History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedNazi-Japanese relation...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
snowybeagle View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Singapore
Status: Offline
Points: 447
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote snowybeagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 06:16
Originally posted by pekau pekau wrote:

Why did they bother to sign nonaggression pact between Empire of Japan and Nazi Germany? None of them would gain anything, since they are so far away from each other. I understand nonaggression pact with Soviets, but why with Japanese?
German military and civil industry would need vast amounts of vital raw materials such as tin and rubber, and during that era, the main supply is from Asia.
 
Hence, Germany would need a reliable ally in that region because in anticipation of hostilities with other European powers, especially European powers who were also major colonial powers in Asia.
 
Until the pact with Japan, Germany was actually pursuing close relationship with Chiang KaiShek's China, providing much assistance in return for crucial natural resources such as tungsten and antimony.
 
 
In fact, German experts such as Alexander von Falkenhausen advised KMT China on the war against Japan.
 
The ultimate shift from pro-China to pro-Japan by Hitler was due to
(1) Japan was judged to be a more capable ally against Bolshevism (and the USSR).
(2) Sino-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact signed in 1937.


Edited by snowybeagle - 11-Jan-2008 at 06:17
Back to Top
Sun Tzu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 362
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sun Tzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 13:11

To me their alliance was a WTF!!... ok they had similar fascist autocratic views, but what Japan did that eventful day of December 7 1941 sealed Germany's fate in WWII by awaking a giant.

Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 16:10
Originally posted by Sun Tzu Sun Tzu wrote:

To me their alliance was a WTF!!... ok they had similar fascist autocratic views, but what Japan did that eventful day of December 7 1941 sealed Germany's fate in WWII by awaking a giant.
 
I agree.  The giant, however, may have awoken anyways.   The United States was not going to let Germany dominate Europe, especially if there was still active resistance to Germany (U.K, and USSR) and war situation meant that the USSR would suffer most of the casualties.
 
In short, the United States may well have used an excuse to declare war on Germany, even if Pear Harbor never happened.
Back to Top
CatalŠn View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jan-2008
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 185
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CatalŠn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 16:10
Originally posted by pekau pekau wrote:

 I don't think Germans were seriously thinking about Japanese support when they move into Russia. The best thing they could do is to bomb Port Arthur and freeze Russian fleet in the Asian bodies of water, but I don't see how that would help out the Germans.
 
In 1941, some of the best of Japan's troops were in Manchuria.  Even assuming that the Japanese wouldn't have advanced very far into the Soviet Union, a Japanese invasion of the eastern portion of the Soviet Union would have tied down hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers.  In late 1941, the Soviet Union was able to recompose its army after the disastrous losses between June and September of that year due to Japanese inactivity in the East (and ultimately, a non-agression pact between the two nations) - dozens of thousands of soldiers were transferred from the East to the West, where they were pitted against the Germans in the Moscow theater.  These troops had an enormous impact on the Red Army's ability to reconstruct to not only defeat the Germans at Moscow (which was sort of inevitable, given that the Germans had reached the end of their logistical supply line and were lacking reinforcements to replace tremendous losses in men and material; according to David M. Glantz, some of the spearhead armor divisions were down to 8 tanks by November 1941) but to succeed in pushing German forces farter away from the Volga in the Winter of 1941-1942.
 
Quote Most of the Japanese land forces were policing China,
 
I think most Japanese units in Manchuria were actually inactive.  Some of them were transferred to the Pacific, when Japan found itself in peril of being defeated by the United States.
 
Quote and Japanese generals would be reluctant about invasion against Russians.
 
This was a wild card the Germans didn't know about.  The Japanese defeat at Khalkin Gol in 1939 had a massive impact on Japan's willingness to invade the Soviet Union in tandem with the Germans.
 
