A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 21st 03, 06:05 PM
John Mullen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"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.


1) RN was still (slightly) stronger than the USN (see 3 below). RAF was, as
you say, able (just) to do its job in defending the UK. The army was not
nearly as pitifully small as in WW1 and could count on massive reinforcement
in logistics from the colonies, which the aforementioned RN and RAF would
guarantee would (mostly) get through.

2) Although leadership in all three services still had its share of idiots
(blame the class/caste system which was still a major factor then), we at
least had the advantage that most officers, particularly at higher levels,
had experience of fighting in WW1, an advantage shared only by Germany of
the other major participants.

In Churchill, once he was PM, and for all his many faults, we had a truly
great war leader with not only an intimate knowledge of the minutiae of
warfare but also a developing ability to delegate.

3) As far as equipment goes, while the army in particular was poorly
equipped and the RN still largely depended on WW1 vintage ships, the RAF had
(just!) begun to equip with truly first-rate kit, some exceptions like the
Battle and Stirling accepted. Unlike (for example) the US, we also had (2)
above which meant that particularly in ASW tactics and naval gunnery we had
very much more of a clue than in WW1. Radar was another good thing, as was
cryptography. Overall, these factors IMO gave us the edge over the US in the
1939-40 time frame.

Of course:

4) By the end of the war, the US had grown and left us way behind.

5) We couldn't possibly have prevailed without their (largely
self-interested) help.

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.


Accepted. I still think it's an interesting thought experiment to imagine
what happens if Germany and Japan get their act together and do some proper
joint planning either before or even during the war. The Panama Canal comes
to mind.

John


Ads
  #22  
Old October 21st 03, 07:46 PM
Stuart Wilkes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
  #23  
Old October 21st 03, 08:41 PM
ZZBunker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #24  
Old October 21st 03, 09:21 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...



1) RN was still (slightly) stronger than the USN (see 3 below). RAF was,

as
you say, able (just) to do its job in defending the UK. The army was not
nearly as pitifully small as in WW1 and could count on massive

reinforcement
in logistics from the colonies, which the aforementioned RN and RAF would
guarantee would (mostly) get through.


There was nothing much in it

In 1914 the BEF had 6 British Infantry Divisions, 2 Indian Infantry
Divisions
1 British Cavalry division and 1 Indian Calavry Brigade

In 1939 their were 2 regular infantry divisions in the Aldershot zone , 1 in
the
Eastern Zone at Colchester, 2 TA Divisions in the London Zone, 1 regular
division in the Northern Zone , 1 TA Division in Scotland, 1 Armored
Division
and 1 regular infantry Division in Southern command and 2 TA Divisions in
Wales

In total 5 Regular Infantry divisions, 4 of TA Infantry and 1 Armored
Division
not all of the TA divisions were suitable for short term use


2) Although leadership in all three services still had its share of idiots
(blame the class/caste system which was still a major factor then), we at
least had the advantage that most officers, particularly at higher levels,
had experience of fighting in WW1, an advantage shared only by Germany of
the other major participants.


The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find

In Churchill, once he was PM, and for all his many faults, we had a truly
great war leader with not only an intimate knowledge of the minutiae of
warfare but also a developing ability to delegate.


And had screwed up royally at Gallipoli , the British Army was no more
ready for amphibious warfare in Norway in 1940 than it had been
in the Dardanelles

3) As far as equipment goes, while the army in particular was poorly
equipped and the RN still largely depended on WW1 vintage ships, the RAF

had
(just!) begun to equip with truly first-rate kit, some exceptions like the
Battle and Stirling accepted.


The Stirling didnt arrive in numbers until 1942 I think you'll find.


Unlike (for example) the US, we also had (2)
above which meant that particularly in ASW tactics and naval gunnery we

had
very much more of a clue than in WW1. Radar was another good thing, as was
cryptography. Overall, these factors IMO gave us the edge over the US in

the
1939-40 time frame.


Damm few ships had radar in 1939/40

soc.culture groups trimmed from reply

Keith


  #25  
Old October 22nd 03, 12:09 AM
The Black Monk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Mullen" wrote in message ...


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


Accepted. I still think it's an interesting thought experiment to imagine
what happens if Germany and Japan get their act together and do some proper
joint planning either before or even during the war. The Panama Canal comes
to mind.

John


I think that Germany would only have had a chance if it had done what
Spengler envisioned it should do - become the leader of Europe. Had
Germany attacked the USSR with the motive of liberating its captive
peoples - through establishing friendly semi-puppet republics as was
done following Russia's collapse during World War I - it is likely
that Moscow would have fallen. And if I recall correctly, Stalin
would have been ready to offer terms had Moscow been taken.
Intelligent, not fanatic, leadership would have accepted such terms,
which would have meant the gain of the Baltics, Ukraine, and probably
the Caucuses. Had the Germans been statesmen they would not have had
to contend with resistence in eastern Europe, indeed they would
probably have had several 100,000 more allied troops. It is likely
that even within Russia some friendly troops cpuld be had. Not
Vlasov's sullen war criminals, but free cossacks from the Don, Terek
or Kuban fighting willingly against their oppresors. If the Germans
had wanted to make the war into a crusade for Europe (naturally at the
expense of a few unfortunates - the French and Poles) they would have
stood a chance of winning. Instead, of course, Hitler's war was a
crusade only for his grotesque and evil ideology, as bad as if not
worse than the Bolshevism he fought. In this world, the British
would not have held onto the middle east with its oil, and the world
would have been a much different place for the past fifty years.

