 |
| |
|
|
Jaakko
|
 |
in Yellow
Jan 2000
time: 07:24
|
|
Without resorting to hindsight, the only way I can think of is change of ideology. Nazism was so virulent in creating enemies that it had no hope of succeeding in conquest.
Many of the peoples of the western SU did indeed greet the Germans as liberators (as one would expect from people oppressed by Stalin), and could have provided huge amounts of manpower. That way a German Empire of sorts could have been created in the east, but it probably would have fragmented soon after the war.
Of course, without Nazism the political development of the 30s would have been altogether different, so this all just idle speculation.
Edit: to further support my speculation, some people in the German military actually thought they were going on a new Northern Crusade to rid the world of the horrors of communism. Of course, any higher-ups who thought that were clearly in denial of the truth, but all the same it seems that such a stance would have been politically viable for a conqueror.
Last edited by Jaakko on 06-12-2002 at 03:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Andy-Man
|
 |
Tory Party of 'Poly
Jul 2001
time: 05:24
|
|
[quote[The AndyMan, On the USSR '43 - '45, the USSR had by then come a very long way and had superiority over the Germans in numbers of troops and tanks. As Kursk proved, the Germans could no longer conduct a major offensive. But in mobile warfare, the advantage is to the party on the offensive.[/quote]
You answer alot of your own questions there, think how much better equipped the USSR economy would have been if it hadn't had the devestation of loosing %50 of its industrial capacity for 2yrs...
quote:
As to nuking Russia, I think this all changed in '49 when the Russians got bomb as well. They still did not attack |
by 1949 it was really to late for them to attack, 45-47 was their window of opertunity, and even after they had the bomb there was no way they could have nuked the USA with it, whilst the US had the air bases to thouroughly nuke homeland russia.
quote:
As to Iran, you a probably right. The USSR probably did not want a war with the UK. But this is also consistent with not wanting a war with Germany which at that time had the means of defeating the USSR which the UK did not. If the USSR was avoiding war with the UK, it surely was avoiding war with Germany as well. |
War with a Democracy can be avoided, war with Hitler was inevitable, and considering HItler has about 20yrs of Russia bashing under his belt, I don't think Stalin was ready to beleive that war with Germany was avoiodable, he just wasn't prepared or expecting the attack when it happened.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Take Serbs' claim that by 1944, without a war, the SU would still have had SU-152's, IS-2's and so forth: why? These weapon systems were designed during the war, due to how the war was going. Same for German {Panthers, or jets, or American and British weapons for that matter. Once you decide to change one event you better provide damn good reasons why an event that happeend in real life still would have happend, without the same given consequences. NO one here has done so. So you can't assume the US would still have nukes in '45, or the SU in 49, or assume B-29's or Il-2 flyoing around just cause they came out of thin air... |
I was talking about the same. My point if Hitler didn't attacked USSR in 1941, then Stalin strike first- but only after he would finished his re-arming programm of Red Army.
Il-2 was created in 1939. The predecessors of JS series- tanks of KV series were created in 1939. In 1941 SU had more then 500 heavy tanks of KV series and it was the most thickly armored tank in the world in 1941. Germans had nothing equal. T-34 was created in 1939 too. As for Su-152 you are right there were no single self-propeled gun in Red army in 1941 and SU-152 was first time introduced in 1943, but SU-152 was mostly based on KV-1 tank. Also in 1941 Soviets had Katysha- first missile artilery in the world. Germans created something of that kind- Nebelwerfer (Sp?) only in 1944 (iirc) and it was nowhere near Katysha, even not mobile. Soviets had air-to-air and air-to-ground rockets before the 1941 and succesfully tested them against Japanese in 1936. And many many more.
So my point is- before 1941 Soviets invented a lot of unmatched, supreame weaponry. The only problem is that this weaponry wasn't produced in needed quantity. Mass production of those weapons was just started or planned to start in nearest future. If Hitler gave another year or two for Stalin, Red army of 1942 or 1943 was MUCH greater threat for Hitler. So he didn't have much time.