-------------------
 
Interestingly, I read in Serga magazine (a Spanish publication) that the Japanese were supplied a number of Me-109 fighters but decided not to purchase more models when they found it inferior to their Zero.  It should also be noted that the Germans sold the Chinese a number of Panzer I light tanks in 1937 - or abouts - which were captured by the Japanese at Shanghai.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 21:58
Originally posted by CatalŠn CatalŠn wrote:

In late 1941, the Soviet Union was able to recompose its army after the disastrous losses between June and September of that year due to Japanese inactivity in the East (and ultimately, a non-agression pact between the two nations) - dozens of thousands of soldiers were transferred from the East to the West, where they were pitted against the Germans in the Moscow theater. 


the reason why the Soviets were able to remove their forces from the Manchurian border was because they knew japan would not attack. because of this man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge

 
Quote Interestingly, I read in Serga magazine (a Spanish publication) that the Japanese were supplied a number of Me-109 fighters but decided not to purchase more models when they found it inferior to their Zero. 


both aircraft are not comparable. the Zero is a naval fighter (carrier-borne) and the Bf 109 is an land based fighter. there are different recquirements for carrier-born aircraft than landbased fighters.
Back to Top
TBF View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 17-Dec-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TBF Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Dec-2008 at 16:22

I believe the main reason why Japan entered the war was the fact, that they were fed up with the Europeans and the Americans and their influence on Asia and on Japan.Their society was overwelmed by western culture and it was hurting historical Japanese values , such as bushido.And as a European I have no problem admiting that we sometimes look like a bunch of adolescent drunks compared to the Japanese people.They basically had plans with the rest of Asia and someone was in their way so it was only natural for them to  join Germany becouse they had common enemies.The ideology was totally different dough.

Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Dec-2008 at 17:44
Originally posted by Sun Tzu Sun Tzu wrote:

To me their alliance was a WTF!!... ok they had similar fascist autocratic views, but what Japan did that eventful day of December 7 1941 sealed Germany's fate in WWII by awaking a giant.

Germany's fate was already sealed: US material support for Britain and Russia already spelled the end for Germany. Declaring war on the US merely allowed Germany to target American shipping along the whole route from New York to Bristol. At the time, American military power - at least in the Atlantic - was inconsequential, the problem was their industrial capacity and whether it was the Americans or somebody else arming themselves with it, the result is the same, German defeat. Going to war with them simply meant that there was a greater possibility of cutting the flow more substantially, not only that, but alot of force had to be diverted to protect shipping in the tropical Atlantic, to escort ships in American waters, and so on.

Back to Top
Sun Tzu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 362
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sun Tzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 05:23
But without American support military wise not supplies, the war would have lasted a few more years and with only Britain on the Western front and Africa. Britain was actually losing Africa thanks to Rommel and if the Americans never landed in Morroco The Germans would have eventually secrued a fuel supply. Britain would have never had enough man-power to invade both Italy and France so Germany would be fighting a one front war in which it probably would win. By the the time the Americans finally decided to go to war Germany might have had an advantage of 1 to 2 years. By the way, although most Americans favored the Allies, most of them really didn't want America in another European conflict.
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 07:10

Originally posted by Sun Tzu Sun Tzu wrote:

But without American support military wise not supplies, the war would have lasted a few more years and with only Britain on the Western front and Africa. Britain was actually losing Africa thanks to Rommel and if the Americans never landed in Morroco The Germans would have eventually secrued a fuel supply.

I don't think so. After the Second Battle of El Alamein - which involved no American forces - the Germans were on the run. The British captured Tripoli, after that it was just a matter of time.

Quote Britain would have never had enough man-power to invade both Italy and France so Germany would be fighting a one front war in which it probably would win.

Britain had a vast pool of manpower which was only barely utilized, in its colonies. Many Egyptians and Indians fought in the Asian and African theater, but for various reasons (chiefly a lack of shipping) not in Europe. 

Likewise, the Soviet Union had far more manpower reserves than Germany did. In a war of attrition, Germany definately loses. It was a nation of only 70 million - the UK and Russia alone, apart from any colonies at all, held close to 250 million. Throw in India, Egypt, Canada, etc and the number rises to close to 1 billion.

In terms of manpower, Germany was vastly outmatched. Their only hope was to starve enemy industry, or at least, prevent it from being brought to bear.

In hindsight, American manpower definately accelerated German defeat, but that's in hindsight. In 1941 there was nothing apparent about this at all. In some ways, late 1941 and early 1942 was a dark time for the Allies - the Japanese had a string of decisive victories in the Pacific (Hong Kong and the Phillipines fell, among other things), Atlantic shipping losses rose to unprecedented levels, and the Allied probing of German defenses at Dieppe was a disaster. 

