 |
| |
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darius871
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. |
Your sources are Japanese/based on Japanese propaganda. Feel better now?
I said lost 61 000 not, "61 000 were KIA". This figure include KIA, MIA, captured and wounded soldiers both for JIA and Red army. As UR pointed Japan lost 20 000 KIA among this 61 000.
quote:
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.  |
Digs into official files of country of rising sun, right? I don't see any other explanation. How the hell in case of devastating defeat, in case when the side that lost battle could have the same loss ratio as country that encircled enemy forces, had total air-superiority and much stronger (both in terms of quality and numbers) tank and artilery units?
Russian sources tells that Soviets won this battle with loss\kill ratio aproximately 1:3. I see no reasons why I should trust to your sources only because one simple thing- if it was true, and kill/loss ratio was acceptable for JIA, (and 1:1 as your sources tells is damn acceptable in case of offensive operation, imho) they would try to attack SU again, when Soviets were in great troubles.
So, I'll better stay on my position- Red army gave them pretty good lessons and made it clear for them- guys your efforts don't worth it, find yourself another enemy.
quote:
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. |
And my sources tells that:
At the beggining of battle:
Japanese : 38 000 soldiers, 310 guns, 135 tanks, 225 planes.
Soviet&Mongolian: 12 500 soldiers, 109 guns, 266 tanks and 82 planes.
Since conflict grown, both sides start to pump-up their forces in region and at the end of August 1939 both sides regroup their forces into armies- 6th Army of JIA and 1st army group of Red army. Both sides had about 132 000 soldiers, more then 1000 guns, about 700 tanks, about 800 planes.
Superior weaponry, yes, but fine logistic? The nearest railroad was 750 Km away!!! 'Even such thing as lumber we had to deliver from 1000 km away.'
Zhukov's memoirs.
And (in accordance with your logic) if it was absolutely clear from the beggining that Soviets will win, then WHY Japanese attacked?
Sorry but this is absolutely ilogical. In accordance with doctrines of that time, attacking side should have at least tree times more forces then defensive side. You claim that Soviets had ten times more men the Japanese, and Japanese still dare to attack (knowing that their tanks are total crap in compare with Soviet and knowing that they had two times less tanks than their enemy). Sorry, but it sounds like suicide. I don't think Japanese leadership were complete idiots and that's why I found your figures unbelievable and mine as pretty reasonable.
I've read it in a book. I was unable to find English site about this, if you wish I can post link to Russian site or you could try to find it by yourself. Try RS-132 or RS-82. RS- reaktivny snaryad (reactive shell)
quote:
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. |
Example of pure propaganda is both Soviet and Japanese claims made in 1940:
Soviet "Izvestya": Japan lost 660 planes, USSR lost 143.
Japanese "Domoy Tsusin" (Sp?): Japan lost 138 planes, USSR lost 1370.
The figures I posted 646 vs 207 are from book "Air force of motherland" create in 1988 during Gorbachev's democratic reforms and they refers to official archives of defense ministery.
Anyhow 3:1, 2:1 it doesn't change the fact that soviets won war in the sky as well as on the ground.
quote:
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. |
Why it's wrong? We have a saying which could be translated smth like this- "never step on the same sh!t twice"
The version is they decided to find another enemy for themselves, instead of making a third try after Red army kicked their asses twice, is very logical, imho.
quote:
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.  |
1) it wasn't a draw in terms of man-to-man ratios.
2) General, yes, but it isn't the only reason. Red army proved to be MUCH advanced army then JIA, both in terms of equipment and doctrines. Japanese spread their already tank forces, which makes them even more weaker.
quote:
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. |
They weren't prepared for long war, because Khalkin-gol was the "test of might" for Red army. After this test Japanese made an conclusions and turned into USA direction. Simple as that.
quote:
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. |
Well, as for me it looks like really small orange and really big orange.
And it was struggle where none of the sides wanted to retreat. No one wanted to show their weakness. Had Soviets lost (or won with acceptable kill/loss ratio like1:1 like your sources tells), they would be in big troubles in 1941, because in this case Japan would attacked 100%.
But sure this undeclared war it's absolutely different from declared war and an invasion of say 1,5 millions troops. Yes, I'm agreed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:24
|
|
David, a couple of short comments because we always talking about the same and none of us will never convince another.
