Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 228

Thread: What was the point of Hitler's project?

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    09 Oct 10
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Actually, let's be accuarate.

    THERE WAS NO WAY IN HELL THAT HITLER COULD HAVE GOTTEN PASSED THE URALS!

    This meant that Stalin remained in the war, bringing forth every army he could, historically, he had more than enough armies and weapons to spare since all his weapons production was east of the Urals.
    I understand your point.

    But perhaps ultimate soviet defeat would not have required the complete destruction of the soviet war machine. It may be that that Stalin's regime would have fallen at a much earlier stage, in a repeat of 1917. And land lease provided a very timely supply of materials for the soviets at a crucial time. Furthermore, if the americans did enter the war later, to what extent would have idle German western divisions been redeployed...

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Actually, let's be accuarate.

    THERE WAS NO WAY IN HELL THAT HITLER COULD HAVE GOTTEN PASSED THE URALS!

    This meant that Stalin remained in the war, bringing forth every army he could, historically, he had more than enough armies and weapons to spare since all his weapons production was east of the Urals.

    THE JAPANESE WAS COMPLETE AMATEURS!

    They were beaten hands down in 30/40 and 87 Soviet divisions destroyed the Imperial Japanese Empire inside of 4 weeks.

    You two seriously expect me to believe that Tojo had a chance in hell against Stalin?
    I understand that the IJA were tactically incompetent, but we are discussing the soviet army in 1939, and the IJA don't have to have a chance, it is possible they just have to the alter the the conflict marginally. Later date of land lease, later campaigns in North Africa and France. Greater German forces and materials in the eastern front, fewer soviet forces redeployed and re-orientated in 1939, greater number of soviet forces deployed to defeat the IJA in 1940. The soviets were clearly caught by the German invasion, after the signing of the non-aggression pact would they have felt comfortable in deploying even more forces the their east in the face of IJA aggression...

    As we already know, the Japanese were fond of initiating wars they could never win. They chose the US over the soviets, even while being tied up in China.
    Last edited by tantalus; 31 Jan 15, at 11:21.

  2. #17
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    But perhaps ultimate soviet defeat would not have required the complete destruction of the soviet war machine. It may be that that Stalin's regime would have fallen at a much earlier stage, in a repeat of 1917. And land lease provided a very timely supply of materials for the soviets at a crucial time. Furthermore, if the americans did enter the war later, to what extent would have idle German western divisions been redeployed...
    That chance was lost when Stalin found his nerve and committed to both Moscow and Stalingrad.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    I understand that the IJA were tactically incompetent,
    They were operationally clueless.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    but we are discussing the soviet army in 1939, and the IJA don't have to have a chance, it is possible they just have to the alter the the conflict marginally.
    Again, let's stick to the history. 39/40 happened way before Stalingrad and the Japanese was not only being wiped out in Siberia but also on the verge of losing all of Korea and Manchuria. That was why they begged for mercy. So, the attack on Pearl was going forth ... as did Hitler's Declaration of War on the US. So, the only time period for the Japanese to come into a war with the USSR was Pearl Harbour and wisely, they didn't do it. It would have been a quick suicide.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    Later date of land lease, later campaigns in North Africa and France. Greater German forces and materials in the eastern front, fewer soviet forces redeployed and re-orientated in 1939, greater number of soviet forces deployed to defeat the IJA in 1940. The soviets were clearly caught by the German invasion, after the signing of the non-aggression pact would they have felt comfortable in deploying even more forces the their east in the face of IJA aggression...
    45 Divisions remained in Siberia throughout the war and if Stalingrad never happened, then what would Stalin do with the armies of Opeations MARS and URANUS?

    Even if Stalin sued for peace with Hitler, the release of the USN and the full might of the British Empire would have destroyed Germany.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 31 Jan 15, at 14:13.
    Chimo

  3. #18
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    09 Oct 10
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    That chance was lost when Stalin found his nerve and committed to both Moscow and Stalingrad.
    Yes, but the speculation is that events change the course of the war before this point...

