If Japan didn't attack America, could Japan and Germany have successfully sandwiched Russia?

>effectivity of armies are determined by k/d ratio
Actually, yes. If the worst units of the enemy are killing or wounding three of your men on the attack for every one man they lose (Soviet casualties up to the end of July at Khalkin Gol were ~15,000, to ~5,000 Japanese), and you're losing 9 AFVs for every 1 they lose (total AFV losses at Khalkin Gol were 42 Japanese tanks to 253 Soviet tanks and 133 BA/6 BA/10 armored cars), you need to concentrate several times their number in order to overcome them. This is what the Soviets did at Khalkin Gol. This doesn't work when the enemy has numerical parity or superiority AND better mobility, which would be the case in a Japanese invasion of the Far East.
>RKKA had 1 133 034 men on Far East on 1st January 1942
It was less than that in September 1941, when any Japanese offensive in conjunction with Germany was planned to be launched. Around 900,000. Including militias and Mongolians, they could perhaps get that up to 1.1 million.
Please read this article, it has a lot more detailed info than could be fitted into a Veeky Forums post.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantokuen

Japan didn't even have mechanized divisions or a sensible command structure. They hardly communicated between armies at all and couldn't deal with an insurgency of people armed with literal SPEARS and KITCHEN KNIVES.

>Actually, yes. If the worst units of the enemy are killing or wounding three of your men on the attack for every one man they lose (Soviet casualties up to the end of July at Khalkin Gol were ~15,000, to ~5,000 Japanese)
How did you got that idea? Japs lost 60 000 Soldiers while Red army did lost about 25 000.
>and you're losing 9 AFVs for every 1 they lose (total AFV losses at Khalkin Gol were 42 Japanese tanks to 253 Soviet tanks and 133 BA/6 BA/10 armored cars)
Its almost like its hard to destroy a lot of enemy tanks when enemy has a few of them, also real life isnt World of Tanks and vast majority of tanks are destroyed by enemy AT guns, not enemy tanks.
>This doesn't work when the enemy has numerical parity or superiority AND better mobility, which would be the case in a Japanese invasion of the Far East.
sure thing senpai
Even if Japs somehow managed to reach Baikal, what then?

>How did you got that idea? Japs lost 60 000 Soldiers while Red army did lost about 25 000.
That's complete bullshit, Japanese internal records show 17,206 casualties, while Soviet ones show 27,780. There weren't even 60,000 Japanese soldiers AT Khalkin Gol, and not even the Soviet forces facing the Japanese (prone to overestimating enemy casualties as all armies are) thought that. They listed Japanese casualties at 29,085.

Let me guess. Russian Wikipedia? In any case here's an article about the subject.
mongolnow.com/peresmotr_stat.html
>Its almost like its hard to destroy a lot of enemy tanks when enemy has a few of them
Most Japanese AFVs in that battle weren't actually destroyed. And the Japanese had a comparatively pitiful amount of AT guns there. That the Soviets lost so many AFVs regardless just shows how wasteful they were.

By the way, during the only pitched armored engagement between AFVs at Khalkhin Gol (the Yasuoka Group's attack on July 3), the Soviet side lost over 77 tanks and 45 armored cars (122) out of the more than 133 and 59 committed (192) according to their own records (total loss or damaged beyond economical repair). Japanese tank losses that day aren't known, but the Japanese saw 42 out of their 73 tanks destroyed in the whole month, so on July 3 alone it was surely far less. No AT guns obscuring things here.
>Even if Japs somehow managed to reach Baikal, what then?
They stop because they've accomplished their objective, secured the Far East, and taken hundreds of thousands of Soviet POWs.

>Drained Mediterranean in axis victory map with huge ugly Italy and Vichy France blob
Makes me sick every time

this reminds me of the Great Retreat wiki article that claims Russians lost 1 500 000 soldiers and quotes Norman Stone, but for German casualities uses some Richard L. DiNardo that says Germans lost 200 000 troops instead of quoting Stone again that says they lost 1 136 000 soldiers

Vladivostok is pretty useless too. One more port. That's not worth the long term commitment of 1.5million soldiers.