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
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.
|
Small percent and only untill nazi started to eradicate local population.
quote:
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. |
You are no less paranoid then Hitler then. History proved that the only opportunity he had after declaration of war vs. USSR is to lost.
quote:
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. |
BS.
Why you didn't said billions?
quote:
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. |
TBS.
Why their industrial capacity constantly growing if those bombardments were so effective?
quote:
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. |
CBS.
In other words- Russian sucks, Brits sucks. America rules, we saved everyone's ass, it is we who won the war.
*throw up*
Have a nice day.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, and how is someone a traitor just because they volunteered to fight against Stalin rather than die in some horrid fashion in a concentration camp? I mean, come on, they were in an impossible situation - what do you imagine YOU would have done? Hell, I know what *I* would have done.
|
Some people prefered to die like heroes, like general Karbyshev. Do you know how they killed him? Sure you don't. He refused to cooperate and nazi moved him outside (it was very cold winter below -30C) took his clothes and directed jets of cold water on him, untill he turned into peice of ice. Thousands of people prefered to die in most horrible ways, but didn't betrayed their motherland. Those people are heroes. The ones who cooperated and killed their own countrymans, just to save their own skin are ****ing traitors.
quote:
I better not ever be entrusted with any secrets, first sign of wire clippers and a battery charger and damn if I'm not telling everything I know, from where the nuclear power plant is to how many times a week I masturbate  |
One word- American.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Small percent and only untill nazi started to eradicate local population. |
Which is the whole point. If the Nazis had not started to eradicate the population, much of that partisan problem might have disappeared, there might have been much more local support, and Germany could have begun exploiting industrial areas much quicker.
quote:
You are no less paranoid then Hitler then. History proved that the only opportunity he had after declaration of war vs. USSR is to lost. |
History, by definition, can't prove or disprove a counterfactual claim. You have to look at the facts at the time period, what would likely have happened, the effect the action would produce, etc. And I think it's reasonably clear that losing Moscow would have been a tremendous blow against the Soviets, possibly enough to knock them out of the war, and definitely enough to cripple their transportation/communication networks.
quote:
Why you didn't said billions? |
Because millions is the correct figure.
Over 1 million manning AA guns and various air defenses. Over a million in Italy by the end of the war. 26 divisions in the Balkans after Italy dropped out. 46 divisions in France in June 1944, with more to come. Hundreds of thousands of Luftwaffe personnel. That definitely fits the definition of "millions".
quote:
Why their industrial capacity constantly growing if those bombardments were so effective? |
Because they were able to decentralize a lot of it, and move much of it underground. But obviously, their production would have been higher without the mass bombing campaign. Doesn't that logically follow?
quote:
In other words- Russian sucks, Brits sucks. America rules, we saved everyone's ass, it is we who won the war.
*throw up* |
Which part, in particular, do you take issue with? And why?
quote:
Some people prefered to die like heroes, like general Karbyshev. Do you know how they killed him? Sure you don't. He refused to cooperate and nazi moved him outside (it was very cold winter below -30C) took his clothes and directed jets of cold water on him, untill he turned into peice of ice. Thousands of people prefered to die in most horrible ways, but didn't betrayed their motherland. Those people are heroes. The ones who cooperated and killed their own countrymans, just to save their own skin are ****ing traitors. |
No, the guy who let himself be turned into an icicle is ****ing stupid, and the people who decided to give themselves a chance at life were a bit higher on the IQ totem pole. It's not as if they were fighting against good in a good vs. evil war, both sides were equally evil (and the Soviets possibly more so).
quote:
One word- American. |
One word - intelligent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd Which is the whole point. If the Nazis had not started to eradicate the population, much of that partisan problem might have disappeared, there might have been much more local support, and Germany could have begun exploiting industrial areas much quicker.
|
1) The eradication of Slavs as nation, was the main goal of their campaign on East. Why do you think they should act diferently?