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Again, let's stick to the history. 39/40 happened way before Stalingrad and the Japanese was not only being wiped out in Siberia but also on the verge of losing all of Korea and Manchuria. That was why they begged for mercy. So, the attack on Pearl was going forth ... as did Hitler's Declaration of War on the US. So, the only time period for the Japanese to come into a war with the USSR was Pearl Harbour and wisely, they didn't do it. It would have been a quick suicide.
    Sticking to the history rather excludes any of my point as it is based on a what-if.

    Even if the IJA were defeated before the Germans entered the war, would the soviets be in a weaker position upon a German invasion? Would a complete IJA defeat not have deterred an attack on Pearl Harbour and slowed American entry to the war...
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    45 Divisions remained in Siberia throughout the war.
    Thus the threat of the IJA did limit the soviets on the eastern front. It does seem counter-intuitive that the threat of the IJA tied up 45 divisions yet an actual full-scale conflict would have have had no material increase on the effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    ...and if Stalingrad never happened, then what would Stalin do with the armies of Opeations MARS and URANUS?

    Even if Stalin sued for peace with Hitler, the release of the USN and the full might of the British Empire would have destroyed Germany.
    Yet was stalingrad necessary from the soviet perspective on terms of morale as you already alluded to, once it was clear the Germans were willing to engage. In the end, meatgrinders suited the soviets. I also thought URANUS was a success from the soviet perspective. But the sentiment of the point is right, if you alter the course of the war, perhaps it favours the soviets over the Germans. I am merely exploring the possibility that events could have favoured the Germans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Even if Stalin sued for peace with Hitler, the release of the USN and the full might of the British Empire would have destroyed Germany.
    Agreed, ultimately a German defeat looks inevitable once America mobilises and enters the war. It becomes a question of the amount of blood and additional time required.

  4. #19
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    Even if the IJA were defeated before the Germans entered the war, would the soviets be in a weaker position upon a German invasion? Would a complete IJA defeat not have deterred an attack on Pearl Harbour and slowed American entry to the war...
    Think you're missing the point. The only way the IJE would feel comfortable in attacking the USSR would be a two front war on the USSR with Germany drawing the bulk of the Soviets off to Europe and leaving a token force in Asia.

    Hitler's decision to declare war on the US was to entice the Japanese to enter war against the USSR. So, no, the attack on Pearl would have proceeded and only if the IJA felt confident enough to take on what they would perceived as a weakened Siberian Front.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    Thus the threat of the IJA did limit the soviets on the eastern front. It does seem counter-intuitive that the threat of the IJA tied up 45 divisions yet an actual full-scale conflict would have have had no material increase on the effect.
    Raising new armies was never a problem for the Soviets during the war.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    Agreed, ultimately a German defeat looks inevitable once America mobilises and enters the war. It becomes a question of the amount of blood and additional time required.
    Four aircraft carriers in the Atlantic. What do you think?
    Chimo

  5. #20
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    09 Oct 10
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Think you're missing the point. The only way the IJE would feel comfortable in attacking the USSR would be a two front war on the USSR with Germany drawing the bulk of the Soviets off to Europe and leaving a token force in Asia.
    But doesn't that reality favour my point. As there was scope to draw the Japanese into such a front, but circumstances played against it.

    They did attack in 1939 without such a European front. They sought that conflict in part. But yes, your right, The nature of the defeat combined with the non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviets weakened the position of those in Japan who favoured a northern strike over the naval campaign to the south. But it was a close call.


    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Hitler's decision to declare war on the US was to entice the Japanese to enter war against the USSR. So, no, the attack on Pearl would have proceeded and only if the IJA felt confident enough to take on what they would perceived as a weakened Siberian Front.
    It wasn't inevitable in 1939 that a 2 front war on the soviets necessitated Pearl harbour or a German declaration of war against the US, which was a PR stunt by the Germans as US involvement was sealed at Pearl Harbour. If there was hope of an enticement to the Japanese to declare such a front in 1941, and I can't see how, the Germans had nothing to lose in trying anyway, but it seems clear that it was south or north for the Japanese, one or the other.

