Could the "Go North" strategy and nonaggression pact

>>1775446

I feel like "How could the Axis have won WW2?" should be a stickied thread.

>>1775446

I think this might have actually worked, assuming they don't bomb pearl harbor.

>>1775452
I don't know if it would be the Axis we know -- but rather an Anti-Comintern alliance that might even attract Nationalist China and other surprises to it's cause, Japan even set up a Russian fascist army in Manchuria for this purpose, it wasn't far from reality

File: Lend-lease.jpg (113KB, 800x639px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 800x639px

There is so much wrong with this post I'm not even sure where to start.

If you develop "German based" tactics, that necessitates devolving decision making far lower down the chain of command than the Japanese army was willing to do; maybe they could have done it, but that in and of itself probably weakens the "Army voice".

Taking Vladivostok would not "cut off lend lease", see pic related. About 40% of the stuff did arrive through Vladivostok, true, but a lot of it could have been re-routed through the Persian corridor at the expense of higher shipping costs.

It will not tie up Siberian reserves, as most of them were transferred over before the infamous intelligence coup. Not to mention that Soviet presence in the Far East GREW from June 22nd 1941 to December 31st 1942; admittedly with rawer recruits.

There were no Siberian factories sans Vladivostok this side of Irkutsk, which is some 1,763 km in a straight line. Given the Trans-Siberian railroad does not go in a straight line between the two, its' actually further. Good luck attacking across that, where there's snow on the ground 8 months a year.

And again, given that most of the Sbierian divisions were transferred in June and July, I doubt any Japanese invasion would give them extra oomph. Doubly so since the lgoistical issues the Gemrans would face would still exist, and Lend Lease's impact was tiny in the first 6 months of the war.

>What do you guys think?

I think you're far more interested in wanking and having the historical factions you identify with win in your little fantasy war than you are in accurately analyzing causes and effects.

File: image.jpg (33KB, 215x329px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 215x329px

>>1775475
well, you got me there.. but.. isn't that what alternate history is all about, wanking..? I don't think anyone is truly objective in that sense

>>1775484

>well, you got me there.. but.. isn't that what alternate history is all about, wanking..?

No. Alternate history is a tool to try to winnow out the essential factors in a historical process from the tangential. You change a few details, ideally just one, and try to work out what, if anything, changes, so you can identify the scope of whatever variable or variables you're analyzing.

Starting off with how cool something would be if it had happened and then trying to twist around events to make it that way isn't the same thing at all, and that sort of wish fulfillment kills any chance of actually studying something and attaining a reasonable conclusion.

>>1775512
I respect you for that but I think you're in the minority

>>1775512
Couldnt have said it better.

>>1775475

>I think you're far more interested in wanking and having the historical factions you identify with win in your little fantasy war than you are in accurately analyzing causes and effects.

That's literally all this board has been since it was created. /pol/acks salivating over:

>MUH ROME
>MUH BYZANTIUM
>MUH THIRD REICH
>MUH RHODESIA

Along with contrarians doing the same things with Persia and communist countries.

>>1775475
I accept your reasoning but i like the idea of a massive propaganda from axis forces to paint themself as anti commi forces. Maybe even before attacking poland this qould make a difference would it? I mean wouldnt this force most of the Western axis on their side?

>>1775563
Youre ignoring the quality threads from time to time. We need a pedo bear seal of approval just in a his version just for those. Anxone want to make on ? On mobile so mehhh..

>>1775567

The going back on the Munich agreement was the final straw where most of Europe was concerned regarding the Nazis, and they were already close to pariah status before that.

Furthermore, most of the major western powers weren't interested in war, and they certainly weren't axis aligned. If you want to get some sort of worldwide alliance against communism, you'd almost certainly need to get the USSR to strike the first blow, start revanchist or at least expansionist policies way earlier, early to mid 30s.

It's not likely to happen.

The Japs tried to invade USSR in 1938 and 1939 and both times got their asses kicked by Soviet border troops.

>>1775576
>We need a pedo bear seal of approval just in a his version just for those.
Greek boipussy bear?