Quote By the the time the Americans finally decided to go to war Germany

The Americans didn't decide to go to war with Germany. Germany declared war on the US, and it was the first to attack as well (Operation Drumroll).



Edited by edgewaters - 18-Dec-2008 at 07:33
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2009 at 20:12
 
Japan is the only country on earth allows its citizens " cosplay " Nazi in public  Shocked
Back to Top
rishubhav View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 21-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rishubhav Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 16:30
But had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor, would they have ended up in war with America anyway? Or would FDR have wanted to go after Germany instead?
Back to Top
shugo View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Mar-2009
Location: groningen
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote shugo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Mar-2009 at 17:40
answer: trade in resources such as uranium.
 
Just because you are far apart, doesn't mean you can't trade overseas and a NAP defenitely helps to smooth things over.


Edited by shugo - 28-Mar-2009 at 17:43
Back to Top
shugo View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Mar-2009
Location: groningen
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote shugo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Mar-2009 at 18:07
Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

Originally posted by Sun Tzu Sun Tzu wrote:

But without American support military wise not supplies, the war would have lasted a few more years and with only Britain on the Western front and Africa. Britain was actually losing Africa thanks to Rommel and if the Americans never landed in Morroco The Germans would have eventually secrued a fuel supply.

I don't think so. After the Second Battle of El Alamein - which involved no American forces - the Germans were on the run. The British captured Tripoli, after that it was just a matter of time.

Quote Britain would have never had enough man-power to invade both Italy and France so Germany would be fighting a one front war in which it probably would win.

Britain had a vast pool of manpower which was only barely utilized, in its colonies. Many Egyptians and Indians fought in the Asian and African theater, but for various reasons (chiefly a lack of shipping) not in Europe. 

Likewise, the Soviet Union had far more manpower reserves than Germany did. In a war of attrition, Germany definately loses. It was a nation of only 70 million - the UK and Russia alone, apart from any colonies at all, held close to 250 million. Throw in India, Egypt, Canada, etc and the number rises to close to 1 billion.

In terms of manpower, Germany was vastly outmatched. Their only hope was to starve enemy industry, or at least, prevent it from being brought to bear.

In hindsight, American manpower definately accelerated German defeat, but that's in hindsight. In 1941 there was nothing apparent about this at all. In some ways, late 1941 and early 1942 was a dark time for the Allies - the Japanese had a string of decisive victories in the Pacific (Hong Kong and the Phillipines fell, among other things), Atlantic shipping losses rose to unprecedented levels, and the Allied probing of German defenses at Dieppe was a disaster. 

Quote By the the time the Americans finally decided to go to war Germany

The Americans didn't decide to go to war with Germany. Germany declared war on the US, and it was the first to attack as well (Operation Drumroll).

 
that entire post is so wrong on so many levels that i don't even know where to begin.
 
1. You forget Romania, Hungary and Italy (granted not the best of the axis, but still there).
2. Turkey and Spain where neutral which hampers you in where you can fight.
3. Just because the British held the indian subcontinent does not mean you have access to that manpower. You have to transport that labor and they also have to be willing to fight and do I really need to remind you when India became independent? Do you really think people like Ghandi were eager to war? (think again silly)
4. Germany declared formal war first yes, that is true, but you forget the fact that FDR pushed Hitler towards formally declaring war on the United States. Had FDR not done so, then Hitler most likely wouldn't have bothered declaring in the first place, which  most likely would have meant that Roosevelt would not have had the necessary support in congress to ratify the declaration of war on Germany. You really should read about the events that took place between 7th and 11th (i.e. in between the attack on Pearl Harbor and actual formal declaration of war that was ratified by congress), particularly look how FDR and his administration played Hitler and the German ambassadors to get the required response from Hitler, that FDR needed in order to get enough support in congress.
5. England was virtually bankrupt at the end of the war
6. Russia's military lacked sufficient officers (most of them died at the hands of Stalin)
7. there were large portions of eastern europe that hated Stalin as much as Hitler
8. the middle east and the caucasus were important because of oil. Suppose Turkey (an ally of Germany in WW1 joined in the fight, they were neutral in WW2 yes, but they certainly were not patiently waiting, the country itself was a hotly contested terrain of spies for the both the axis and the allies). No oil means you don't have fuel for your tanks and airplanes.
9. El Alamein was a relapse, because Rommel overextended his supplylines (which was because Malta was still in British hands). Had the Amercians not landed in Africa with capable generals such as Patton, then in time the british would have eventually lost Egypt. And what is the western neigbbour of Egypt, other then Palestine? Right its Saudi Arabia. That would have meant certain defeat for the allies if they had lost Egypt.
 