    I fail to see how Pearl Harbour as inevitable. The Japanese Imperial staff were undecided in 1939 to their plans. They had a northern expansion and southern expansion, the north heavily favoured by the Army, the south by the Navy. As events transpired, the southern plan won the day. For me, the alternative was a realistic possibility at the time. Instead the Japanese did something even more stupid, and it seems to me this greatly accelerated the demise of the axis powers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Four aircraft carriers in the Atlantic. What do you think?
    Feet on the ground equals time and blood.

  6. #21
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    [QUOTE=tantalus;986668]But doesn't that reality favour my point. As there was scope to draw the Japanese into such a front, but circumstances played against it.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    They did attack in 1939 without such a European front. They sought that conflict in part. But yes, your right, The nature of the defeat combined with the non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviets weakened the position of those in Japan who favoured a northern strike over the naval campaign to the south. But it was a close call.
    They weren't dealt a bloody nose before then.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    It wasn't inevitable in 1939 that a 2 front war on the soviets necessitated Pearl harbour or a German declaration of war against the US, which was a PR stunt by the Germans as US involvement was sealed at Pearl Harbour. If there was hope of an enticement to the Japanese to declare such a front in 1941, and I can't see how, the Germans had nothing to lose in trying anyway, but it seems clear that it was south or north for the Japanese, one or the other.
    It wasn't going to be north. They already lost an entire army in 39.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    I fail to see how Pearl Harbour as inevitable. The Japanese Imperial staff were undecided in 1939 to their plans. They had a northern expansion and southern expansion, the north heavily favoured by the Army, the south by the Navy. As events transpired, the southern plan won the day. For me, the alternative was a realistic possibility at the time. Instead the Japanese did something even more stupid, and it seems to me this greatly accelerated the demise of the axis powers.
    North or South, the Japanese had to knock the Americans out of the war before they got a free hand to do what they wanted.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    Feet on the ground equals time and blood.
    You can't shield the entire continent.
    Chimo

  7. #22
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    09 Oct 10
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post

    It wasn't going to be north. They already lost an entire army in 39.
    That doesn't logically point south. Drawing the americans into war was the worst option. If there were only two options, a Japanese co-ordination with the Germans against the soviets would have proven more desirable. Either way, a southern campaign didn't have to occur.
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post

    North or South, the Japanese had to knock the Americans out of the war before they got a free hand to do what they wanted.
    .
    A northern campaign didn't threaten american interests, nor did it require an attack on US soil. There is clear scope for a later entry into the war and arrival of land lease without such an attack and expansion south.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    You can't shield the entire continent.
    A soviet union beaten to a truce, Stalin removed, in such a scenario, American troops are required on a massive scale to remove Germany from Europe.

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,167
    Chief,

    I don't doubt Stalin's ability to trash Japanese armies, but how fast can he do it if he has no Lend-Lease coming into Vladivostok? My impression is that the majority of goods at the time were coming through those ports, and even Stalingrad was mostly supplied by single rail up from Moscow.

    You don't get supplies to the USSR, then they don't have the armies that can mad dash across Eastern Europe in 1943 and 1944. Hel, you might not even get a win at Stalingrad. No?
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  9. #24
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    That doesn't logically point south. Drawing the americans into war was the worst option. If there were only two options, a Japanese co-ordination with the Germans against the soviets would have proven more desirable. Either way, a southern campaign didn't have to occur.
    Again, it was the Japanese who begged for mercy against the Soviets and I will remind you that they were winning at the start of the war against everybody else but the Soviets.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    A northern campaign didn't threaten american interests, nor did it require an attack on US soil. There is clear scope for a later entry into the war and arrival of land lease without such an attack and expansion south.
    There was no oil up north.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    A soviet union beaten to a truce, Stalin removed, in such a scenario, American troops are required on a massive scale to remove Germany from Europe.
    Again, once Stalin established the Urals. The chances of removing him became nil. Stalin may settled with Hitler but there was no chance of Hitler removing Stalin.

