There were also Spanish volunteers fighting along the Nazis. That doesn’t mean "Russia " was fighting “Spain”. Duh!
Another example: Brasil joined the allies and was “fighting” Nazi germany…
Using your expression DUH - the Spanish fall under the anti-communist forces - as do some from France, Scandinavia, Holland, Belgium etc etc - some fought as independent units even full Divisions others as individuals in regular Heer units.
And Russia was not fighting Italy , the Land and full nation of Italy on all theatres of italian conflicts of the world.
Italy sent a couple of 1000 italian wannabeheroes to fight in russia, and on paper Italy joined the declaration of war…but that’s it.
Well excuse me but definition of fighting is having two sides engaged in some sort of match up leading often to pain on one side or the other - in the Italians v Soviets it was slightly more than just pain, the Italians had Naval, Air and Land forces engaged against the Soviets - in the Soviet Union - Just because Soviet forces did not invade Italy does not mean they did not fight.
BTW the ARMIR had over 230,000 Italian Soldiers (half of whom became casualties of one sort or another - 80,000+ MIA/POW with 10,000 repatriated alive - bit different from your couple of thousand), it came about when the CSIR (60,000+) was increased in size in 1942 - The RM also operated midget subs and MAS boats in the black sea
I could also point out that Polish, French, British and later Romanian and Bulgarian units fought side by side or as part of the Soviet Armies against the Axis - some in larger numbers than others
Which is exactly my/our point: The CCCP could NOT afford redirecting men/material to Japan front, which is exactly why USA and UK should be credited for it by the Russians (today’s russian historians).
The Soviets had enough forces to keep the Japanese from attempting to attack again - the Japanese nor Chinese allies/puppets could not beat them in 1938 or 1939 on land and had not the resources or man power to attack later - China being joined by the majority of the allies in 1941 diverted everything they had.
The Soviets had no wish to get involved against Japan - served them no purpose at the time - so why would they bother
Which I also said: but with this nuance difference: Zjoekov won BECAUSE he had better tanks (t26/BT5 were better than the jap tankettes) if it were to be inf to inf (with Arty and few airplanes) then Zjoekov may have failed in the 38-39.
At the end of the war in 1945, the japanese there were even less of a match: less men, no planes, no tanks (not even obsolete japanese tanks).
Zhukov did not arrive in theatre until 1939, the battles in 1938 were not wins or losses really for either side - with Generals on both sides being removed from their posts and invited for tea and biscuits - minus the tea and biscuits
Zhukov not only had better tanks, but he had more than three times the numbers the Japanese had, he also had a far larger airforce to call on while troop numbers were slightly in favour of the Japanese and Chinese puppet armies favour (attacking across a river limited the Japanese and their allies ability to provide an adequate force as well).
Yes. As in; in shock realising that the japanese army needed better design, bigger guns etc. on their tanks. Which they did , the planning, sketching, trials, tests…only what failed by that time, 1943-ish, was the lack of industrial materials to fabricate them in large numbers.
Japan need AT guns more than tanks, more of them and more effective ones, but even then it would not be enough, what it really needed was the ability to produce enough carriers and train enough pilots to fly off them to defeat the allied navies - no matter what tanks Japan had the allies could strangle Japan slowly as they did - in most of the theatres it was infantry with limited tank support for bunker busting that was used - Lack of tanks did not decide the outcome