No because they would eventually run out of oil thanks to the US embargo, they did what they did for a reason.

>Vichy France blob
Literally the only territory they gained was Nigeria, if you don't count the fucking mediterranean

Talking about their Mediterranean blob

Filling in the mediterranean at all is pretty stupid, doesn't matter which country you give it to.

Yes I think so actually
Japan merely binding forces at Vladivostok
Germany conducting Barbarossa but focusing on the Caucasus instead of Moscow (as Hitler initially wanted) and not alienating the local population
During the fighting in the Caucasus no offensive on Stalingrad itself but blockading of the Volga and occupation of the oil fields
Soviets would collapse within a year, Japan could get oil for its war in China without attacking the colonial powers and America in SE Asia & the Pacific.
youtube.com/watch?v=kVo5I0xNRhg

No, they couldn't even subdue a divided China, even after throwing most of their army at them

The fuck is this map?
No of course not. Japanese forces were already seriously stretched plus low on supplies thanks to US embargo. They couldn't even take all of China and stopped at India. This combined with harassment from Empire forces would make an invasion of Russia too costly and unfeasible.

Doesn't Russia have lots of oil?

Yes, but not in the far east

Yeah, but Russia is big with poor infrastructure, even if they were able to get to it the Russians would have the time to blow it up if they wanted to, it would be a huge gamble. The strike against the west was also a gamble but atleast there they were able to get the oil quickly.

Siberia oil was discovered in 70s

India would eventually invade Japan.
You think this is a fucking joke?
You think I'm fucking with you?
Give it a few years or so for them to conscript a larger army, let them recover from the famine.
You now have an army of 30 million angry pajeets sweeping through east and south east asia.
When they get to Korea, heck theyll3form a fucking human bridge to Japan.
They will personally occupy Japan until the fucking country sinks beneath the weight of so much shit.
Don't fucking laugh. You have no idea what it is like to drown in endless waves of Indians.
You don't think they'll have the equipment?
They're a country of 400 million people abundant with iron, oil, coal etc. They will fucking outproduce even the US.
They will make a gun of such proportions that it fires indian expendables a distance of 2000km at mach 10 speeds.
Don't fucking ignore India Japan. They. Will. Shit. On. You

No wehraboo faggot

No. Japan was btfo'd by far shittier Russian troops at khalkin gol and was at war with China already. They literally can't make a contribution in any way.

1. Without Lendlease, Germany probably would have defeated the Soviet Union.

2. Without the ability to withdrawl troops from Siberia in late 41, Moscow might have fallen.... it's a moot point however, given the desperate situation on the Eastern front (in Europe), the Soviets may still have chosen to move the Siberian troops to the European theater, even without the scoop from their spy in Japan. There was simply an ocean of empty land between Japan and anything of great strategic importance to the survival of the SU.

3. If Japan had simply "liberated" the Dutch East Indies, without declaring war on either Great Britain or the United States, and limiting their ambitions in the region to that, they might have gotten away with it.

>3. If Japan had simply "liberated" the Dutch East Indies, without declaring war on either Great Britain or the United States, and limiting their ambitions in the region to that, they might have gotten away with it.
This will never happen

>Without Lendlease, Germany probably would have defeated the Soviet Union
No, most lend lease didn't occur until after the tide had turned and the Germans were being pushed back

And most lend lease went to UK

>And most lend lease went to UK
wasted then

Well a Japanese Banzai charge (or Gyokusai) had powerful bayonets, swords, and grenades. Meanwhile a Soviet UURRAAA charge has shitty bayonets attached to shit sticks, shovels, and SMGs so they are wasted.... sooooo yes! They would have Sandwiched Russia

This. They literally didn't fucking need it and millions of Russians starved

That counts as "Lend Lease". Everything from bullets, cigarettes, destroyers, to aircraft. Every soldier/airmen, plane, tank, industrial asset, not destroyed by the British war effort is an asset available for use on the Eastern front.

