Discuss @The Red 's latest Alternate Barbarossas article here.
Agree, this is a better article about a Japan goes North then some i have read so far.Really good read, both in content and execution. Didn't realise the sheer numbers involved on either hypothetical side. It's of interest as the Far East Front can become a factor in For King & Country.
Honestly I'm kinda disappointed in the article for not noting the amount of motorization both armies employed. The Japanese might have enjoyed numerical superiority on the theatre of engagement, but practically somewhere around a half of their formations were not properly supplied nor were they in the position to get supplies for them. Trucks were incredibly vital for keeping far flung units supplied with vital munitions and rations, and if we counted a truck as worth it's crew of three over again that numerical imbalance would be far smaller- or even reversed.
A very nice summary of the main issues, neatly raising the question that always arises: "What's in it for me?"
It's hard to see what's in it for the Japanese.
Nice article, put a link on my twitter account if that is okay.
Great article, Paul. Especially liked the stinger at the end and the comparison that the same minds that thought it prudent to punch the US in the balls while they slept considered it insane to try and kick the Soviet Union in the arse while their back was turned.
Really good read, both in content and execution. Didn't realise the sheer numbers involved on either hypothetical side. It's of interest as the Far East Front can become a factor in For King & Country.
The comparison wasn't actually meant to be in the article but it occurred to me when I was writing and I had to mention it. I like to imagine a scene of Japanese officers rolling their eyes at the idiot extolling the virtues of invading the Soviet Union before moving on to the sensible discussion of attacking the United States instead.
Why would Britain and the Netherlands declare war on Japan, they would know that will invite the Japanese to descend into their Asian colonies.Britain and the Netherlands declaring war on Japan soon after an invasion of the USSR makes sense, but why would the US join?
I mean that the war would be constrained to the Chinese coast and South China Sea, and the US interests at risk would be the Philippines and America’s (quite valuable) trade routes. It’s a decent casus belli, but it would be difficult to sell to the public. Perhaps the popularity of Isolationism has been overstated, but it is undoubtedly still potent. It’s entirely plausible that the US could remain neutral in such a conflict.
But a Soviet Union attack by Japan will mostly be a army affair, the Imperial Japanese Navy is still a threat and as long as it is a thread i doubt Britain and the Netherlands will declare war on Japan, but that is just me thinking.If Japan is embroiled in Far Eastern Russia, and if this follows on from Germany launching Barbarossa, then it follows that the Soviet Union might appreciate some help. Since keeping the Soviet Union in the war would be considered a good thing in Britain, it follows that giving help would be in Britain's interests.
Given also that Japan's warmaking potential was heavily under-rated by Britain, it seems probable that Britain would not rate Japan's potential that highly if Japan was also busy in Russia. It may well be that Britain gets a nasty surprise (then again, if the bulk of the best of Japan's forces are in Russia, and the bulk of the rest busy in China, then there might not be that nasty surprise). However, that's a separate issue.
Britain and the Netherlands declaring war on Japan soon after an invasion of the USSR makes sense, but why would the US join?
I mean that the war would be constrained to the Chinese coast and South China Sea, and the US interests at risk would be the Philippines and America’s (quite valuable) trade routes. It’s a decent casus belli, but it would be difficult to sell to the public. Perhaps the popularity of Isolationism has been overstated, but it is undoubtedly still potent. It’s entirely plausible that the US could remain neutral in such a conflict.
Could the have hold against the Japanese in combat, they still have to deal with the Imperial Japanese Navy.I think it’s likely that the British and the Dutch would have declared war on Japan shortly after a theoretical Japanese invasion of the USSR, not inevitable but the British had pledged all available help to the Soviets and here was an arena where they and the Dutch (who were in lockstep with British foreign policy at this point) could have made a real difference.
The chances of the US declaring war at this juncture are far more debatable. I’d wager it’s above 50% with any potential incident making that higher. The Philippines would be in the middle of a crossfire and it’s likely such an incident would occur.
Could the have hold against the Japanese in combat, they still have to deal with the Imperial Japanese Navy.
And neither are the British and Dutch able to invade ore threaten the Japanese i presume.The IJN could hold the RN, RLN, and RBPF, but I’m uncertain if they could fight the “Decisive Battle” against their combined strength. Even if they do attain naval supremacy, as @David Flin notes, the IJA troops just aren’t there in sufficient numbers to pull off an invasion of South East Asia any longer.
And neither are the British and Dutch able to invade ore threaten the Japanese i presume.
Also which nation use the RBPF if i can ask.
I do not think the Red Banner Pacific Fleet has a change against the Japanese, especially if the Japanese do a Pearl Harbor attack against Vladivostok in the begin phase of the war.RBPF stands for Red Banner Pacific Fleet, admittedly it’s not a common abbreviation but I got a bit carried away with the alliteration. For the sake of consistency I’ve included the Australian, Canadian, and Kiwi fleets as “RN”.
I do not think the Red Banner Pacific Fleet has a change against the Japanese, especially if the Japanese do a Pearl Harbor attack against Vladivostok in the begin phase of the war.