    And you missed the point about the aircraft carriers. They can choose the time and place anywhere on the European coastline for an invasion.
    Chimo

  10. #25
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by GVChamp View Post
    Chief,

    I don't doubt Stalin's ability to trash Japanese armies, but how fast can he do it if he has no Lend-Lease coming into Vladivostok? My impression is that the majority of goods at the time were coming through those ports, and even Stalingrad was mostly supplied by single rail up from Moscow.
    LL didn't arrive in time for Stalingrad and if you want to pit the armies of Operations MARS and URANUS against the Japanese Kwantung Army, how about 7 days for that army to be burned off the face of the earth.
    Chimo

  11. #26
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    09 Oct 10
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    There was no oil up north.
    It was of strategic interest.
    Part of the reason for the escalating tensions in the area was due to the 'Strike North' faction in the Japanese high command — a faction found predominantly among the staff officers of the Kwantung Army stationed in Manchukuo. Once it had severed the Trans-Siberian lifeline, the Strike North officers argued, the Japanese empire could then be expanded to include all of Mongolia, the Soviet maritime provinces and parts of Siberia. Shielded by those buffer territories, the natural resources and heavy industries of Manchukuo could then be fully developed by the Japanese. Bereft of outside support, Chinese resistance would collapse.
    World War II: Soviet and Japanese Forces Battle at Khalkhin Gol
    See this link for an tactical and operational account, as well as the strategic significance of soviet/japanese fighting of 1939. I am going to extract a fewe more passages below.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post

    And you missed the point about the aircraft carriers. They can choose the time and place anywhere on the European coastline for an invasion.
    You initially made reference to the aircraft carriers in the context of a solution to a German held Europe with a neutralised Soviet Union. I simply stated that such a scenario would require a great deal more time and blood and agreed that there would only be one winner. Yet, my point was that the aircraft carriers don't alter the fact that such events would cost more american lives than actually transpired and the war would lasted longer.

    That, along with the Anti-Comintern Pact signed in 1936 between Germany and Japan, alarmed the Soviet Union. A treaty concluded between Josef Stalin and Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang government in 1937 furnished Soviet financial and military aid to the Chinese.
    This is the beginning of what was to become a lost opportunity for the axis powers.

    The lifeline of the Soviet position in the Far East and Siberia was the Trans-Siberian Railroad, which served as the only link between those regions and European Russia. Outer Mongolia was the key to strategic control of the Trans-Siberian Railroad. To ensure the protection of that vital artery, the Soviets had established the puppet Mongolian People's Republic (MPR) in Outer Mongolia. A treaty of mutual assistance between the Soviet Union and the MPR had been signed in 1936.

    Part of the reason for the escalating tensions in the area was due to the 'Strike North' faction in the Japanese high command — a faction found predominantly among the staff officers of the Kwantung Army stationed in Manchukuo. Once it had severed the Trans-Siberian lifeline, the Strike North officers argued, the Japanese empire could then be expanded to include all of Mongolia, the Soviet maritime provinces and parts of Siberia. Shielded by those buffer territories, the natural resources and heavy industries of Manchukuo could then be fully developed by the Japanese. Bereft of outside support, Chinese resistance would collapse.
    The strategic significance. Along with the motivation that could have led to a reorientation of the whole war.

    ...a growing rift between the Kwantung Army and the army general staff in Tokyo was intensified by the air war. Without prior knowledge or approval of the high command in Tokyo, the Kwantung Army unleashed major bombing raids on June 27 against Tamsag and Bain Tumen air bases, deep in the Soviet rear. Infuriated by such rank insubordination, the officers in Tokyo delivered a blistering rebuke. Orders were issued forbidding attacks upon airfields in Soviet rear areas. The incident illuminated the deep division within Japanese army leadership at the highest levels. Deeply concerned about commitment of Japanese forces in China, the army general staff in Tokyo was beginning to view the escalating conflict in Mongolia with growing alarm.
    While Japanese leaders squabbled over their commitment of forces in Mongolia, Zhukov and others began to focus on overcoming the daunting logistical challenges of maintaining a sizable defensive force in the region.
    I think its worth noting that the IJA were not heavily committed to Khalkin Gol at the time, the soviets committed fully because they realised the potential significance of a two front war that they sought to desperately avoid.