Without American support the war would not have lasted longer, it would have ended in a victory for the axis (Roosevelt realized this). The American presence, its industrial might and FDR's keen mind is what tipped the balance in favor of the allies. FDR knew he had to what he had to because it was in his country's interest to do so, its the world's blessing that those interests just happened to be favorable to both the United States and the world. 


Edited by shugo - 28-Mar-2009 at 18:32
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 154
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Mar-2009 at 21:18

Originally posted by shugo shugo wrote:

1. You forget Romania, Hungary and Italy (granted not the best of the axis, but still there).

Which doesn't come close to making up the disparity.

Originally posted by shugo shugo wrote:

2. Turkey and Spain where neutral which hampers you in where you can fight.

Who exactly was planning to invade either of those countries?

Originally posted by shugo shugo wrote:

3. Just because the British held the indian subcontinent does not mean you have access to that manpower. You have to transport that labor and they also have to be willing to fight and do I really need to remind you when India became independent? Do you really think people like Ghandi were eager to war? (think again silly)

While Gandhi wasn't eager to go to war, he did support the British war effort. Many Indians hoped that, by proving their courage and goodwill towards Britain through service, they would be in a strong bargaining position when they demanded independence after the war. And they were probably right.

Originally posted by shugo shugo wrote:

4. Germany declared formal war first yes, that is true, but you forget the fact that FDR pushed Hitler towards formally declaring war on the United States. Had FDR not done so, then Hitler most likely wouldn't have bothered declaring in the first place, which most likely would have meant that Roosevelt would not have had the necessary support in congress to ratify the declaration of war on Germany. You really should read about the events that took place between 7th and 11th (i.e. in between the attack on Pearl Harbor and actual formal declaration of war that was ratified by congress), particularly look how FDR and his administration played Hitler and the German ambassadors to get the required response from Hitler, that FDR needed in order to get enough support in congress.

Please do elaborate on how FDR tricked Hitler into declaring war on the US.

Originally posted by shugo shugo wrote:

5. England was virtually bankrupt at the end of the war

Almost everyone was. Normal economics didn't really apply during the war, though.

Originally posted by shugo shugo wrote:

6. Russia's military lacked sufficient officers (most of them died at the hands of Stalin)

And yet, the Russians won.

Originally posted by shugo shugo wrote:

7. there were large portions of eastern europe that hated Stalin as much as Hitler

And yet, the Russians won.

Originally posted by shugo shugo wrote:

8. the middle east and the caucasus were important because of oil. Suppose Turkey (an ally of Germany in WW1 joined in the fight, they were neutral in WW2 yes, but they certainly were not patiently waiting, the country itself was a hotly contested terrain of spies for the both the axis and the allies). No oil means you don't have fuel for your tanks and airplanes.

Lack of oil was Germany's problem, not Britain's - and certainly not the USSR's. As for Turkey, during WWII it was still recovering from the experience of WWI, and its leaders were hardly looking to try their chances again. They don't seem to have been swayed very far in either direction by the machinations of spy rings in their midst.

Originally posted by shugo shugo wrote:

9. El Alamein was a relapse, because Rommel overextended his supplylines (which was because Malta was still in British hands). Had the Amercians not landed in Africa with capable generals such as Patton, then in time the british would have eventually lost Egypt. And what is the western neigbbour of Egypt, other then Palestine? Right its Saudi Arabia. That would have meant certain defeat for the allies if they had lost Egypt.

After El Alamein Rommel's forces were spent. He was left with no more than a couple of dozen tanks, and was at least a divine intervention away from ever conquering Egypt.

