Ways Germany could have won WWII

[Zero]

too lazy to read the whole enitire thread.

Was the importance Japan not attacking US if it had not been embargoed oil been discussed already? Germany probably would have won. Alot of important Axis decision was made based on availabilty of oil.....

[David Floyd]

Hit: to save their skin. They are traitors anyway and always considered as traitors

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.

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

[Serb]

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.

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.

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.

Source?

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

David, a couple of short comments because we always talking about the same and none of us will never convince another.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

[Zero]

I see i chimed in at the wrong time. when people are having one of those huge debate/arguements.

[Serb]

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.

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.

[Jaakko]

Serb is a classic armchair warrior - expecting "glorious" self sacrifice from others when all he's ever had to do is post messages on the Internet.

[David Floyd]

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.

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.

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".

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?

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?

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).

One word- American.

One word - intelligent.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Jaakko
Serb is a classic armchair warrior - expecting "glorious" self sacrifice from others when all he's ever had to do is post messages on the Internet.

He asked what else they could do in such situation, I answered that some people prefered to die unbroken, but do not help enemy. Perhaps you want to deny this?

Yeah, keep bashing me, because you right, fortunately I've never been in such situation. But what I've said it isn't just mho, also it's opinion of my grandfather who meet those guys on battlefield and have experience of fighting vs those traitors. He call them "****!ng traitors". And I'm absolutely agreed with him because those guys start to kill their own countrymans just to save their own skins. I don't know other words for such behaviour and I don't see why should trust to my grandfather less then American andf Finnish preachers and revisionists.
Have a nice day.

[Serb]

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.

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.

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.

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?

Which part, in particular, do you take issue with? And why?

All, because it's TBS, CBS and PBS

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

[Faboba]

Doing away with Hitler wouldn't have helped much; to a reasonable extent the unity of the reich and her wehrmach was dependant on its fuhrer.

By the same token you cannot really turn round and say the war with the USSR was the 'big mistake' because it was a war with the USSR which had always been the big dream of the nazis. They spoke of expanding eastward, enslaving slavs and were infinitely anti-communist. If you don't attack the USSR as Nazi Germany or 'cut the anti-commie rhetoric' then you aren't really being true to yourself. The war with Russia was always going to come sooner or later... when the war with the rest of Western Europe had begun the leaders of Germany realised this was 'now-or-never' when it came to attacking Russia given the unexpected speed of Soviet arms production.

No... the key was Poland. If the UK hadn't garunteed the sovreignty of Poland the war, as I see it would have gone very much more in Germany's favour so long as they did not attack the UK, France or the US. A German war with the USSR would possibly have decreased anti-fascist sentiment in UK government as the call would have been for a war against communism.

Eventually Hitler would have tried ( quite rightly in the latter case ) for the return of Alsace/Lorraine and South Tyrol but otherwise would have kept to a mostly eastern expansion pattern as was the plan all along.

I agree with what was said about severing ties with the Japanese though. I suppose which might have been the best option was to wait until the attack on Pearl Harbour and then to break them. The last thing the Nazi leaders wanted was a war with America or indeed with Britain and her Empire which Hitler is often been said to have greatly admired.

[Jaakko]

Serb, I can live with you calling me a preacher, but what exactly makes me a revisionist?