    By August 23, the southern Soviet force had driven to the Manchukuoan border and cut off any Japanese retreat from the area below the Holsten River. The encirclement was completed on August 24, when the 9th Armored Brigade linked up with the 8th Armored Brigade from the south.
    Japanese forces drawn from Manchukuo made efforts to rescue their trapped comrades from August 24 to 26. Soviet air attacks made any road movement very difficult, however, and a hammer blow by the 6th Tank Brigade finally forced the Japanese to abandon their efforts to break the iron grip of the Soviet vise. Divided into pockets, the Japanese were crushed by August 31.
    In the midst of the fighting, the Japanese were shocked and infuriated to learn that their German ally had negotiated and signed a nonaggression pact with the Soviet Union on August 23. Japanese feelings were bitterly summarized by the newspaper Asahi Shimbun: 'The spirit of the Anti-Comintern Pact has been reduced to a scrap of paper and Germany has betrayed an ally.' In light of that development and their failure to secure victory on the ground, the Japanese government and army high command in Tokyo concluded that the conflict in Mongolia must be brought to a close
    And with hindsight this was clearly a missed opportunity for the Germans. Although the non-aggression pact had its obvious advantages for the Germans. Better communication between the axis powers on the strategic outlook could have aided efforts.

    The scope and results of this conflict were not widely known at the time. Mortified by defeat in battle, the Japanese sought to conceal their disgrace
    In the face of defeat those who advocated the northern strike, the army, had a damaged reputation.
    In addition, having killed most of his military leaders in his purges, Stalin was unwilling to promote Zhukov's victory and see the general emerge as a popular hero. Even so, later actions during the war would ensure that Zhukov would become justly famous as the leading Soviet commander of World War II. Many of the characteristic features of the Russian way of war can be seen in his leadership at Khalkhin Gol: massive firepower; tight integration of infantry, artillery, tanks and warplanes; elaborate deception measures; and ruthless sacrifice of lives.
    But it did allow him to rise to the top of the soviet ranks. I made a separate reference to Zhukov as an aside at the end of the post.
    When Adolf Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941, the Japanese were tempted to join the assault, but the shadow of Khalkhin Gol haunted them. With the influence of the Strike North group at an end, Japanese military planners began to look at British, French and Dutch colonial possessions in Southeast Asia as offering greater prospects for expansion.
    Drawing the americans into the war earlier than necessary from a German perspective, the later the Americans enter, the better for the axis, yet the Japanese draw them in willingly.

    Stalin remembered the fierce fighting in Mongolia as well. Even as he summoned 1,000 tanks and 1,200 warplanes from Soviet Far Eastern forces to battle the German invaders who were making spectacular gains, 19 reserve divisions, 1,200 tanks and some 1,000 aircraft remained in Mongolia to confront the Japanese.
    World War II: Soviet and Japanese Forces Battle at Khalkhin Gol
    By the summer of 1939, it was clear that Europe was sliding toward war. Hitler was determined to move east, against Poland. Stalin’s nightmare, to be avoided at all costs, was a two-front war against Germany and Japan. His ideal outcome would be for the fascist/militarist capitalists (Germany, Italy, and Japan) to fight the bourgeois/democratic capitalists (Britain, France, and perhaps the United States), leaving the Soviet Union on the sidelines, the arbiter of Europe after the capitalists had exhausted themselves. The Nazi-Soviet Pact was Stalin’s attempt to achieve his optimal outcome. Not only did it pit Germany against Britain and France and leave the Soviet Union out of the fight – it gave Stalin the freedom to deal decisively with an isolated Japan, which he did at Nomonhan. This is not merely a hypothesis. The linkage between Nomonhan and the Nazi-Soviet Pact is clear even in the German diplomatic documents published in Washington and London in 1948. Recently revealed Soviet-era documents add confirming details.
    The Soviet Far Eastern reserves – 15 infantry divisions, 3 cavalry divisions, 1,700 tanks, and 1.500 aircraft – were deployed westward in the autumn of 1941 when Moscow learned that Japan would not attack the Soviet Far East, because it had made an irrevocable decision for southward expansion that would lead to war with the United States
    They arrived just in time for the Battle of Moscow...
    The Forgotten Soviet-Japanese War of 1939 | The Diplomat

    More on Zhukov...
    The battle catapulted Zhukov into the top ranks of the Soviet brass. Several of his trench mates at Khalkhin-Gol later became prominent wartime commanders. S.I. Bogdanov, Zhukov's chief of staff, went on to command the 2nd Guards Tank Army, one of the elite mechanised formations that played an important role in Germany’s defeat.

