russia vs. japan in 1941 [WAS: 50% of NAZI oil..]

"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message
om...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

snip great post

Great post!

It was.

And, by choosing the eastern, Pacific route of expansion rather than the
western, they ensured that the Navy rather than the Army would have
precedence in the Japanese junta of the time. These guys made an
absolute
art-form of inter-service rivalry!

Interesting to speculate what if they had pursued the western route
instead.
Of course if they and the Nazis had been proper allies instead of
mistrustful (as well as untrustworthy!) basket cases, they'd have been
having this discussion in late 1940 or so.

Think Germany and Japan, working together in a coordinated way, could
have
beaten the Soviets without bringing the US or UK into the war?

Yes and no. Yes, Germany can attack the Soviets without the West
getting in the way. Skip the occupation of Prague, and go straight
for Poland. Poland is not well thought-of in the West, since they
joined in on the carveup of Czechoslovakia. Then occupy the Baltic
States. Now start the Anti-Bolshevik Crusade.

But they won't win.

Germany has Barbarossa but without having Fall Gelb first.

Germany looted a huge amount of gold, fuel, weapons, ammo, food,
trucks, and industrial production from occupied France. It came to
~15 gigabucks (1940 dollars) IIRC.

OTOH they alsoguaranteed a fight with the UK, then still (just!) the world's
leading military power.

Without these resources, the
German effort in the East is likely to fall a great deal short.

Japan consolidates in China

That will never happen.

Even without trying to take on the US?

then attacks Siberia.

And gets trounced as bad as they did in 1937 - 1939.

And there's no oil they can get to in Siberia, even if they do win,
which they won't.

Even without trying to take on the US?

And then perhaps done Western Europe afterwards. Assume a 1938/9
understanding greater than actually happened.

Dosen't help. Neither has what it takes, although the West might
support the Axis if it looks like the Bolshies are about to win it
all.

Now that would be an interesting thought! Certainly lead to a different
history...

John

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message
om...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

Germany looted a huge amount of gold, fuel, weapons, ammo, food,
trucks, and industrial production from occupied France. It came to
~15 gigabucks (1940 dollars) IIRC.

OTOH they alsoguaranteed a fight with the UK, then still (just!) the
world's
leading military power.


By what measure ?

The RN may have been arguably the strongest although
the USN was surely equal or better. The RAF was able
to hold its own on the defensive (just) but it was in no
shape to launch any real attacks on the nemey and the
army was pitifully small in comparison to that of Germany
and was for the most part less well equipped and led.



Without these resources, the
German effort in the East is likely to fall a great deal short.

Japan consolidates in China

That will never happen.

Even without trying to take on the US?


Yes, the amount of help that reached the Chinese before the
repoening of the Burma Road in 1944 was little more than token
and the Japanese simply lacked the manpower to effectively
subjugate China.

then attacks Siberia.

And gets trounced as bad as they did in 1937 - 1939.

And there's no oil they can get to in Siberia, even if they do win,
which they won't.

Even without trying to take on the US?


Yep, there still wasnt any oil in Siberia and that was the limiting factor
for Japan.

Keith

"John Mullen" wrote in message ...
"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message
om...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

snip

Think Germany and Japan, working together in a coordinated way, could
have beaten the Soviets without bringing the US or UK into the war?

Yes and no. Yes, Germany can attack the Soviets without the West
getting in the way. Skip the occupation of Prague, and go straight
for Poland. Poland is not well thought-of in the West, since they
joined in on the carveup of Czechoslovakia. Then occupy the Baltic
States. Now start the Anti-Bolshevik Crusade.

But they won't win.

Germany has Barbarossa but without having Fall Gelb first.

Germany looted a huge amount of gold, fuel, weapons, ammo, food,
trucks, and industrial production from occupied France. It came to
~15 gigabucks (1940 dollars) IIRC.

OTOH they also guaranteed a fight with the UK, then still (just!) the
world's leading military power.

A power that in 1939-1940 really didn't do much to hurt Germany.

Once France was conquered, Germany proceeded to garrison it with green
recruits training on captured Czechoslovak, Polish, and French
equipment, or 35-40 year old Privates in fortress regiments with old
weapons and no transport, or, in time, with shattered wrecks of
divisions recovering from their experiences in the East. All fed and
housed at French expense (which was the real point).

Conquering and looting France was a huge money-maker for the Germans,
and without those resources a German war effort in the East quickly
runs out of (financial, then actual) gas.

Without these resources, the
German effort in the East is likely to fall a great deal short.

Japan consolidates in China

That will never happen.

Even without trying to take on the US?

There's really nothing Japan can do to force China to make peace, the
US or no.

then attacks Siberia.

And gets trounced as bad as they did in 1937 - 1939.

And there's no oil they can get to in Siberia, even if they do win,
which they won't.

Even without trying to take on the US?

