason of taking the land. And because even Germany cannot do that totally in ww2, the chance of fully incorporating the land during the timeline of ww2 is slim.
The point is how to consolidate the occupied land strategically; do not get any points for trying, especially for a resource constrained Japan.
I don't follow any posters or threads. I read and post to threads where my interests and/or knowledge lie.
If true, then perhaps you should make your ideas more clear.
By refuting your claims, I am contributing to this "what if". For I am attempting to raise it above the level of "What if Japan had an Imperial Star Destroyer" to a "What If that is at least possible/plausible." In other words - a what if that does not require the intervention of Alien Space Bats.
My point is exactly the opposite...There was little in the Soviet Far East that Japan economically required - Unless in this what if, Japan does not occupy Manchuria and China. For you see, the occupied lands of both Manchuria and China were providing everything that Japan could hope to gain from the Soviet Far East. Further, neither were near being fully economically exploited. Thus by taking over the Soviet Far East would be a dilution of their efforts to economically exploit the lands they have already conquered. So, the result would be less...Not more.
Unfortunately, you are trying to justify the impossible. Japan was looking towards conquering the Soviet Far East, because their Army had gotten 2 bloody noses from the Soviets in 1938 and 1939, and the Imperial Japanese Army was looking to reclaim it's lost honor.
The point, again, is that the Japanese were not going into the Soviet Far East for economic reasons...and given the need to consolidate their positions in China and Manchuria/Manchukuo, they did not need to take on more baggage that they already could not handle.
I don't think the T-34 was available until after 1940. It was designed as a result of the Japanese skirmishes.
The idea that Japan went into China proper after 1937 was already taking too much baggage itself. By taking Manchuria in 1931 the conquest was already enough for Japanese people immigration into that area and possibly Japan's limit.
Unfortunately, I did not justify Japan reclaiming its lost honour by going into Soviet Far East. If Japan's expansion had been inevitable on numerous grounds, doing that strategically would have been the way to go. Attacking Soviet Far East by force would have been possibly a failure even before that 2 bloody nosed confrontation: Japan military was good at navy not land force. That ground potentially gives rise to a what-if on this website about Germany helping Japan developing armored forces.
What was skipped in this discussion was that USA led diplomatic pressure made Japan evacuating Northern part of Sakhalin Island in 1925. After the International Intervention in the Russian Civil War, evacuation of international military forces would already be enough. By geography, Japan and Russia/Soviet Union were tangled in Soviet Far East. Why USA and Western European powers would want to involve in forcing Japan to evacuate a sparsely populated land? Let Soviet Union and Japan confront on opposite banks of the Sea of Japan.
It wasn't skipped...It was ignored. For the simple reason that it is not true. There was no "US led diplomatic pressure" to oust the Japanese from their occupation of Northern Sakhalin. Please note, that the US grumbling and griping was Russian/Soviet led. The Russian/Soviets, following the Japanese occupation of Northern Sakhalin, sold the oil& gas rights for Northern Sakhalin island to Sinclair Oil Company in 1923. Sinclair Oil, unable to act on these rights so long as the Japanese occupied the entire island, protested longly and loudly to the US government, the US government, in turn, to the matter up with the Japanese. This maneuver was quite shrewd of the Russians, as it now had the US government doing the leg work that the Russians could not, would not, or simply refused to do.
Further, the statement "US led diplomatic pressure", completely ignores the fact that Japanese diplomats were saying, for some time, that the occupation was only temporary, and would be ended when Russia finally had an stable government with which Japan could communicate and receive reparations for the massacre of the Japanese Consul and his family, as well as, some 700 of her people. Thus, the US protestations over the Japanese occupation had absolutely squat to do with the Japanese leaving. Which the Japanese did once concessions in Northern Sakhalin were agreed to.
Also, it ignores the fact that many Japanese companies were complaining to the Japanese government to resume their lucrative trade business with Russia, something that had come to an almost complete halt during this time.
Another poster on this site noted that what-if scenarios deepens understanding of information in reality. If some facts are hidden or ignored by some posters in discussion of what-if scenarios, participants in discussion are not holding the similar belief that the participants are contributing fully: sharing some information while hiding other. I felt more efforts and time would have been wasted while my typing is open for the world to see. At least now I know participants are not helping out but weighing their options.
I see no point to continue on in this what-if for the aforesaid reasons.
For friendliness, if one does not want to contribute enough, many other works can be done on this website, online and in real life. Time will always be a constraint.
So, the "US led diplomatic pressure" is yet another PoD, one of a great many, that you require to make this thread remotely believable...