And what does it say about Germany's capabilities in the Mediterranean theatre that they were never able to neutralize Malta?

Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Mar-2009 at 22:09
Gandhi initially wasn't willing to fight but the Viceroy promised to make India independent if the help Britian in ww2 and so it happened. nevertheless, 60% of the "Indian" soldiers were Muslims which means that most of them were future Pakistanis and shows that next to no future indians fought in ww2 in regards to the overall population.

that Stalin had killed all his officers is a popular myth. yes those purges occured. however, he only purged mostly what could be called Old Guard and secondly some of the Generals in Gulags were reactivated to meet Barbarossa.

Originally posted by Bernard Woolley Bernard Woolley wrote:

Who exactly was planning to invade either of those countries?


as for Germany, Hitler proposed to Franco to invade Gibraltar together. as for Turkey, in 1941 an unknown Turkish General visited Hitler in his Wolfsschanze but apparently without result. later on Hitler had fantasies of conquering India via Turkey and Iran but this was neither a serious considderation.
Back to Top
shugo View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Mar-2009
Location: groningen
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote shugo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2009 at 00:25
1. count india out in it will. Italy back then had a pretty big population. Obviously you do not have a good understanding of demographics.
 
2. you don't get it, it hampers you were you can fight. This response tells me  you have 0 strategic insight, so it will be a difficult task for me to try and explain it to you. I'll start off if I were you about reading about the bombing campaign the Americans made on Romania. If you still don't get it after that, then I won't even bother explaining it to you, because it is kind of like teaching a dyslexic how to read. (sorry nothing personal)
 
3. Firstly Ghandi would not have cared, why partake in the first place, if the Germans are keeping the Brits (their occupiers busy). Second you are wrongly asuming pacifists will fight. Ghandi was a pacifist, he would not have fought. But OK we can agree to disagree about that. Thirdly you are wrongly asuming that they would even have dared to fight, if they saw the lack of American presence and knowing full wel the losses that Britain and its allies suffered. Ghandi may not have had the best strategic insight either, but at least he had better insight then even you appear to be showing with that response.
 
4. I already told you to read about the events from 7th to 11th (do that first please, one mod already mistook the nuance in another thread and English isn't my native tongue sorry). Combine that with about knowledge of Hitler's psyche and all will be explained.
 
5. that is simply not true
 
6. they won because the United States entered in the war, the allies (i.e. without the U.S.) would have lost the war otherwise.
 
7. see 6. again if you say this then I remind you of 2.
 
8. it would have been both England and Russia's problem if the U.S. had not entered the war. Rommel realized and knew this, which is why he tried so hard to defeat the British in Africa before the Americans finally entered the war (because he gambled on it that they would land in Africa and he was proofen right in that). Remember the Germans had better tanks (the tracks problem), while the British got resupplies, those resupplies would never have gotten there in the first place had the Americans not entered the war. Had the Americans not entered in the war, he would have had enough time to knock Malta out of his side. Knock out britain's oil supply (and that would have happened had they lost Egypt) and their reserve was incredibly low in 1942 anyway (only 2 months reserve), then their airforce would have been grounded, that would have meant gameover for the British in the Battle for  Britain and that also meant they would no longer have  been able to bomb germany's ruhr area, which would have meant further resupplies for Rommel (and remember American forces were also present in the early air raids, its their airplanes which tipped the balance in favor of the british and bought them time they needed to build more planes to replace losses). Combine this with encroachement of the Japanese on Russian soil (as remember we're talking no agreement and no southern strike and no pearl harbor, since that's the things to keep the Americans out of the war), then Russia would not have been able to relocate their industries to a safe location, which is the primary reason why the Russians won (they could resupply their troops while the Germans could not as their industries were getting bombed). If you think that's not possible for  the Japanese then think again. A good example is to look at what the Czechs did in the Russian civil war (the Lenin years), if you're not  familiar with it, then look it up. With focused effort and resupplies the Germans would have taken away or at least disrupted the oilsupplies in the kaukasus, thus disabling Russia to fight back. Again if you combine that with encroachement of the Japanese, then it would have left Russia with a rumpstate, of parts of  the ural mountains (a largely mining district for ores and remember no longer safe to relocate to), western siberia (totally useless because it is mostly swamp and forest) and the Hungersteppes (ever wondered why they call it the Hungersteppes?). In such a dismal situation, i.e. you have no resupplies, no food and no oil = loss.
 
and that is exactly what would have happened to both England and  Russia if America had not entered the war.
 
but your response at number 2. already shows your inability to piece it together and hence your futher wrong response is quite understandable. I know, I know get one thing wrong at the start and everthing falls apart.
 
