Why the U.S. should oppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

So in answering these questions, do you want me to tell you what I REALLY think we should've done in WWII, or do you want the politically correct view of what we did? Because we could have won WWII more decisively than we did.

 

And confused when people read what they want to read rather than what is written. Very difficult indeed.

 

Do tell how "we" should've done WWII.

 

If the line is already geared up for a contract, it would not require a year to start cranking out on a new contract. Since we've been aiding Ukraine for more than a year, it seems logical that those assembly lines are already in use and fully supplied.

Seriously, you worry too much. This is America ... there is nothing we can't do.

 

Okay, so let me start with a quote from Roosevelt regarding Japan, and outline our objectives and to accomplish Western Supremacy. "We were at peace with that nation". And this is true, going back to our alliance with the Central Powers in WWI. Hell, going back to Commodore Perry.

What happened? Manchuria and the oil embargo. This is where we pause, take our 'human morale' out of the picture and look at the world map, as it stood at that time. We never really had positive relations with China and if the Communists won the civil war(spoiler alert, they did), it would be even less of a connection to the West.

Meanwhile, Nazi Germany is undergoing Operation Barbarossa and striking at the Soviet Union. Now, we had even less positive relations with the Russians than we did the Chinese. What reason do we have to ally with the Soviet Union?

Laying out these facts, my alternative map becomes quite clear: Look the other way on Manchuria, lift the embargo(or better yet, never have one at all) and convince Japan that the US will aid and assist them in a declaration of war against the Soviet Union.

The two front war, involving 3 blocs would absolutely destroy the Soviets and spare us the next 70 years of issues that relate directly to the Soviets winning the war. As an added bonus, Communist China doesn't exist anymore either.

While initially, this will appear to have helped the Nazis but in reality, the Nazis will be exhausted and overextended still. The US-Japanese coalition to the East will then march against the Nazis, with the rest of the English allies on the Western Front.

We will basically have still restored our Western Allies, the main difference being that Japan basically becomes a supra-state in Asia, on par with the US/UK. Instead of the mess that happened afterwards.

No Soviets, no Nazis, and no cold war. All by being cruel and heartless bastards to China. Win-win.

 

And the military is short on the high tech weapons. The line does just start moving and cranking out new weapons. They have to be procured and move up in the assembly lines.

In many of those weapons, there is no assembly line as such. They go from contract to contract and have reestablish assembly lines.

 

Why do you have so little faith in your fellow Americans? That genuinely puzzles me. Is it just digging in on the grievance of aiding Ukraine? Or do you seriously believe that we can't handle this?

 

I have faith in my fellow Americans. That does change the fact that we are short of high tech weapons.

 

Sounds like opportunity to me.

 

Very thoughtful and cogent post. I'm not certain where I stand but an interesting fact that keeps getting pushed under the rug is that the US and NATO and most of western Europe signed a treaty back around the collapse of the Soviet Union with Ukraine to protect them from any Russian invasion

 

Japan Had absolutely no interest in going to war with the Soviet Union - mostly because all of the good land was already won in the previous war. Japan would gain nothing by going to war with the Soviet Union but a giant headache . . . I guess if the U.S. assassinated the Japanese leadership and suddenly did a 360 on Japanese foreign policy? Sorry, this is absurd on the face of it. At best, the U.S. could cave in on all Japanese demands, giving them endless and free oil and convince the Japanese not to invade the Philippines. The Japanese would still take the Indies, Singapore, etc. and strangle U.S. trade.

The Nazis were going to exhaust themselves eventually regardless because socialism doesn't work.

Japan was not going to travel across Russia to invade Germany because geography.

You're not even keeping the U.S. out of the war. You're having the U.S. invade Russia from the East across thousands of miles of barren country to later invade Germany, from the East . . .

And during this time the U.S. paying massive tribute to Japan which allows them to gobble up the wealthiest British colonies.

Wow! I mean, just Wow!

No the UK would become a beggar nation - no doubt about that. Japan would continue to gobble up territories which they'd use to prop up their economy. France would become Germany's Belarus. Mao would still be around and might still gain power. The U.S. would be stuck in a forever war fighting Russian partizans and Germans on the eastern front. Basically, everything would suck.

 

That's your interpretation, but the pact of non-aggresssion between the Soviets and the Japanese was a very tepid one, and Stalin having learned from Hitler, broke the pact due to the uneasy alliance with the Allies. Now, it doesn't take much in a 1940's world to have Japan look at the German-Russian situation and tell them, it's only a matter of time before the Russians invade Japanese territory.

The reason it was a hassle, was due to Soviet efforts in the Japanese-Russo skirmishes and the Japanese-Chinese war. But by lifting the embargo and declaring military assistance, the Japanese should feel confident that they would get the advantage in another crucial Asian-Pacific Theater.

So its quite clear that Japan has a military interest in a post-Soviet future. They just valued China and the other pacific islands at a higher priority and the Embargo played quite a crucial role to play in having Japan make that determination(Historians showed that the Japanese War Cabinet had both contingencies in mind)

So that's for starters, Imperial Japan's interest and therefore Western Alliance to destroy the Soviet Union. We also know that while the nukes may have played a factor, Japanese High Command felt broken at the Soviet War Declaration. Things we know, including things ought to have been known at the time, suggests it would not have taken much to sway Japan our way in an Anti-Soviet coalition.

