Question by rz1971: Would Russia have been able to survive a two front war in WW2?
What if, in, say August 1941, Japan invades Russia after Germany does in June 1941. Would Russia have been able to survive a two front war against Germany and Japan. Historically Russia had a hard enough time against Germany, would Russia have callapsed if Japan had also invaded, and the US stayed out of the war?
Robbo – With Russia’s more experienced troops on their way to fight Germany, less experienced troops would have taken their place if Japan attacked. That might have caused a split experienced troops meaning Germany would have been dealing with a less experienced force.
Answers and Views:
Answer by DJ
No way they could barly hold back the Germanys if Japan attacked Russia would not be here.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
James P says
There is no way to know for sure, there are lots of variables. In my opinion few things are certain.
I very much doubt they would have collapsed, but under the right circumstances without US entry into the war they could have been defeated. It’s also likely they could have bloodied the Japanese and still had the resources to hold off Germany until they reached full mobilization. The Red Army of 1945 could have easily defeated both Germany and Japan, but owed much of its strength to US support particularly vehicles and other essential logistical support.
Japan would have had a VERY difficult time pushing the Russians back far enough to impact war production other than the Trans-Siberian railway there is virtually viable transportation and the distances are vast. Japan's army was tied up in China, and a war with Russia would have only made things worse. Japan would not capture any significant oil or other strategic resources from Russia and they were running out until they attacked the Dutch and French colonies. Japans strength in 1941 was its navy, essentially worthless against Russia once Vladivostok is taken.
Russia was not politically 'fragile' like France and Italy. I believe Stalin would have fought to the last Russian and under attack the last Russian would have been a very hard nut to crack somewhere in central Asia. Germany & Japan proved very difficult to defeat. Even when faced with completely overwhelming force there was no political collapse they either had to be overrun completely like Germany. Or like Japan exposed to a nuclear threat (and attack) after being essentially crushed militarily before capitulation. Russia would likely have been equally resistant to 'political collapse'.
If the assumption is that the US never enters the war (very unlikely under Roosevelt) it is likely that Germany and Japan could have eventually overcome the Russians, but certainly no sure thing. They showed remarkable resiliency but may have been tested to near destruction. They didn’t break so it’s hard to estimate what it would have taken. Based on the German and Japanese resistance against overwhelming odds my guess is it would have taken a lot of lives resources and a long time. 4-5 years.
Had the US not entered the war perhaps the most likely outcome would have been a Soviet defeat and an English ‘peace’ likely followed by a Finlandization of the UK and a breakup of the Commonwealth. The rise of a persistent dormant Nazi state would have been an unimaginable horror across Europe and likely Africa and much of Asia as well and conditions in the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” wouldn’t be much better.
Add US entry to the equation and the Axis is doomed. Historically while not obvious at the time the Axis lost WWII on Dec 7 1941 with the US entry. WW2 was above all a war of production and attrition, with nearly unlimited resources and the world’s largest industrial base the US dominated. For example us aircraft production ramped up from 2,141 1939 to 96,318 in 1944 and would have risen higher in 1945 and to ridiculous levels by 1946 had there been a need. US aircraft production exceeded the combined totals of Japan and Germany starting in 1941 (before full war production gear up) thousands of ships, hundreds of capital warships and carriers. The numbers of high quality weapons systems deployed were immense. And of course a handful of nuclear weapons would have been available in 1945 a few dozen by 1946 and a few dozen a month by 1947.
Without Pearl Harbor the Japanese navy would have on the defensive from the start, and the ‘lighting conquest of Indonesia the Philippines and much of the Pacific would have been hard to imagine without a surprise attack. Not to say they wouldn’t have had some success they certainly enjoyed an advantage in naval doctrine at the start of the war, but like German Blitzkrieg tactics it would not long have remained a monopoly. It’s possible the US navy could have been surprised and suffered a significant setback, but they were reading the Japanese codes not the other way around so it would have taken a more than bit of luck and any setback would have been temporary. Midway and some of the early battles could have been turned around with a few lucky hits or misses, but later battles were pretty one sided.