Remember everything is connected, change one important thing and everything changes.
 
WW2 was a win or lose situation, it would never have ended in a stalemate situation or a victory for the allies had the U.S. not taken part. It is the U.S. mere presence what tipped the balance in favor of the allies.
Back to Top
shugo View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Mar-2009
Location: groningen
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote shugo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2009 at 00:35
Temujin name one general!
 
Happen to know the death rate and average lifespan in the gulags?
 
sorry but to say this a myth is like saying there is no holocaust.
 
Never wondered why so many German women got raped at the end of WW2?
 
How long did it take for Hitler to war since his ascend to power? Never compared that to say hmmm I dunno Stalin?
 
but ok I get  it you're a leftist version of Williamson ;) your location already hinted at that ;)


Edited by shugo - 30-Mar-2009 at 00:50
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 154
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2009 at 06:05

Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

60% of the "Indian" soldiers were Muslims which means that most of them were future Pakistanis and shows that next to no future indians fought in ww2 in regards to the overall population.

It's true that many were Muslim. More than anything else, though, it was specifically Punjabis (whether Muslim or Sikh) who were hugely over-represented among Indian troops.

Indians (to use the term that applied to the whole subcontinent at the time) were certainly divided over the war, but there were more than enough of them who were, for a variety of reasons (and sectarian advantage was certainly one of those), willing to join the war effort.

Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

Originally posted by Bernard Woolley Bernard Woolley wrote:

Who exactly was planning to invade either of those countries?


as for Germany, Hitler proposed to Franco to invade Gibraltar together. as for Turkey, in 1941 an unknown Turkish General visited Hitler in his Wolfsschanze but apparently without result. later on Hitler had fantasies of conquering India via Turkey and Iran but this was neither a serious considderation.

None of which led to any concrete action (if it's your point, however, I'll make sure to be more careful with rhetorical questions in future)

 

Originally posted by shugo shugo wrote:

Firstly Ghandi would not have cared, why partake in the first place, if the Germans are keeping the Brits (their occupiers busy). Second you are wrongly asuming pacifists will fight. Ghandi was a pacifist, he would not have fought. But OK we can agree to disagree about that. Thirdly you are wrongly asuming that they would even have dared to fight, if they saw the lack of American presence and knowing full wel the losses that Britain and its allies suffered. Ghandi may not have had the best strategic insight either, but at least he had better insight then even you appear to be showing with that response.

First, please note that the name is spelt (in Latin script, anyway) "Gandhi". Second, although Gandhi was influential, he wasn't the leader of India. Third, we don't have to guess at what his views were on the war. He said he believed that fighting Hitler was the right thing to do - with the proviso that he considered it hypocritical for the British to keep their own empire while fighting Nazi expansion. Once the British had convinced enough Indians that they would be getting independence after the war, the subcontinent was more or less onside.

 

Originally posted by shugo shugo wrote:

they won because the United States entered in the war, the allies (i.e. without the U.S.) would have lost the war otherwise.

American supplies were of help to the Soviets, but the USSR managed to beat back Germany largely on its own. By the time the Normandy invasion put American troops in France, the Soviets were already pushing into Poland.

Originally posted by shugo shugo wrote:

Knock out britain's oil supply (and that would have happened had they lost Egypt) and their reserve was incredibly low in 1942 anyway (only 2 months reserve), then their airforce would have been grounded, that would have meant gameover for the British in the Battle for Britain

The Battle of Britain was already over at this point, besides which Rommel was not close to taking Egypt. No matter how clever he was, he simply didn't have the men or the equipment to push further than he did. And that would continue to be the case so long as the British could keep sending large numbers of ships and planes to the Mediterranean.

Originally posted by shugo shugo wrote:

Combine this with encroachement of the Japanese on Russian soil (as remember we're talking no agreement and no southern strike and no pearl harbor, since that's the things to keep the Americans out of the war), then Russia would not have been able to relocate their industries to a safe location, which is the primary reason why the Russians won (they could resupply their troops while the Germans could not as their industries were getting bombed). If you think that's not possible for the Japanese then think again.

It might have been possible, but when the Japanese actually tried it they were comprehensively defeated. The Japanese army proved it wasn't up to facing the Russians.

I don't see much likelyhood that the Japanese would have chosen a northern push over a southern one. Besides the demonstrated superiority of the Soviet military over their own, there wasn't much that the Japanese actually wanted in the USSR's Asian terriotories, aside from security for their empire in China. With the tacit understanding that the Soviets weren't interested in attacking them, which held through most of the war, that goal was fulfilled.

Japan's problems were in the south, where the American blockade was strangling its economy and a string of colonial bases controlled strategic points along the routes it needed to use. The Japanese saw more to gain in this area, and at the time it also looked like easier pickings. Even if the Japanese had tried to avoid drawing the US into the war by avoiding US posessions, it was almost inevitable that they still would have gone after Hong Kong and Singapore.

Originally posted by shugo shugo wrote:

With focused effort and resupplies the Germans would have taken away or at least disrupted the oilsupplies in the kaukasus, thus disabling Russia to fight back.

That's what they were trying to do when they were turned back at Stalingrad.

Originally posted by shugo shugo wrote:

WW2 was a win or lose situation, it would never have ended in a stalemate situation or a victory for the allies had the U.S. not taken part. It is the U.S. mere presence what tipped the balance in favor of the allies.

The biggest impact of the American participation was in changing the way the war was brought to an end, and changing how the peace was shaped once the war was over. The Americans, who were the only major power to emerge from the war stronger than when it went in, were able to take responsibility for security in Europe out of the hands of European governments, who had proven unable to play nice on their own. Those governments, faced with the consequences of their rivalries, were for the most part happy to hand that responsibility over to a third party while they focused on rebuilding.

Absent the American intervention it was perfectly possible, if unlikely, that the war might have been brought to a negotiated end. It's also possible that the Soviets might have rolled right through to Paris, or that the British might have fire-bombed every German city out of existence. What's certain is that the aftermath would have been less stable and probably far uglier than what actually happened.

Back to Top
shugo View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Mar-2009
Location: groningen
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote shugo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2009 at 10:00
It managed to  beat  back on its own, because the Germans weren't getting supplies, because their industries were getting bombed. I keep telling you people, these things are  connected and you keep leaving out the fact that the  Americans sens planes too, which was important in the chain  of events.
 
Rommel always had inferior numbers, but that was not his problem, his problem was Malta, which choked his resupplies. Had that not happened he would have won despite inferior numbers. Remember Rommel was cheating, he had intercepted their radio waves and manage to pinpoint which regiment was where, while the British generals were fighting blindly (and that's despite enigma). Move the British out of Egypt and they'll be fighting in the desert (more damage to their already dismal tanks) and they would be the ones out of resupplies. You can't win in such a situation even if you have superior numbers. The ultimate reason Rommel lost is because he never had enough time to capture Malta before the Americans would arrive in Europe and Africa. Rommel full well knew that and gambled he could take on the British beforehand without taking Malta. That gamble failed when he realized he couldn't take and hold El Alamein.
 
"I don't see much likelyhood that the Japanese would have chosen a northern push over a southern one."
 
Look I don't see  that happening either and i agree with you on  that, but that's not the point, it is what would have been necessary to keep the U.S. out of the war, which is  what we are  assuming.
 
"and probably far uglier than what actually happened."
 
way more uglier
Back to Top
shugo View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Mar-2009
Location: groningen
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote shugo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2009 at 10:27
http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/EARS/Hallionpapers/battleofbritainsep98.htm
 you do the math. particularly look at table 2. Leave out the american supplies in the battle of britain. If you still don't see it, then you either are bad at math, or you really don't have any strategic insight at all (and I  already realize just how poor your strategic insight is).
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.