Secondly, the idea that Japan would strangle US trade: In a world where the US-Japanese alliance becomes a militaristic one, Japan would not be much interested(instead, as outlined before they would be for the Northern plan). By all accounts, they had hoped for a surprise strike and that we wouldn't respond as we did. They did not believe they could win a prolonged conflict with us.

And another reason Japan didn't aid the AXIS invasion of the Soviets, was they weren't confident in their German partners. But if we tell Japan we would enter on their side against the Soviet Union, that confidence is restored. Long story short is that Japan doesn't have much reason to go after the Philippines or US trade routes with a US alliance.

It's almost as if you viewed my scenario, not baring in mind the scenario but rather as though nothing had changed. When just the simple alliance with Japan against the Soviets would change everything.

So the final thing you have to complain about, is that after vanquishing the Soviets, we would wipe the map clean of the exhausted German army. This is basically the inverse of Operation Unthinkable. Except the Soviets are now gone, the US is the only nuclear state and left is a weakened and hobbled army that has suffered masses of losses.

It would be simple to complete the task, overthrow the German Government and the US/UK/JP are the new big-3.

 

The main problem with your scenario is that it ignores the reality of 1940-1941. Some things I have pointed out which you have ignored.

Japan has no reason to attack the Soviet Union. No resources Japan wants or needs are in the eastern Russia. The only reason you give for Japan to attack Russia is that Japan feared Russia. This is also not true.

Russia would fall by the end of 1942 if the U.S. decided not to supply either the UK or Russia. Stalingrad happened because of the U.S. supplying aid to Russia. No aid means no Stalingrad means Russia has lost its oil fields and Germany has gained them. Checkmate. At that point you have to wait out Germany like we waited out the Soviet Union during the cold war and slowly wait for socialism to take its toll. Japan doesn't have to worry about invasion from Russia - especially if the U.S. doesn't supply them with weapons and economic aid.

So you've provided no decent reason for Japan to attack the Soviet Union except those which exist only in fantasy. You've given no reason for your fantasy alliance to occur.

Japan did not have the land forces or supply network capable of invading Russia in 1940-1941. They could defend but not attack. So, you're imagining Japan has a fantasy army it didn't have to attack the Soviet Union with.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they wanted to dominate the Pacific and they felt the could intimidate the U.S. into allowing that dominance. Your plan simply gives it to them which would keep us out of the war. But then for some inexplicable reason you feel the need for the U.S. to invade and take over Russia from the east!? Get a topographical map from 1940. Take some time to realize how incredibly stupid and unreasonable that idea is. You seem to really want to double down on this invade Russia from the east thing and as I said before - geography.

Now, you've mentioned atomic weapons and how we had them and Germany would not. If and it's a big IF the UK survived until 1945 despite our failure to provide them with any aid whatsoever, we could drop bombs on Germany and cause a surrender? I guess they would relinquish France and Norway, but unlikely Poland, Ukraine and the best parts of Russia including the Baltics, bomb or no. And that is a big chicken and the egg thing. The U.S. will make war plans based on a bomb which didn't exist and might never exist? This is just fantasy.

Add to that, the atomic bomb might never come into being because of all the "politically correct" reasoning you hate which allowed it to even be funded.

I've heard similar things to this but they usually amount to the U.S. bottling up and doing nothing. This invade Russia from the East thing is like huh! Seriously?!

I guess if you get your geography from board games like Axis and Allies, it seems perfectly reasonable. The reality is quite different.

 

I didn't mention atomic weapons, only that with the downfall of the Soviet Union and preventing the traitor from providing said knowledge to them, we would maintain our monopoly. It's one of the many small benefits of planning out a Soviet destruction. But I suggest looking up history once more, Stalin kept his forces in reserve in Siberia, and only felt comfortable upon signing the Soviet-Japanese non aggression pact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_Neutrality_Pact

And according to this article, they were thinking about it still had the Battle of Stalingrad gone the way of their Axis partners. So its clear and history is clear about Soviet-Japanese tensions. You're the only one who doesn't think those tensions existed, but historical record backs me up on this.

You can also look up the North and Southern plans by the Imperial Japanese. Until the Western Sanctions, they were looking at a Northern expansion. Its clear that we could have courted the Japanese against the Soviet Union. Both due to tensions, and in a world where we played the long game.

As far as the logistical side of things, it's no more difficult than the invasion of Europe. Hell, it would be easier in this case since the Soviets would face multiple fronts, straining their own logistics, not to mention no lend-lease to the Soviets under such a scenario.

We could have crushed the Soviets in WWII had we chose to do so. We did not, we entered the queasy alliance. As far as the Baltic nations that you mention, I don't know why you bothered mentioning them, because we lost them to the Soviets in the alliance with the Soviet Union.

So you can't possibly criticize my alternative outlook on the loss of the Baltics. The Baltics were already lost. Hell, in my scenario the Baltics get a brighter future with the destruction of both Nazi and Soviet forces.