Ned, Stalin perfectly knew that he can't avoid the war vs. Hitler. Two main reasons for this:
1) Ideology. Commiest were most hated Hitler's foe. He belived that his (Hitler's) historical mission is to protect Europe from communist disease.
2) Geopolitical- Hitler claimed that Slavs should be eradicated and their lands should be taken and settled with Germans.
How anybody could belive that there could be no clash between SU and Germany is beyond me, because war vs. USSR was the Hitler's MAIN goal and Stalin perfectly knew this. Stalin's problem was that he belived that he is ****ing genious and that he triked Hitler with this non-agression pact and won a couple of years to re-arm red army and then strike first. Soviet people paid huge price for Stalin's arrogance. If only he gave the order to put Red army on high alert status, then first months of war were absolutely different. The cheif of Soviet navy- Kuznetzov gave such order (on his own risk) to Soviet fleet, result- Soviet navy didn't lost a single aircraft during first German attack.(yep, Soviet navy had bunch of planes. It's just a note for smart asses who would like to comment this sentance)
Last edited by Serb on 06-12-2002 at 14:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darius871
|
 |
Smith, Wesson, and the RODINA!!!
Mar 2002
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The IJA did try to attack the Soviet forces. They got the snot kicked out of them. |
Sorry for making you endure a long post, but I've always seen people take way too much out of Nomonhan/Khalkin Gol when referring to a Russo-Japanese war.
There are too many differences:
- IIRC Russia wasn't engaged in a death struggle with Germany at the time.
- The war in Mongolia was limited, it wasn't in any way a full Japanese effort.
- Zhukov would not have been in the east in the summer of 1941.
- Just so you know, the Russians only won strategically in Mongolia. The Kwangtung Army went back to Manchuria, and the conflict was over. Tactically, however, the scores were almost even, with 8,629 Japanese dead and 7,974 Russians dead. It was an stalemate man-to-man, but the Japanese were not prepared for total war so they withdrew. This was not a complete rollover for Zhukov.
- Not only would the Russians have less troops to fight with in summer 1941 thanks to Germany, but meanwhile the Japanese forces they would face had increased from 1939 to 1941. There would have been even more after the decison for war was made, as troops from home garrisons and China would be ordered to Manchuria. I estimate that the total troops they could muster for the attack would be around 1.5 million men. Considering the huge damage Germany made with a well-mechanized force of 3.5 million, I reckon 1.5 million Japanese with poor to moderate mechanization would at least stand a chance against less forces than Germany faced.
- Russian forces were hopelessly dependent on the Trans-Siberian Railroad for all supply, and the Japanese planners knew it. The very first objective of every Japanese operations plan was always to seize some portion of their vital railways. For example, Operational Plan 8 (or the Hachi-Go Plan) was centered around marching a mere 50 miles to sever the Trans-Siberian Railroad east of Chita and simply watching any Russian troops east of that cut simply run out of supplies and surrender. Hell, in many places Russian railways were so close to the border with Manchuria that you could see them with binoculars from the Japanese side. A ten-year old could plan out an array of advances that would cut these vulnerable supply chains.
For these reasons among others, the 1939 war (along with the other skirmishes they had in the 30's) is not a very effective gauge IMO; they were complete apples and oranges.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:24
|
|
I guess it's obvious that war at two fronts at once was the Hitler's main mistake.
I guess he beleived he could destroy Red army quite easily like he did before with all his previous enemies, then capture Mascow, force Stalin to sign a peace treaty and then using captured Soviet plants, resourses and population to finish the Brits and start with Americans. He declared war on USA Dec. 10, in accordance with his plans Moscow should have been captured already.
He made a bunch of mistakes- first war vs. Soviets while he didn't finished war with Brits, then war vs. USA while he didn't finished war with Soviets. Insane and arrogant desicions, imho.
As for accurate date when Stalin could attack Germany, I guess it's hard to say now. This would depend on situation, how well/bad Hitler war vs. GB was going. I guess Stalin needed at least five years for Red army complete modernization programm., but he could attack sooner if circumstances were good for Soviets. It's hard to say...I don't know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darius871
- Just so you know, the Russians only won strategically in Mongolia. The Kwangtung Army went back to Manchuria, and the conflict was over. Tactically, however, the scores were almost even, with 8,629 Japanese dead and 7,974 Russians dead. It was an stalemate man-to-man, but the Japanese were not prepared for total war so they withdrew. This was not a complete rollover for Zhukov.
|
Disagreed.
