Ways Germany could have won WWII

[Serb]

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.

- 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.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think at the time Hitler sneak attacked, Stalin was doing a semi-Cold War. He thought (reasonably) that Hitler would not attack the USSR while Britain and the US was in the war.

Of course, what he didn't know was that Hitler was afraid of the US's industrial power but thought Japan would contain the US, and while that was going on, he could conclude the war against Britain and the USSR. We should be thankful that Hitler was an idiot, or else maybe Britain would have fallen.

Abso... ...me? agreed with you? No, it can't be

[Urban Ranger]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[HAND]

The one mistake made by Germany, that stands out clearly is Stalingrad. They lost a quarter of their equipment and men on the eastern front, just in Stalingrad! 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.

Operation Sealion would not have succeeded and Hitler knew it, even with air supremacy. He wanted peace with Britain, and Sealion was the attempt to scare Churchill into signing a peace treaty.

The invasion force would have needed secure lines of supply across the Channel, and the Royal Navy being at least 10 times stronger than the German navy could have easliy cut off the invasion force and destroyed the german fleet too. U-boats could have caused some damage but the size of the Royal Navy would of taken its toll on the U-boats. This meant a lot more convoys getting through to Britain from the US and the world.

Hitler knew all this and given his objectives in the east, Sealion was a needless risk.

[HAND]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I'm surprised no one stated "Germany and Japan realize their cryptological codes were comprimised". In doing so they would have been able to reverse the incredible strokes of 'good fortune' the allies had in eliminating the naval threat as well as understanding land threats.

Yes a VERY important point...the allies pretty much knew everything the Germans were planning, from the bombing of Coventry to the attack at Kursk.....so what happened with the Battle of the Bulge?

[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]

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.

[HAND]

Originally posted by 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?

I think anytime before Stalingrad or declaring war on the US, Hitler had a chance of having things his way if he wanted to make peace...after?..well...

[Ozz]

The turning point was when the Russian people realized
the Germans were'nt going to liberate them from Stalin, but exterminate them.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by HAND


Yes a VERY important point...the allies pretty much knew everything the Germans were planning, from the bombing of Coventry to the attack at Kursk.....so what happened with the Battle of the Bulge?

My guess is most communications in the western front weren't radio based especially for strategic planning purposes were carried on through phone wires or meetings in Berlin. B.o.B. was one instance where the allies were certainly caught unawares.

No argueing tho the effect of the codes being broken on the Naval aspects of the war on both the Pacific, Atlantic, and Mediterranean theatres.

Without those codes being compromised the whole impact the US had wrt Lend Lease, ability to get troops to England, able to consider Japan as a minor thetre without having to commit serious resources would have been substantial. I would argue that the US would have had to commit so many resources to the Pacific theatre that the Western front would not have happened thereby allowing Germany to realistically face Russia alone.

[Darius871]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not sure, information at hand indicated the IJA suffered 20,000 deaths alone.

SOURCE??????

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.

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.

[Ned]

Actually, even if Russia is defeated, whenever, Germany still may not win after having declared war on the United States. As I said before, what would then happen would be a prolong struggle for air supremacy over England and for dominance of the Atlantic. Germany would lose that struggle unless it developed jets much sooner.

I was just reading a little history on the development of the jet airplane. The Germans were way ahead of England and the US. The Germans had swept wing designs, for example, that permitted high speeds. They also had pressurized cabins. The Allied designs still used straight wings and for this reason were much slower.

In other words, German jet bombers would be able to fly higher and outrun any Allied jet fighter for a very long time.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Serb

Vlasov's army? Ten... perhaps twenty thousands...but one million? I will not buy it.

I'm not suprised that You, in Russia, don't know the truth about it; it is a reason to be ashamed, and no-one in authoritarian state wishes to spread uncomfortable news.
1mln must be compared to much bigger number of Russian prisoners.

[Serb]

I,m not surprised that you, in Poland always trying to portray Russia as worse as possible. One million, my ass. If this were true it means 1/5 of nazi army consisted of Russian POW- which I consider not just as simle exaggeration, but pure bull**** and complete lie.
This source tells about 45 000 soldiers in Vlasov's army.

http://komanda.narod.ru/vlasov.html

Again, where did you get this million or like Darius871 like to say- "SOURCE?"

1mln must be compared to much bigger number of Russian prisoners.

4mlns out of 6mlns of Soviets pow died in nazi death camps, because of starvation and executions. Everyday 6 000 of captured Soviets soldiers died in death camps. Compare it with 2% death rate among American or French prisoners and you'll see why some of those people decided to join Vlasov. Hit: to save their skin. They are traitors anyway and always considered as traitors so, I don't see what are you trying to prove...let me guess...that Soviets were nazi freinds and brothers in arms?

[David Floyd]

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.