There's even less the Japanese can do to the USSR that will force them
to make peace. The IJA is configured for a (fruitless) infantry war
in China. It has neither the armor, artillery, or logistics for a
mechanized war against the Soviets.

It would be like bringing a Samurai sword to Kursk...

Stuart Wilkes

"John Mullen" wrote in message ...
"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message
om...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

snip great post

Great post!

It was.

And, by choosing the eastern, Pacific route of expansion rather than the
western, they ensured that the Navy rather than the Army would have
precedence in the Japanese junta of the time. These guys made an
absolute
art-form of inter-service rivalry!

Interesting to speculate what if they had pursued the western route
instead.
Of course if they and the Nazis had been proper allies instead of
mistrustful (as well as untrustworthy!) basket cases, they'd have been
having this discussion in late 1940 or so.

Think Germany and Japan, working together in a coordinated way, could
have
beaten the Soviets without bringing the US or UK into the war?

Yes and no. Yes, Germany can attack the Soviets without the West
getting in the way. Skip the occupation of Prague, and go straight
for Poland. Poland is not well thought-of in the West, since they
joined in on the carveup of Czechoslovakia. Then occupy the Baltic
States. Now start the Anti-Bolshevik Crusade.

But they won't win.

Germany has Barbarossa but without having Fall Gelb first.

Germany looted a huge amount of gold, fuel, weapons, ammo, food,
trucks, and industrial production from occupied France. It came to
~15 gigabucks (1940 dollars) IIRC.

OTOH they alsoguaranteed a fight with the UK, then still (just!) the world's
leading military power.

Without these resources, the
German effort in the East is likely to fall a great deal short.

Japan consolidates in China

That will never happen.

Even without trying to take on the US?

then attacks Siberia.

And gets trounced as bad as they did in 1937 - 1939.

And there's no oil they can get to in Siberia, even if they do win,
which they won't.

Even without trying to take on the US?

And then perhaps done Western Europe afterwards. Assume a 1938/9
understanding greater than actually happened.

Dosen't help. Neither has what it takes, although the West might
support the Axis if it looks like the Bolshies are about to win it
all.

Now that would be an interesting thought! Certainly lead to a different
history...

WWII would not have ended any other way.
Since we although we didn't tell the morons in Europe,
we obviously would have killed every German and Russian
in every industrial city in Europe rather than let them build an
Atomic Bomb before we did.

"John Mullen" wrote in message ...
"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message
om...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

snip great post

Great post!

It was.

And, by choosing the eastern, Pacific route of expansion rather than the
western, they ensured that the Navy rather than the Army would have
precedence in the Japanese junta of the time. These guys made an
absolute
art-form of inter-service rivalry!

Interesting to speculate what if they had pursued the western route
instead.
Of course if they and the Nazis had been proper allies instead of
mistrustful (as well as untrustworthy!) basket cases, they'd have been
having this discussion in late 1940 or so.

Think Germany and Japan, working together in a coordinated way, could
have
beaten the Soviets without bringing the US or UK into the war?

Yes and no. Yes, Germany can attack the Soviets without the West
getting in the way. Skip the occupation of Prague, and go straight
for Poland. Poland is not well thought-of in the West, since they
joined in on the carveup of Czechoslovakia. Then occupy the Baltic
States. Now start the Anti-Bolshevik Crusade.

But they won't win.

Germany has Barbarossa but without having Fall Gelb first.

Germany looted a huge amount of gold, fuel, weapons, ammo, food,
trucks, and industrial production from occupied France. It came to
~15 gigabucks (1940 dollars) IIRC.

OTOH they alsoguaranteed a fight with the UK, then still (just!) the world's
leading military power.

Any proof to that opinion? The "leading military power" was removed
from the continent in a few weeks of actual fighting. The biggest
battle was the battle of Alamein, in which they fiught a small German
corps.

The Navy was strong, of course, but so far no-one won a war on
continent with only the Navy.

Of course, if that makes you feel beeter...

Without these resources, the
German effort in the East is likely to fall a great deal short.

Japan consolidates in China

That will never happen.

Even without trying to take on the US?

then attacks Siberia.

And gets trounced as bad as they did in 1937 - 1939.

And there's no oil they can get to in Siberia, even if they do win,
which they won't.

Even without trying to take on the US?

And then perhaps done Western Europe afterwards. Assume a 1938/9
understanding greater than actually happened.

Dosen't help. Neither has what it takes, although the West might
support the Axis if it looks like the Bolshies are about to win it
all.

Now that would be an interesting thought! Certainly lead to a different
history...