    Khalkhin-Gol demonstrated the viability of Russian military tactics. A year after flinging the Germans back from Moscow, Zhukov planned and executed his offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad, using a technique similar to Khalkhin-Gol. In this battle, the Russian forces held the enemy in the centre, built up a mass of force in the area undetected, and launched a pincer attack to trap the Germans.
    Perhaps the Germans should have studied Khalkhin Gol instead of Finland when considering the Soviet Army.
    War in the East: How Khalkhin-Gol changed the course of WWII | Russia & India Report
    Last edited by tantalus; 01 Feb 15, at 00:48.

  12. #27
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    09 Oct 10
    Posts
    1,062
    An excellent account of the origin and power struggle of the North versus South strike factions amongst the Japanese leadership and the factors that led the Japanese to ultimately move south.

    http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou...d/ssf-vic.html
    Last edited by tantalus; 01 Feb 15, at 01:04.

  13. #28
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,069
    Quote Originally Posted by GVChamp View Post
    Chief,

    I don't doubt Stalin's ability to trash Japanese armies, but how fast can he do it if he has no Lend-Lease coming into Vladivostok? My impression is that the majority of goods at the time were coming through those ports, and even Stalingrad was mostly supplied by single rail up from Moscow.

    You don't get supplies to the USSR, then they don't have the armies that can mad dash across Eastern Europe in 1943 and 1944. Hel, you might not even get a win at Stalingrad. No?
    It is possible to overstate the importance of Vladivostock. My understanding is that it was virtually closed for 6 months or so after Pearl harbour, before American ships re-flagged as Russian re-opened the supply line. Vladivostock got used the most because it was the most convenient route, not because it was the only one. Supply lines through Iran or India/Afghanistan would have been upgraded. More might have been pumped through Murmansk. There was even summer access to Russian ports on the north side of the Bering Straits. Perhaps there could have been more pushed through there too (there was a small amount in OTL. None of this proved necessary, but it was certainly possible to supply the USSR without Vladivostock. Not the preferred option, but still an option.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  14. #29
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    It was of strategic interest.
    Of course it was ... until they got clobberred

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    World War II: Soviet and Japanese Forces Battle at Khalkhin Gol
    See this link for an tactical and operational account, as well as the strategic significance of soviet/japanese fighting of 1939. I am going to extract a fewe more passages below.
    I am more than aware of all the facets.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    You initially made reference to the aircraft carriers in the context of a solution to a German held Europe with a neutralised Soviet Union. I simply stated that such a scenario would require a great deal more time and blood and agreed that there would only be one winner. Yet, my point was that the aircraft carriers don't alter the fact that such events would cost more american lives than actually transpired and the war would lasted longer.
    The point was those 4 carriers automatically erased Germany's offensive abilities. The Battles of the Atlantic and Britain would not have had happenned ... or a very short lived one. U-boats ain't a match for air planes and a carrier can hover just out of range and then come in to hit German sorties when they're bingo fuel and ammo.