2) If so, (only hypoteticaly) it wouldn't completely terminate partisan problem for them. Majority of people still would fight against invaders like their always did in the past.
quote:
History, by definition, can't prove or disprove a counterfactual claim. You have to look at the facts at the time period, what would likely have happened, the effect the action would produce, etc. And I think it's reasonably clear that losing Moscow would have been a tremendous blow against the Soviets, possibly enough to knock them out of the war, and definitely enough to cripple their transportation/communication networks. |
They didn't took the Moscow, because they couldn't. They inderstimated their own strengh and understimated Soviet strengh. They couldn't took Moscow, because they didn't have forces for this.
quote:
Over 1 million manning AA guns and various air defenses. Over a million in Italy by the end of the war. 26 divisions in the Balkans after Italy dropped out. 46 divisions in France in June 1944, with more to come. Hundreds of thousands of Luftwaffe personnel. That definitely fits the definition of "millions". |
By the end of the war. Case is closed.
In 1944, perhaps, but I hardly can't see how womens who operated those AA guns could be used on battlefeilds of Eastern front. And in 1944 nothing could stop Red army, the most decisive battles were already won by Soviets. And 3/4 of all fighters is PBS imho.
quote:
Because they were able to decentralize a lot of it, and move much of it underground. But obviously, their production would have been higher without the mass bombing campaign. Doesn't that logically follow? |
Perhaps, but only in case if those bombardments were accurate. Another logical possibility is to say that since their industrial capacity constantly grown- perhaps those bambardments weren't effective?
quote:
Which part, in particular, do you take issue with? And why? |
All, because it's TBS, CBS and PBS
quote:
No, the guy who let himself be turned into an icicle is ****ing stupid, and the people who decided to give themselves a chance at life were a bit higher on the IQ totem pole. It's not as if they were fighting against good in a good vs. evil war, both sides were equally evil (and the Soviets possibly more so). |
To your knowledge Karbyshev was not only a general, also he was an engineer and well educated and very wise man. He was a general of Russian Tzarist army before the revolution, not somekind of poor educated Red carrierist His IQ was a couple of times higher then yours for sure. You are just a f*cker who insult memory of dead heroes David.
And the deeply brainwashed one. Those people fought and died not for the Stalin, they fought and died for their Motherland- the word which is unknown to you.
quote:
One word - intelligent. |
One word-traitor of your own people. ObL could be pleased if majority of Americans is like you, it means he will win.
See you in a week.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:24
|
|
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. |
Sorry Serb, but this is ridiculous.
The A-Bomb was constructed only because of WW2. Before the war, there was little thought about the nuclear fission making weapons of war. It was mostly thought that it was something of science that someday long in the future could help with electricity or whatnot. Without a war, who knows when an A-Bomb would have been made and who would have made it.
As for the space race, German scientists helped both the USSR and USA amazingly. Their work on rocketry provided the technology needed to go into space. Without a WW2, I bet the Germans would have been the first ones in space.
As for industry, the Cold War built up all that was lost in WW2, and it needed rebuilding because a lot of it was antiquated. One of the main problems with the USSR was a lack of replacing old industry with new industry. In capitalist countries that happens easily because of the market. That and the problems with the planned economy (necessarily the problems resulting from the bonus system, and overproduction of some goods and underproduction of others) would not have had the effect on the Soviet economy as you say. I doubt if the USSR would ever have come within 1/2 of the USA's output even without the war (we know that that with the war, the USSR came to around 40% of the US's output).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Sorry Serb, but this is ridiculous.
The A-Bomb was constructed only because of WW2. Before the war, there was little thought about the nuclear fission making weapons of war. It was mostly thought that it was something of science that someday long in the future could help with electricity or whatnot. Without a war, who knows when an A-Bomb would have been made and who would have made it.
|
I don't think it's so ridiculous, because I said this for scenario where there was no Hitler's invasion in USSR in 1941->three sided Cold war.
Considering that SU out-produced Germany even after it lost 40% of its industrial base and millions of people and created a-bamb in 1949, only four years after you, I think it's pretty logical conclusion that in race for a-bomb it could done much better without such loses as German invasion brings. The race would started anyway, was it two sided or three sided Cold war. So, my point- if there was no invasion of 1941 a-bomb research would started anyway and SU would be in better position then it was after invasion.
quote:
As for the space race, German scientists helped both the USSR and USA amazingly. Their work on rocketry provided the technology needed to go into space. Without a WW2, I bet the Germans would have been the first ones in space. |
Using your argument I could say that it's ridiculous too, becuae during WW2 German rocket technology were used for military purposes only. Research was started because of war, continued because of war and without the war they couldn't be in space first because they invested in rocketry only because of war.
quote:
As for industry, the Cold War built up all that was lost in WW2, and it needed rebuilding because a lot of it was antiquated. One of the main problems with the USSR was a lack of replacing old industry with new industry. In capitalist countries that happens easily because of the market. That and the problems with the planned economy (necessarily the problems resulting from the bonus system, and overproduction of some goods and underproduction of others) would not have had the effect on the Soviet economy as you say. I doubt if the USSR would ever have come within 1/2 of the USA's output even without the war (we know that that with the war, the USSR came to around 40% of the US's output). |
Still, SU won space race even considering that country was burned by war and 27 000 000 people died. Without such losses it would be much easier for Soviets do to so. I hope it's obvious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Considering that SU out-produced Germany even after it lost 40% of its industrial base and millions of people and created a-bamb in 1949, only four years after you, I think it's pretty logical conclusion that in race for a-bomb it could done much better without such loses as German invasion brings. |
That's nice, but you wouldn't have had an A-bomb with your espionage program - you basically stole large parts of the research from the US.
quote:
Still, SU won space race even considering that country was burned by war and 27 000 000 people died. Without such losses it would be much easier for Soviets do to so. I hope it's obvious. |
27 million dead isn't as big of an impact as you think. It all has to do with who is left, and unfortunately, y'all got your hands on a large number of German rocket scientists.
I'll post more later.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
Assuming no war in Europe until 1944, then the Soviets might have developed an atom bomb before the US. Without the war, the US government would have had neither the money nor the organization to pursue the Manhatten project. The Soviets however had plenty of potential enemies and enough resources, especially surplus electrical generation, to develop a bomb.
While I'm sure that the Soviets found Fuchs and the Rosenberg's espionage helpful, the fact is that atomic weaponry isn't really that complicated. Provided that you have a sufficiently large amount of fissile material, designing a method to assemble it into a critical mass is a solvable problem.
I doubt, however, that such a hypothetical bomb would be available much before the actual Soviet bomb was completed, without the pressure of war or cold war to push the project.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Assuming no war in Europe until 1944, then the Soviets might have developed an atom bomb before the US |
It would be interesting to see how serious their efforts actually were, prior to the outbreak of war, and even prior to the revelation that the bomb would actually work. Anyone have a source on that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Faboda, Another scenario that makes sense. Germany may have been able to beat the USSR so long ans it does not also have to fight the US and the UK (and vis-a-versa). Everyone says that the war with Russia was inevitable. No one says the same about the war with either the UK or the United States.
Assuming Poland stays neutral between Germany and the USSR, Hitler could have attacked out of Finland, Czechoslovakia and Romania.
Is there a major problem with this from a logistics point of view? |
I think war with the UK/US was quite inevitable, the only reason it hasn't been mentioned as such is because it is taken as a given. In your scenario, you're assuming no attack west, but a straight thrust east. It seems to me that as soon as Hitler made aggressive moves into independent countries (ie:the rest of Czechoslovakia, Romania, USSR), France at least would get involved. Now, you may claim that Hitler had already made aggressive moves, but they had all been diplomatically backed, however faulty you may have seen that be on the allies part. I think an actual mobilization of troops would have sparked France into action. This would necessarily draw Britain in, and so on. However, the war in the west would obvioulsy have taken on a different character, which may have been interesting. Still, Germany would have to have pulled some of its forces west to defend against the attacks, which could prove to be worse for Hitler in the long run, fighting two major fronts from the get go instead of in '44.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
Kontiki, France was not going to do anything without a 100% guarantee from Britain.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
germanos
|
|
behind a firm ****, Rotterdam, NL
Apr 2002
time: 06:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Kontiki, Now, why in the world would France declare war on Germany for attacking the USSR? I assume here that Germany does not attack Poland, and that Finland and Romania are German allies. Slovakia was already occuppied by 1939, IIRC. The USSR was hated by everyone - even more than Hitler. |
Germanies militairy forces were very restricted under the Versaille treaty. Now, Hitler managed to bypass the treaty for some time, but he would not have been able to build up a large enough force to defeat the USSR without that being noticed. While France and the UK may have had some incentive to destroy communism, they had (and HAVE for that matter, see their opposition to German unification in the 90's) historically much more to fear from Germany, and NO WAY they would have allowed for a large German army just with the promise it would only be used against the Soviets.