John

On 20 Oct 2003 12:19:08 -0700, (The Black
Monk) wrote:

wrote in message ...
In article , "Bill
Silvey" wrote:

Then there was the fact that the Reds did nothing while Japan massacred
hundreds of thousands of Chinese in the '30s. Stalin only declared war on
Japan *after* Japan had lost, just to gain Kamchatka. 100% fact.

russia fought japan until the german invasion of russia. you don't have
to look in obscure sources to find out about it.

readers of rec.aviation.military are undoubtably familiar with the
accounts of the flying tigers in china. these books describe the
russian conflict with china in this period, both as mercenaries for
china and direct conflict on the soviet border.


Indeed.

At Khalkyn Gol between May and September 1939 the Japanese were
crushed by Zhukov, sustaining over 80,000 casualties to the Russians'
11,130. Within a single week the Japanses lost 25,000 men. The
entire Japanese 6th army was completely destroyed.

The Battle of Khalkin Gol was Zhukov's illustration of Deep
Penetration tactics. The use of deception tactics, extremely fast
tanks and mechanized forces to outflank an opponent's defenses, and
the combination of aerial, airborne, and ground troops lead to the
complete destruction of the Japanese 6th Army and to Japan's loss of a
sphere of influence in the Mongolian and Far Eastern regions.

This battle also featured the first successful use of air-to-air
missiles. Five Polikarpov I-16 Type 10 fighters under the command of
Capt. Zvonarev claimed destruction two Mitsubishi A5M by RS-82
unguided rockets.

Historians describe a conflict within the Japanese military about
whether to attack the USSR or the USA. The complete defeat att he
hands of the Soviets made that decision: Pearl Harbor happened because
the Japanese chose to attack the weaker foe.

BM

Although it is quite true that in 1938 and again in 1939 Japanese and
Soviet troops fought fairly severe battles on the Manchurian and
Mongolian borders, these hostilities were terminated as abruptly as
they began, without there being a declaration of war between the two
countries.

Then, in 1941 , when the Japanese Foreign Minister, Yosuke Matsuoka,
visited Moscow shortly before the German attack on the Soviet Union,
the two governments reached an agreement, called "a Neutrality Pact",
providing that either side would remain neutral if the other were
attacked by third parties. The Japanese kept their word and despite
joining Germany in the Second World War, they never attacked the
Soviet Union during the course of the war. Had the Japanese attacked
USSR from the East when Germany was attacking from the West, the
result of the war might have been very different.

On the other hand, Stalin broke the agreement with the Japanese as
soon as this was convenient to him, i.e. immediately after the
capitulation of Germany. In the final analysis Stalin didn't get much
out of it, namely he got the possession of southern Sakhalin and the
Kuriles. That's about all. The Americans prevented him from grabbing
part of Manchuria which was his initial intent. There was the
traditional sentimentality of the Americans about China which put them
squarely on the side of China (not knowing that it would soon become
Communist).

Yuri

yp11 wrote in
Then, in 1941 , when the Japanese Foreign Minister, Yosuke Matsuoka,
visited Moscow shortly before the German attack on the Soviet Union,
the two governments reached an agreement, called "a Neutrality Pact",
providing that either side would remain neutral if the other were
attacked by third parties. The Japanese kept their word and despite
[...]
On the other hand, Stalin broke the agreement with the Japanese as
soon as this was convenient to him, i.e. immediately after the
capitulation of Germany. In the final analysis Stalin didn't get much
out of it, namely he got the possession of southern Sakhalin and the
Kuriles. That's about all. The Americans prevented him from grabbing
part of Manchuria which was his initial intent. There was the
traditional sentimentality of the Americans about China which put them
squarely on the side of China (not knowing that it would soon become
Communist).

Yuri

I thought Stalin promised to attack Japan 3 months after May 9th, which is
exactly what he did. In a way, he was trying to keep both his promises for
as long as he could.

Interestingly, though, if the Americans expected Stalin to attack within
three months of May 9th, why would they be in such a hurry to drop the two
nuclear bombs...

Vassil

There are some notes on Nomonhan at www.warbirdforum.com/nomonhan.htm

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"The Black Monk" wrote in message
om...


Historians describe a conflict within the Japanese military about
whether to attack the USSR or the USA. The complete defeat att he
hands of the Soviets made that decision: Pearl Harbor happened because
the Japanese chose to attack the weaker foe.

Actually Pearl harbour happened because there was oil to the south and Japan
needed it nobody knew about the Siberian oil reserves at the time..

Without that oil the gains made in China would collapse, the attack south
was always meant to be a limited operation to secure resources, not to
defeat the US and C'wealth - once secured, it was intended that the focus
would move back to the main objective, China.

Without that oil the gains made in China would collapse, the attack south
was always meant to be a limited operation to secure resource

I don't think that an attack waged on a 4,000-mile front could fairly
be called limited.

It was intended to be a six-month operation, followed by a lifetime
occupation of a defense zone too vast to be challenged by the U.S.
navy. But the hoped-for brevity of the war doesn't suggest that it was
minor. After all, Germany invaded and occupied most of continental
Europe in nine months. That wasn't limited!
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com