    Added to that, the Germans would have to be everywhere the carriers can hit wheras the carriers need only to be at the one place that they need to hit.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    This is the beginning of what was to become a lost opportunity for the axis powers.
    Except CKS was just a monkey's ass.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    The strategic significance. Along with the motivation that could have led to a reorientation of the whole war.
    Right and the entire Kwantung Army would die inside a week, leaving the USN and the British Empire to gather their full might against the Germans. Like I said, the Germans were lucky the Japanese didn't take on the Soviets.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    I think its worth noting that the IJA were not heavily committed to Khalkin Gol at the time, the soviets committed fully because they realised the potential significance of a two front war that they sought to desperately avoid.
    Who cares what the IJA was committed or not, their losses were intolerable. 48,000 men. That was an entire army.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    And with hindsight this was clearly a missed opportunity for the Germans. Although the non-aggression pact had its obvious advantages for the Germans. Better communication between the axis powers on the strategic outlook could have aided efforts.
    Oh for Pete sakes, Hitler was nowhere close to being ready to take on Stalin. He barely had a year to take over the Czechs and were still trying to integrate Czech tanks into their panzer formations. And before he could take on Stalin, he had the British and French to worry about.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    In the face of defeat those who advocated the northern strike, the army, had a damaged reputation.
    Lucky for them ... and the Germans. The IJA was clearly lacking in artillery, engineering, and armour.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    But it did allow him to rise to the top of the soviet ranks. I made a separate reference to Zhukov as an aside at the end of the post.
    The man you're looking for is Marshall of the Soviet Union Mikhail Tukhachevsky. There was no Japanese equivlent to these men.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    Drawing the americans into the war earlier than necessary from a German perspective, the later the Americans enter, the better for the axis, yet the Japanese draw them in willingly.
    Did the fact that the Fleet was at Pearl escaped you? War was coming. It was a matter who hit first.

    [QUOTE=tantalus;986693]World War II: Soviet and Japanese Forces Battle at Khalkhin Gol

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    They arrived just in time for the Battle of Moscow...
    The Forgotten Soviet-Japanese War of 1939 | The Diplomat
    So what if they didn't arrive on time? Does that make the Urals any less defensivable?

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    More on Zhukov...
    I suggest you look at Chuikov. He was the one who did the impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    Perhaps the Germans should have studied Khalkhin Gol instead of Finland when considering the Soviet Army.
    War in the East: How Khalkhin-Gol changed the course of WWII | Russia & India Report
    German Officers were on exchange programs with the USSR for quite some time. Blitzkreig was their creation.
    Chimo

  15. #30
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    09 Oct 10
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post

    The point was those 4 carriers automatically erased Germany's offensive abilities. The Battles of the Atlantic and Britain would not have had happenned ... or a very short lived one. U-boats ain't a match for air planes and a carrier can hover just out of range and then come in to hit German sorties when they're bingo fuel and ammo.
    .
    But my point is that under such a scenario, the war will still take longer and cost more american lives, as there is a greater portion of the German army intact with no active mainland enemies. My point does not extend past that narrow platform, nothing else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post

    Right and the entire Kwantung Army would die inside a week, leaving the USN and the British Empire to gather their full might against the Germans. Like I said, the Germans were lucky the Japanese didn't take on the Soviets.

    Who cares what the IJA was committed or not, their losses were intolerable. 48,000 men. That was an entire army.

    Oh for Pete sakes, Hitler was nowhere close to being ready to take on Stalin. He barely had a year to take over the Czechs and were still trying to integrate Czech tanks into their panzer formations. And before he could take on Stalin, he had the British and French to worry about.

    Lucky for them ... and the Germans. The IJA was clearly lacking in artillery, engineering, and armour.
    The Germans clearly desired a two war front, the soviets clearly wanted to avoid it, but you maintain that it could have had no material effect in favour of the Germans over the Soviets if it transpired. I am sorry, but I see a possibility. That's not to say your points wouldn't have dominated such a scenario, we will never know how everyone and everything would have developed , but I see the possibility that such a scenario could have favoured the axis powers and increased the length of the war.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    War was coming. It was a matter who hit first.
    .
    But how long is important. How long will the Americans take to enter and what can the axis achieve with better coordinated strategic goals in the intermediate...

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post

    So what if they didn't arrive on time? Does that make the Urals any less defensivable?
    It becomes a question if Stalin and soviet morale survives the shock of further defeats at this stage of the war, combined with a Japanese front, and later arrival of the US threat and land lease.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What is the point of the Marines?
    By Tarek Morgen in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 02 Jul 11,, 09:19
  2. Why We Should Get Rid of West Point
    By astralis in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 15 May 09,, 18:38
  3. What's the point of the F-35??
    By The_Burning_Kid in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06 Jan 06,, 18:53

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •