sad thoughts on poly posters

[David Floyd]

Actually, Moscow would have fallen in 1941 anyway if Hitler had allowed his generals to go after Moscow, which every single one of them except for Jodl (who was Hitler's ***** anyway) wanted to do, rather than wasting time in the Ukraine. It almost fell as things were - 700,000 of the last 800,000 Russian defenders were wiped out during Operation Typhoon before the Wehrmact ground to a halt almost within site of Moscow.

[nationalist]

My guess is that Japanese tactics would have changed as a result of initial Nazi-Soviet fighting. Plus, if the Japs weren't fighting the U.S., they wouldn't have had nearly as much of a drain on their man power. The Japanese High Command didn't really want Nomonhan. What would have happened if they would have turned the full of their strength in an attack on the Soviets? What would have happened if they would have had an entire army instead of a division? I think that the Japanese could have taken out the Soviets in this situation.

[notyoueither]

Yes. And if the Soviets had been fighting alone, such considerations of Hitler's lack of focus would have been that much less relevant.

[David Floyd]

My guess is that Japanese tactics would have changed as a result of initial Nazi-Soviet fighting.

On what do you base this?

Plus, if the Japs weren't fighting the U.S., they wouldn't have had nearly as much of a drain on their man power.

True, but most of the drain was to China.

The Japanese High Command didn't really want Nomonhan.

They didn't want a defeat, but they certainly wanted Russia - before Pearl Harbor, the IJA really wanted another crack at Siberia.

What would have happened if they would have turned the full of their strength in an attack on the Soviets?

The Soviets would have drawn them into Siberia, stretched them out, and then cut them off with their armor. Even the T-26, which was a piece of ****, was still better than anything the Japanese played around with.

What would have happened if they would have had an entire army instead of a division? I think that the Japanese could have taken out the Soviets in this situation.

Again, what are you basing this on? Historical evidence points the other way.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by nationalist
If the U.S. was not involved in WW2, the Japanese would have been free to attack the U.S.S.R. form the East. The Soviets would have been crushed between two superior forces. A war between the Nazis and Soviets would have been much closer, especially if the Nazis had managed to defeat the Brits before attacking. The Nazis had the peoples and industry of Western Europe under their control. Given an oppurtunity to truly marshal their potential powers, I think that the Nazis would have prevailed over the Soviets. Then it would have been America's turn to be crushed, whether it wanted to fight or not. Hitler always envisioned the final struggle to be between the U.S. and Germany for the mastery of the world.

The Japanese didn't want to attack the SU. It wasn't part of their ideas for expansion, which involved nabbing the entire Pacific Ocean for themselves. They were rightly scared of the Soviets who, unlike all the other Allies save Australia+NZ had to operate from naval bases and with severely stretched supply lines.

There was nothing for the Japanese in the SU. All they wanted was security along that frontier, which the Soviets were happy to provide.

[David Floyd]

The Japanese didn't want to attack the SU.

Actually many elements in the Army definitely wanted a piece of the SU. They lost face at Nomonhan.

[KrazyHorse]

a) They would have been thoroughly ****ed if they attempted it.

b) The Japanese had no chance against the SU on the SU's soil, and they knew it. Whatever the bluster, they knew it.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by David Floyd

On what do you base this?

I think if they would have coordinated an attack after the Nazis had begun theirs, the Japanese could have learned from Nazi mistakes. They also would have had more of an oppurtunity to update their technology.

Again, what are you basing this on? Historical evidence points the other way.

I'm just basing this on the fact that they would have had a larger number of people concentrated on attacking an enemy who was already at war with another enemy. Maybe the Soviets could have stretched the Japs out in Siberia, but would the effort have cost the Soviets enough to ensure Nazi victory in the west? How much of their forces could the Soviets have diverted if Japan was fully mobolized to invade them from the east? That is what I am referring to when I write about having armies instead of divisions.

[David Floyd]

Well, that's what I'm trying to tell notyoueither.

[KrazyHorse]

I know. And I've actually stated that the Americans, IMO, made the difference (okay, the only real contribution) in the Pacific campaign. Without them, China, Korea, SE Asia etc. would have been stuck with the Japanese as overlords for quite a while...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, that's what I'm trying to tell notyoueither.

I'm not saying anything about the Japanese. They were not relevant in the equation. Way too much of a wild if chase.

[David Floyd]

Certainly - even in 1944, the Japanese were making advances in areas of China. The Chinese really had no ability to stop the Japanese militarily.

[Ned]

Jimmytrick, Just let me say that I agree with your post. The world is the way it is today largely due to America. To the greatest extent, we were acting selflessly. We really didn't have to get involved in either WWI or WWII. Nor did we have to leave our troops in Europe to defend against the USSR. The threat in all three cases was against France and the UK, or in the case of WWII, China. No one was threatening the United States.

SD, you said we got involved in WWII because it was in our interests. However, prior to Pearl Harbor, there was a lot of debate in the US about whether or not we should get involved. Many did not see that American interests were clearly at stake.

So, SG, or anyone else, what American interests were at stake?

[GeneralTacticus]

Certainly - even in 1944, the Japanese were making advances in areas of China. The Chinese really had no ability to stop the Japanese militarily.

They might have, actually. The only thing getting in the way was the absolute idiocy of Chiang Kai-Shek.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned
So, SG, or anyone else, what American interests were at stake?

The interest of defeating an enemy who threatened the US, and had taken action against the US.

It would not have been in Americas interest to have a Fascist Europe and Asia.

Incidentally I think France and Britain acted out of self-interest. I'm under no illusions of "saving democracy", neither should anyone else be.

If the Germans had been solely intent on the USSR and if the USSR had not received the aid they did, there is no question that either Moscow would have fallen in 1941 or the Volga line lost in 1942. Either case would have meant the end for the ability of the Soviets to ever 'win' the war by themselves

So if the Western Allies had given less help to the USSR then Eastern Europe would never have fallen under Soviet domination?