It was complete defeat for Imperial army, not some kind of stalemate. This conflict showed- Japanese tanks and planes were light years behind Soviet. Japanese tank "Ha-go" (sp?) was nowhere near in compare with even light Soviet tanks of BT series. It has no radio, commander was also a driver and the guy who reload gun, it has very weak armor- only 12 mm, it couldn't protect tank from anything except bullets, very weak main weapon- its 37mm canon could penatrate 22mm armor of Soviet BT-7 only from distance closer then 300 meters, while 45mm canon of BT-7 could easily penatrte Ha-5 armor from distance of 1000 meters. Soviet aviation gave a good lesson to Japanese. The introduction of first air-to-air rockets had devastating impact on morale of Japanese pilots. They didn't knew what could cause such destruction and thought that Soviets invented some kind of huge cannon. Since May 15 up to Sept. 15 Japan lost 646 planes, Soviets lost 207 planes. Guess who ruled the skies?
Soviets were outnumbered, but had twice more tanks.
And it was the DEFEAT for IJA, not stalemate. My sources tells me that Japanese lost 61 000 (not 8 629 as yours) while combined Soviets+Mongolia forces lost 18 500.
Considering that Japanese lost 61 000 out of 132 000 (almost a half) soldiers they had there, and lost more then 3 times more then Soviets lost, retreated and asked for peace, I don't see how anybody could call it a stalemate.
quote:
- Not only would the Russians have less troops to fight with in summer 1941 thanks to Germany, but meanwhile the Japanese forces they would face had increased from 1939 to 1941. There would have been even more after the decison for war was made, as troops from home garrisons and China would be ordered to Manchuria. I estimate that the total troops they could muster for the attack would be around 1.5 million men. Considering the huge damage Germany made with a well-mechanized force of 3.5 million, I reckon 1.5 million Japanese with poor to moderate mechanization would at least stand a chance against less forces than Germany faced. |
All it's nice, but it doesn't explain WHY they DIDN'T attacked SU even when Hitler's forces were just several miles away from Moscow. The only thing which could explain this is that: Japanese Imperial Army who didn't saw defeat since end of XIX century, were beaten by Soviets TWICE within few years. They understood that Soviets isn't easy target and instead of an attempt to make a third try they turned into USA direction that considered by them as much better target. Simple as that, try to proove me wrong.
Last edited by Serb on 06-12-2002 at 16:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darius871
- The war in Mongolia was limited, it wasn't in any way a full Japanese effort. |
The IJA committed over 100,000 men, which was as big as they could get without weakening their main groups invading China.
quote:
Originally posted by Darius871
- Zhukov would not have been in the east in the summer of 1941. |
Sure, the IJA tanks were totally worthless against Soviets ones though, so it wouldn't have mattered.
quote:
Originally posted by Darius871
- Just so you know, the Russians only won strategically in Mongolia. The Kwangtung Army went back to Manchuria, and the conflict was over. Tactically, however, the scores were almost even, with 8,629 Japanese dead and 7,974 Russians dead. It was an stalemate man-to-man, but the Japanese were not prepared for total war so they withdrew. This was not a complete rollover for Zhukov. |
Not sure, information at hand indicated the IJA suffered 20,000 deaths alone.
quote:
Originally posted by Darius871
- Not only would the Russians have less troops to fight with in summer 1941 thanks to Germany, but meanwhile the Japanese forces they would face had increased from 1939 to 1941. There would have been even more after the decison for war was made, as troops from home garrisons and China would be ordered to Manchuria. I estimate that the total troops they could muster for the attack would be around 1.5 million men. Considering the huge damage Germany made with a well-mechanized force of 3.5 million, I reckon 1.5 million Japanese with poor to moderate mechanization would at least stand a chance against less forces than Germany faced. |
A couple of things. The IJA was bigger but weaker because many of the soldiers were new recruits. Furthermore, a large part of the army was in SE Asia invading other countries and holding occupied territory. Japan relied heavily on looted resources to sustain their war efforts; removing troops from the Chinse fronts would mean losing territory and resources. What's more is losing the war could very well mean a Soviet counterattack into Manchuria, like what happened in 1945, starving off the Japanese war machine.