With Russia on the defensive the invasion of Europe would have been pretty risky in the summer of 1944, but in 1945 an invasion would have been unstoppable (look at the projected resources for Olympic) punctuated in midsummer with a few nuclear strikes, and a half dozen more in the fall. Likely Japan would have been isolated and bombarded until 1946, and with a few months to ponder nuclear warfare would have done who knows what, but without the stigma of the Pearl Harbor attack would have likely sued for peace.
The Russians defeated the Germans (much more than the US did) but had they been forced to stay on the defensive my opinion is the outcome of the war would not have changed except that many more would have died on all sides.
See links for justification of the war, rarely is there sufficeint justification for a war and never more than for this one…
soysauce says
no. they russians lost 3 million men within 3 weeks of the invasion with germany. if the suicidal japanese invaded the russians would be screwed.
murr v says
If both hypothetical conditions were met, ie. Japan invades Russia and the US stays out of the war, then I think Russia would have been in a great deal of trouble. It is true that moving armies into the Soviet far east would not immediately threaten Russia's centers of production and population but it would have drawn off the reserves that stalled the Germans in the first winter offensive and at Stalingrad. Japan took a serious bruising in 1938-39 but an undeclared border war does not constitute a full scale attack. Admittedly lacking in mechanized capabilities at the time, the determination of Japan's land forces was not diminished in that campaign. Without the need to expend its resources arming its island empire, Japan would have been able to mount such an offensive. The real hypothetical question should be if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour, since US entry into the war inevitably followed.
MG says
Japan will have some major problems trying to even get near Moscow. The USSR had the biggest waste land between the Japanese and their capital, Siberia. This place is basically a cold desert with conifers, and they would be completely out of their element. They are more for jungle combat, mountain combat, and amphibious assaults. The land of the Tundra would be hell for then and with weak tanks to support them, the Soviets would mow them down after General Winter had all of his fun killing every Japanese that he can when they decided to go into Hell's Icebox. Also their supply lines would be more stretched then the Germans would and they would be lacking in supply more then the poor Germans in Stalingrad. As West Point teachers say, An Beginner to warfare studies tactics, an expert studies Logistics, the ability to supply the forces. Men can't fight men with guns, cannons, tanks, and planes, with sticks, rocks, and guns that have no ammo. Also they would have no tanks and air support from lack of gas. The Soviet Union has too much land to try and make an attack from the east.. The Japanese also didn't want the land of ice and snow, and stayed out of Mother Russia.
John de Witt says
Sure. Not only is Siberia a great place to trade land for time, the Red Army had already shown its ability to handle the Japanese with ease in 1939, which is why there was a treaty between the two (that lapsed in 1945). If you don't know about the battles along the Khalkha, you won't have an adequate understanding of why the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor.
Captain Hammer says
It wouldn't have mattered. The Red Army dealt the Japanese Army two humiliating defeats before WWII started, one in 1938 and again in 1939, which convinced Japan that they lacked the kind of mechanized forces to ever mount an effective attack in Siberia. Had Japan attacked in August, the forces of the Far Eastern Front would have demolished them in plenty of time to still get back in October to defend Moscow. And even after the armored forces were transferred, there was always enough infantry along the border to deal with a Japanese attack.
Chances68 says
Well….
It suppose it would have strained the Soviets some more, but one has to remember that invading from the East would have probably far over-extended the Japanese, as well. The way from Siberia of Mocow is vast, trackless and would have required a massive committment of men. It's certainly possible that such an invasion might have forced the Soviet Union to collapse, but it's just about as likely, I think, that the japanese would have overextended themselves, run into weather related problems as the Germans did, and have eventually found themselves facing a huge, angry and well-armed Soviet force resurgent by 1943 or 1944.
Robbo_op_98 says
Absolutley. One of the things that saved the Soviets was that they were able to transfer troops from Siberia and the eastern part of the nation to reinforce the troops already fighting when the first Soviet winter hit. Without these fresh troops the Soviet Union would have most likely collapsed.
Edit: Sorry I forgot the word not after absolutley. Sorry about that. Hence why the rest of my statement favored their collapse