3 ms·
That’s true, but the Japanese had transferred their best units and equipment out of Manchuria to fight in the Pacific, and the Soviets did not want a two front
by graeme 5y ago
That’s true, but the Japanese had transferred their best units and equipment out of Manchuria to fight in the Pacific, and the Soviets did not want a two front war.
If there had been no chance of American entry Japan probably would have attacked the eastern ussr and the soviets would have faced real difficulties.
But indeed the massively successful Soviet invasion of Manchuria was decisive in Japan’s swift unconditional surrender.
- pasabagi 5y agoMy guess is that Japan would not have done particularly well had they fought the USSR instead of the USA. The USA still blocking japanese oil imports would mean they would have horrible logistical problems. Presumably, the USA would still be supporting the Soviets through the lend-lease program, so although the USSR would be fighting on two fronts, it's totally plausible they would be winning on both fronts. At least, Stalin seemed to think so - after the battle of Stalingrad, he started making public condemnations of IJ, etc. Even if the Japanese did do really well and pushed the soviets back, they'd just end up in the same situation they were in the 20's, where they controlled large swathes of eastern russia which were basically totally worthless, while also being extremely volatile. If the Japanese had attacked the USSR at the same time as Germany did, and the USA had not intervened, I guess maybe the USSR would have lost? It's really hard to say: I always have the sense that the Nazis were far more fragile than they look on maps, and engulfing a huge amount of extremely rebellious territory might have just ended up like China ended up for the Japanese.