quote:
Originally posted by Darius871
- Russian forces were hopelessly dependent on the Trans-Siberian Railroad for all supply, and the Japanese planners knew it. The very first objective of every Japanese operations plan was always to seize some portion of their vital railways. For example, Operational Plan 8 (or the Hachi-Go Plan) was centered around marching a mere 50 miles to sever the Trans-Siberian Railroad east of Chita and simply watching any Russian troops east of that cut simply run out of supplies and surrender. Hell, in many places Russian railways were so close to the border with Manchuria that you could see them with binoculars from the Japanese side. A ten-year old could plan out an array of advances that would cut these vulnerable supply chains. |
Why didn't they? Invading is one thing, holding off the counterattack is quite another. The Soviet forces in Siberia had to several weeks if not months of supplies in reserve.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
What would you guys put the date at, for when the war was decided? When could Germany not possibly have done anything to come out of it with any decent amount of pride?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
The axis should have explored for oil in Libya, they
would have found it. And all the effects that would have
had in the Med. theatre would have upgraded it from a
sideshow into a major theatre.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
The turning point was when the Russian people realized
the Germans were'nt going to liberate them from Stalin, but exterminate them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darius871
|
|
Smith, Wesson, and the RODINA!!!
Mar 2002
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
And it was the DEFEAT for IJA, not stalemate. My sources tells me that Japanese lost 61 000 (not 8 629 as yours) while combined Soviets+Mongolia forces lost 18 500. |
Your sources are pure Russian propaganda, just like many of the things I see you post on the boards, and frankly I'd be ashamed to post that number. The USSR claimed to have inflicted 61,000 casualties, and admitted to taking 18,500. Japan claimed 18,000 which was less than the Soviets*, although I'll admit that Japanese propaganda is just as unbelievable.
The source I used** claims 21,016 Japanese casualties and 15,925 Soviet casualties. The death stats were even closer, with 8,629 Japanese dead and 7,974 dead. The source is credible and digs into numerous official files rather than vague propaganda boasts. 
quote:
Soviets were outnumbered, but had twice more tanks. |
BS, the Soviets had both more tanks and more men, almost ten times as much. There were 65,000 Soviet and Mongol men arraigned against a paltry 28,000 Japanese and Manchurian troops*. Not only did the Russians outnumber them, but they had far superior weaponry and logistics. Furthermore many of thier men were veterans from the Spanish Civil War, while the Japanese were green as you said. Saying Khalkin Gol was a 'great victory' is faulty, it was an absolute given from the start. Even if they hadn't achieved a brilliant encirclement, they still would have won.
quote:
The introduction of first air-to-air rockets had devastating impact on morale of Japanese pilots. They didn't knew what could cause such destruction and thought that Soviets invented some kind of huge cannon. |
Source?
quote:
Since May 15 up to Sept. 15 Japan lost 646 planes, Soviets lost 207 planes. Guess who ruled the skies? |
SOURCE? Statistics on this battle are all over the map, many say the Japanese:Soviet air kill ratio was from 2:1 to 1.5:1, and then you say 3:1. Both sides' facts are horribly shrouded in propaganda and denial (especially regarding the air battle), so until you post a source that I can judge as unbiased I refuse to believe it.
quote:
All it's nice, but it doesn't explain WHY they DIDN'T attacked SU even when Hitler's forces were just several miles away from Moscow. The only thing which could explain this is that: Japanese Imperial Army who didn't saw defeat since end of XIX century, were beaten by Soviets TWICE within few years. |
They didn't attack for NUMEROUS reasons. To think they thought of Nomonhan and pissed their pants is wrong, there was a heated debate over Hokushin (go north) and going south simply offered more benefits.
quote:
The IJA committed over 100,000 men, which was as big as they could get without weakening their main groups invading China. |
SOURCE??? I think an Oxford compendium is rather unbiased, and as I said it listed 65,000 Soviet vs. 28,000 Japanese. Not only was the Japanese effort very limited, but they were indeed outnumbered and outgunned. OF COURSE the Soviets won.