Let alone the fact that one way of bypassing the Versaille treaty was in fact that Germany and the USSR signed a pact wherein German forces could train in the east, IIRC even on Russian soil. Hitler was well aware that before he could hope to defeat communism, he had to take out the 'Imperialists' first. Don't forget that Nazism could not co-exist together with the large Imperiums that existed to that date. Up to a certain point, both Nazism and Communism had the same ennemies, and both Stalin and Hitler were aware of that. Just as they were aware that their Pact could only last for a limited time: sooner or later they would also stand on opposite sides.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darius871
|
 |
Smith, Wesson, and the RODINA!!!
Mar 2002
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
Your sources are Japanese/based on Japanese propaganda. Feel better now? |
No, because you give me no reason to believe my sources are biased. The assessment was made by an unbiased Western historian in 1985 who looked at unclassified Kwangtung Army reports that no one was ever meant to see. Meanwhile, the ridiculous 61,000 casualties, 20,000 KIA figures are what the USSR CLAIMED that it inflicted. Which of these two sources are you going to trust?
And I quote, directly from the Oxford Companion for Military History, page 474, paragraph 7:
quote:
The USSR admitted 18,500 casualties, and claimed to have inflicted 61,000 |
Since your source's information is identical, I can assume whatever source you speak of is derived from that claim, and therefore unreliable as far as I'm concerned. I've told you what's wrong with your evidence, now tell me what's wrong with mine. 
Btw, I still have yet to see you post your source; you did post them regarding the air war and logistics, but afaik you could be pulling your casualty and KIA figures out of your ass.
quote:
I said lost 61 000 not, "61 000 were KIA"! |
I never said that you said 61,000 died, you apparently assumed I did. 
quote:
Digs into official files of country of rising sun, right? I don't see any other explanation. How the hell in case of devastating defeat, in case when the side that lost battle could have the same loss ratio as country that encircled enemy forces, had total air-superiority and much stronger (both in terms of quality and numbers) tank and artilery units? |
Here's your explanation, because the dazzling victory is a myth shoveled down your throat. The source is unbiased.
quote:
Both sides had about 132 000 soldiers, more then 1000 guns, about 700 tanks, about 800 planes. |
Could I get a source on this too? The book I quoted from above says the following in the same paragraph:
quote:
Zhukov built up a force of 65,000 Soviet and Mongolian forces against 28,000 Japanese and Manchurian troops. |
The Japanese were outnumbered almost 3 to 1 by an enemy that also had complete superiority in armor and better logistical support. Despite this, they still managed to inflict almost equal casualties. Putting two and two together, I find this victory to be very mediocre, and I also contend that it has no bearing on a 1941 invasion, since in that case it would be fought in a different place, with different troops, with more troops, with more planes, with the navy involved, with higher stakes, and of course also fought against a completely different Russia as it was already beleaguered to the west. Apples and oranges, plain and simple.
quote:
if it was true, and kill/loss ratio was acceptable for JIA, they would try to attack SU again, when Soviets were in great troubles. |
quote:
Had Soviets lost (or won with acceptable kill/loss ratio like1:1 like your sources tells), they would be in big troubles in 1941, because in this case Japan would attacked 100%. |
There were NUMEROUS other reasons that they did not attack the SU again, not just analyzing kill ratios in a border skirmish. I see one major pattern in your logic on this and many other subjects: you alway seem to think there is one reason for everything in the world, instead of considering the many other factors involved. Japan would NOT necessarily attacked '100%'; there were other factors that led to their 'go south' decision, oil being the biggest one. Their defeat at Nomonhan was A reason for not attacking Russia in '41, not THE reason. That is my only point, can't you at least agree with that?
quote:
if it was absolutely clear from the beggining that Soviets will win, then WHY Japanese attacked? |
Get your facts straight, they didn't 'attack' the Soviet Union in 1939, and they barely even 'attacked' Mongolia. They advanced to occupy the disputed terrain between the Soviet-claimed border to the Khalkin-Gol river (which the Japanese claimed as the border) in late May and ended the dispute, or so they thought.
