1

During World War II, part of the reason that Germany was stopped cold(pun intended) on the Russian front was due to the fact that Stalin was able to move all the Siberian troops that had been defending the coast against a potential Japanese invasion. In fact, 28 divisions had been moved from Eastern Russia to defend Russia at the Battle of Moscow since Stalin knew that Japan could not afford to invade Russia due to their complete involvement with the USA alone.

My question: Could Germany have defeated the Russians and still held off the Western Front had Japan kept its original plan to invade Russia from the East and hold all of their Siberian troops at bay?

Would they have been able to conquer Moscow and defeat Russia if Japan had not become so involved in fight the United States in the Pacific?

|improve this question

closed as primarily opinion-based by Tyler Durden, Semaphore♦, Alex, Mark C. Wallace♦, Kobunite Jul 24 '15 at 11:58

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is hypothetical. – Tyler Durden Jul 23 '15 at 20:54
  • 1
    Nope. The Soviets could have just let the Japanese advance, it wasn't like there was anything much there. And there were enough new forces created that Moscow would not have fallen regardless of the missing Siberians. Stalingrad showed how hard it was to take a major city. And a weak capture of Moscow would not have ended the war anyway. The Axis were just not close to winning in 1941. – Oldcat Jul 23 '15 at 21:53
2

Axis forces predominantly stopped short of Moscow due to freezing temperatures. Russian reinforcements were used to counterattack and push them back (which, after amazing gains, collapsed in spectacular defeat).

The Japanese Empire was not a significant threat the the Soviet Union (despite Stalin's fears). Vladivostok could have been taken, and this would have been of some significance, but not game changing.

What was significant was that the Russian industry had been pulled back behind the Urals, making the prospect of enemy forces reaching it in 41/42 impossible.

Without the Siberian forces the Moscow siege would likely have continued in the following year. Whether the Germans could entirely envelop the city (much less capture) is another thing however. Even with the capital captured, it does not necessarily mean that the USSR would have fallen (though it makes it that more likely)

|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.