quote:
Sure, the IJA tanks were totally worthless against Soviets ones though, so it wouldn't have mattered. |
Sure it would have, excellent commanders were possibly the biggest reason for the Japanese defeat at Nomonhan. The Cannae-like encirclement that made the victory so decisive (in terms of the Japanese withdrawing, not man-to-man ratios, there's a difference) was a work of art by brilliant Soviet generals, mainly Zhukov and Shtern. In 1941 Zhukov was fighting the Germans and Shtern... well he was murdered on Stalins orders. 
quote:
Not sure, information at hand indicated the IJA suffered 20,000 deaths alone. |
SOURCE??????
quote:
The Soviet forces in Siberia had to several weeks if not months of supplies in reserve. |
Until over 50% of them were sent to the west, along with half of the Far Eastern garrison's men and most of their best equipment. 
quote:
And it was the DEFEAT for IJA, not stalemate. |
I agree with you to a point; let me clarify. I said it was a stalemate man-to-man, meaning the amount of men killed on each side was almost equal. It was a defeat in the sense that Japan backed down and decided it wasn't worth it (and that they weren't prepared for a long war, like it would have been in 1941. Anyway I was wrong to use the word 'stalemate', by that I didn't mean a stalemate, I meant similar losses on both sides. Sorry for my poor word choice.
Anyway my point isn't that Japan would have 'won' when invading the USSR in 1941. My only point that Nomonhan and a 1941 war are apples and oranges. Are you really going to compare an undeclared war with limited troops with the purpose of extending Manchuria's poorly defined border to a river to an all-out death struggle? Are you for real? There are just too many different factors involved.
In summary: Say a 1941 invasion would have failed for the numerous reasons that it would have failed, not by comparing it to Khalkin Gol.
* - Alvin D. Coox, Nomonhan: Japan against Russia, 1939 (1990), pp.916, 952, 1123. Total casualties and deaths were found in the secret Kwangtung Army Report at Appendix J.
** - The Oxford Companion to Military History, 2001, pp.474.
Last edited by Darius871 on 06-12-2002 at 21:53
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
4) US, SU and Germany would had A-bomb at the same time, if there was no war vs. SU. Incorect to. If SU didn't lost 27 000 000 mlns people and if Russia wasn'r burned by the war, if its industrial capacity wasn't so hard damaged- we've gained this toy first. Even so hard damaged country was able to win space race with USA- a country which weren't damaged at all during war. Considering if there was no war at East, no losses, no damage to industry- SU kick everyone asses even now. |
That's blatantly ridiculous. First of all, we aren't talking about Russia, we're talking about the Ukraine, and the Baltic States, and places like that. The Ukrainians were not fans of Stalin, after what Stalin did to them in the 1930s, and they did indeed see the Germans as liberators. I can dig up various sources if you need me to, or we can just save time and agree on that point.
And your claim that Germany lost by attacking the SU is also ridiculous. Germany had a great opportunity to effectively win against the SU in 1941 - by taking Moscow instead of Kiev in autumn of that year. Germany could further have bought more time by not declaring war on the United States - without US troops, the invasions of North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and France would have been impossible, and those theaters tied down millions of German soldiers.
Without US air power, the mass strategic bombing campaign would have been impossible, and the Germans had over a million personnel on anti-aircraft defense alone. Further, over 3/4s of their fighters were in the West to fight the bomber offensive.
The British were pretty much reduced to night bombing missions, because of heavy losses, and without the US I doubt they would have had a good long range escort such as the P-51. Without this, their bombers could not have bombed German industry and refining capability with impunity at ANY time (Big Week, for example, would have been impossible), and this would have had large effects upon the Eastern Front - German forces would have had more tanks, more vehicles, more men, and probably more fuel.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-12-2002 03:11
Vlasov's army? Ten... perhaps twenty thousands...but one million?
! If Hitler hadn't decided to go for Stalingrad, then he could of beaten the Soviet Union. The war was decided on the Eastern front, I think we'll all agree. 
|