On August 19, a full three months later, the Soviets attacked the Japanese troops in the disputed region, and won the victory known as Nomonhan. The Japanese were NOT conquering Mongolia and they most certainly were NOT attacking the Soviet Union. They occupied a heavily disputed border region and were subsequently pushed out.
At any rate, a second and simpler answer to your question could be that the Japanese Imperial Staff were miscalculating morons, which describes virtually all of their involvement in World War II.
quote:
In accordance with doctrines of that time, attacking side should have at least tree times more forces then defensive side. |
Are you joking? Ever heard of a little thing called BARBAROSSA? The Germans were horribly outnumbered, but they had quality over quantity and inflicted hugely disproportionate casualties, as David has repeatedly pointed out.
quote:
Example of pure propaganda is both Soviet and Japanese claims made in 1940:
Soviet "Izvestya": Japan lost 660 planes, USSR lost 143.
Japanese "Domoy Tsusin" (Sp?): Japan lost 138 planes, USSR lost 1370. |
Exactly what I meant; that is why I decided to not use any purely Soviet OR Japanese sources. Meanwhile, you are accepting Soviet claims as fact, without hesitating for a moment that the USSR might have lied. They certainly don't have much of a reputation for full disclosure. 
quote:
1) it wasn't a draw in terms of man-to-man ratios. |
According to your biased source.
Last edited by Darius871 on 08-12-2002 at 15:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Silpy
|
|
The USA's European Colony
Sep 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
There is a few things which could of swung it in his favour:
1938. Start full mobalisation, consription and rationing. (Really didnt start until 1942)
1939. Building only U-boats instead of new ships. Could of built so many more.
1940. Avoid invading Norway. Too much of a drain for the Army to defend.
.Destroy the British armies at Dunkurk. Destroy a large portion of the British Army.
. When bombing the UK, aim at first at the radar towers. The RAF is now blind.
.Get Franco to occupy Gibraltar. Block the Med to the RN.
.Invade the UK, but soon as you win, leave with generous (to the UK) treaty. UK now freindly.
1941. Dont invade Russia.
. If you have to invade Russia, put your policy as a anti-imperalist (appeal to the Ukranians, and other minorites) anti-Stalin liberation (appeal to most Russians)
. Go straght to Moscow before the Winter.
. Dissasoate youreslf from Japan.
. Knock out Malta. Goodbye annoying outpost.
1942. Forget Africa. Too far away.
I beleve, if only some of these were implemented, Germeny would of won ( or at least, suvived longer )
Date is when it should of been implemented.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mandarin
|
|
Quite frankly who the hell cares besides some nazi sympathisers and rabid anti-semites.
Any rational sane human being wouldnt even begin to envision a world under Hitlerism.
The thought alone is an anathema to me...thank g-d the allies did smash his (Deutschland ) skull long its length and breadth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Kontiki, Now, why in the world would France declare war on Germany for attacking the USSR? I assume here that Germany does not attack Poland, and that Finland and Romania are German allies. Slovakia was already occuppied by 1939, IIRC. The USSR was hated by everyone - even more than Hitler. |
I think you are vastly underestimating the hatred the French had for the Germans, stemming back to the Franco-Prussian war (and most likely before). Keep in mind, it was the French who marched troops into the Rhineland in attempts to ensure payback. Also, you seem to think that there were no limits to how far Britain and France would let Germany go just because of appeasement. You're right about the USSR not being popular, but France and Germany weren't that stupid. Germany was a much more real and proximate threat to them both, and the possibility of adding the vast potential of the Soviet Union to Germany's industrial might would have been unacceptable. Had Germany struck east, there's no doubt in my mind that France would have seized the opportunity (granted, with British support) to attack Germany's western flank.
The bottom line is, both Britain and France wanted to avoid war, but they wouldn't have just sat around and done nothing. There was a reason that there was a massive arms race leading up to WWII.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-12-2002 12:41
|