Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger View Post
Well, conceivably the effect would be cumulative. Russia was not the monolithic giant with endless supplies of men and material that it is sometimes portrayed to be. Just like any nation, the USSR had its limit - as has been discussed recently in relation to Lend-Lease. In 1941, its breaking point was surely smaller than in the years after.

It can be argued that had Japan applied pressure in the East at that critical time, allowing Germany to take Moscow and the other major cities and push the Russians behind the Urals, they're capabilities would largely be diminished.

Surely Stalin may have been able to use the vastness of the environment to elude total defeat for a time, but even with as much Russian industry as he was able to move - being trapped in the middle of undeveloped Russia would have him strangled for resources and the ability to launch offensive operations.

In any event, I believe better coordination between the two powers leading to a Japanese attack on Russia would have been a far better decision for the overall Axis effort than bringing the US into the war. Of course, taking their entire fleet into the middle of the Pacific and scuttling it would have also been a far better decision than bringing the US in, so hindsight is 20/20.
Couple points:

1) My point wasn't so much that the Soviets themselves would have worn the Japanese down. Moreso, the logistical challenge of causing any kind of meaningful dent in the Soviet empire from the east is simply mindboggling. The only city of any value in the eastern Siberia was probably Vladivostok- and that's on the coast, not of great value when the campaign would have needed to turn to the west. Simply put, trying to make a prolonged push into Russia would have been suicidal. Winter was too long, too harsh. Supply lines would have been a nightmare. There's simply too much land, too much winter, not enough civilized areas to support a marching army, particularly when Japan was still having to keep their territories in East Asia subjugated.

2) Let's say Japan, instead of attacking Pearl Harbor, instead attacks the Soviets. What does this do to America's involvement in the war? Would America have come to the aid of their allies in western Europe regardless of Pearl Harbor? If so... what does this do to the resources America puts forth in Western Europe? I realize the general strategy was "Germany first, Japan second", but if Japan had not attacked America, would a war in the Pacific been delayed? America may have been able to make a more concerted push in Europe against the Germans, negating any potential benefit from the Soviets lacking the extra troops. As Machiavelli put it "Don't delay a war when it will only come later, to your disadvantage". I think America would have come to the battlefields of Europe regardless an attack by Japan. And, I believe, this would have worked to the detriment of Germany.

Caveat- of course, if Hitler hadn't totally lost his mind, he could have taken Moscow regardless and cut off a large portion of Soviet rails that ran through the city. This would have likely forced the Soviets out of the war regardless of Japanese aid.