Stopping the offensives deep in Soviet territory is COMPLETELY different than "turning the tide".

the thing is... In war, everything adds up. Every bullet, airplane, soldier, train, motorcycle, radio, and even paper and paperclip have a purpose and contribute to the totality of the war effort. A few things changed hear and there, can make a HUGE difference in outcome... you never know what the tipping point is.

Good riddance

Harsh

They were commies and they were russians, thats like the absolutely worst combination you could be. Some innocent non-commie non-russians probably got killed too but they were being sent to the gulags anyway.

Why is being Russian bad?

They are backwards savages who support genocide and/or communism

I doubt this is general among Russians

> they support communism
> but ended it anyway by choice
explain this

>the tide had turned

except it didn't, the war would've simply been a stalemate if the SU didn't get any lend lease, even in our timeline

They do support it, they are just ignorant of the severity of it or they are just not calling it genocide and consider it to be completely justified.

The biggest opposition party is communist and alot more do not consider the Soviet Union to have been as bad as it actually was. The majority still think they liberated half of Europe when infact they just toppled the old oppressors for new ones.

earlier post in this thread shows this meme is completely untrue, japs had much shittier troops but were only "btfo" by being completely outnumbered and not being committed to the battle. with the plan they had in place, they would have definitely taken at least the amur region, but after that who knows.

perhaps if the soviets sent significant reinforcements to the far east, it could have given the germans a better chance in the decisive battles of 41-42. but I'd imagine it wouldn't be necessary. even without reinforcements, the soviets would have essentially endless ground to retreat on, leaving the japs to deal with tough terrain, next to no infrastructure, and the coldest weather on earth.

so if both the soviets and japanese decided to turn the far east into a meatgrinder, maybe it would've changed things, but if the soviets played it smart it probably wouldn't make a difference. there's a good reason the northern strike was only pursued by the fanatical anti-communists in the IJA, because it's retarded to send a couple million men to conquer some wasteland in siberia.

no, don't be fucking retarded

What would Japan even have to gain by doing that?

Fucking kek

India was favoring Fascism at the time and would likely be a conglomerate of Nazi Germany with home rule and resistant to Imperial Japanese autonomy.

Not that it matters but that map is so unlikely to be actual

>the medditeranean getting drained
why did this meme even begun?
Mussolini was big on land reclamation but he saw the medditeranean as the separation betwen Italy and the Colonies

No, at most, assuming they could mount a successful attack would be to cut the Trans-Siberian, and then take Valdivalstock to cut off the Soviets from Eastern Trade.

My fucking sides

>tmw he's unironically right

in case of commies vs. nazis it is pretty fucking obvious what was the tipping point.

>nazi stupidity to have a dick contest in Stalingrad, rather than pushing for Baku oil
>some miracle and 1v1 battles allowed commies to survive the contest, along with migrating all manufacturing assets far east. (started after Moscow battle)
>the vast majority of lease came after that

a fucking general frost, colonel mud and Hitler's ego and refusal to listen to his own generals had more effect than a goddamn lend lease which averaged a whopping 4% over the full list of assets.

Lend lease was a fucking joke when it was needed the most and its impact is overstated by west history wankers and probably understated by russian hisotry wankers depending on one's bias side.

>No, most lend lease didn't occur until after the tide had turned and the Germans were being pushed back
>the tide had turned

No I'm pretty sure there were more german bullets and bombs than russian bodies in russian waves.

Without an american entry there would be no entry into europe and thus more german divisions could be put to use in the eastern front.

Possibly. At the very least it would have tied down Soviet forces in Siberia, preventing reinforcements from reaching Moscow and probably allowing the Germans to take the city. However I doubt losing Moscow would have meant defeat for the Soviet Union.

Oh yes... America saving the world by landing in Normandy after 5 years...

What this story did with Itally and Mediterran Sea is crime on its own.