This alternative strategy is not as far-fetched as it seems. Elements
in the Wehrmacht were outraged at the Nazi mistreatment of Eastern
Europeans, and even within the Nazi party there was for example
Rosenberg, an ethnic German from Estonia, who envisioned an allied
puppet Ukraine stretching from "Lviv to Saratov" (there as an
interesting article about this in the Ukrainian Weekly a year or so
ago).

Unfortunately, rather than statesmen Germany was led by madmen.
Hitler's racial theories prevented him from making Germany a leader of
Europe in the manner that America would later be. As Spengler
predicted in 1936, Hitler's sick reich didn't last 10 years.

BM
  #26  
Old October 22nd 03, 12:25 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

...


Yep, there still wasnt any oil in Siberia and that was the limiting

factor
for Japan.


Accepted. I still think it's an interesting thought experiment to

imagine
what happens if Germany and Japan get their act together and do some

proper
joint planning either before or even during the war. The Panama Canal

comes
to mind.

John


I think that Germany would only have had a chance if it had done what
Spengler envisioned it should do - become the leader of Europe. Had
Germany attacked the USSR with the motive of liberating its captive
peoples - through establishing friendly semi-puppet republics as was
done following Russia's collapse during World War I - it is likely
that Moscow would have fallen. And if I recall correctly, Stalin
would have been ready to offer terms had Moscow been taken.
Intelligent, not fanatic, leadership would have accepted such terms,


However intelligent leaders would not have embarked on such
a war in the first place. The lessons of history are clear enough
on the wisdom of invading Russia and frankly the possible gains
were never going to be worth the cost.


which would have meant the gain of the Baltics, Ukraine, and probably
the Caucuses.


The Caucasian oil fields were never really achievable. Even had the
German forces got across the mountains the Soviets had ample
time to blow up the facilities.

Keith


  #27  
Old October 22nd 03, 12:28 AM
raymond o'hara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

...


Yep, there still wasnt any oil in Siberia and that was the limiting

factor
for Japan.


Accepted. I still think it's an interesting thought experiment to

imagine
what happens if Germany and Japan get their act together and do some

proper
joint planning either before or even during the war. The Panama Canal

comes
to mind.

John


I think that Germany would only have had a chance if it had done what
Spengler envisioned it should do - become the leader of Europe. Had
Germany attacked the USSR with the motive of liberating its captive
peoples - through establishing friendly semi-puppet republics as was
done following Russia's collapse during World War I - it is likely
that Moscow would have fallen. And if I recall correctly, Stalin
would have been ready to offer terms had Moscow been taken.
Intelligent, not fanatic, leadership would have accepted such terms,
which would have meant the gain of the Baltics, Ukraine, and probably
the Caucuses. Had the Germans been statesmen they would not have had
to contend with resistence in eastern Europe, indeed they would
probably have had several 100,000 more allied troops. It is likely
that even within Russia some friendly troops cpuld be had. Not
Vlasov's sullen war criminals, but free cossacks from the Don, Terek
or Kuban fighting willingly against their oppresors. If the Germans
had wanted to make the war into a crusade for Europe (naturally at the
expense of a few unfortunates - the French and Poles) they would have
stood a chance of winning. Instead, of course, Hitler's war was a
crusade only for his grotesque and evil ideology, as bad as if not
worse than the Bolshevism he fought. In this world, the British
would not have held onto the middle east with its oil, and the world
would have been a much different place for the past fifty years.

This alternative strategy is not as far-fetched as it seems. Elements
in the Wehrmacht were outraged at the Nazi mistreatment of Eastern
Europeans, and even within the Nazi party there was for example
Rosenberg, an ethnic German from Estonia, who envisioned an allied
puppet Ukraine stretching from "Lviv to Saratov" (there as an
interesting article about this in the Ukrainian Weekly a year or so
ago).

Unfortunately, rather than statesmen Germany was led by madmen.
Hitler's racial theories prevented him from making Germany a leader of
Europe in the manner that America would later be. As Spengler
predicted in 1936, Hitler's sick reich didn't last 10 years.

BM



this has been said a thousand times before in a hundred books . the truth is
if they were reasonable thoughtful men they wouldn't have been nazies .


  #28  
Old October 22nd 03, 01:52 AM
Mikhail Medved
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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

  #29  
Old October 22nd 03, 02:03 AM
John Mullen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...



1) RN was still (slightly) stronger than the USN (see 3 below). RAF was,

as
you say, able (just) to do its job in defending the UK. The army was not
nearly as pitifully small as in WW1 and could count on massive

reinforcement
in logistics from the colonies, which the aforementioned RN and RAF

would
guarantee would (mostly) get through.


There was nothing much in it

In 1914 the BEF had 6 British Infantry Divisions, 2 Indian Infantry
Divisions
1 British Cavalry division and 1 Indian Calavry Brigade

In 1939 their were 2 regular infantry divisions in the Aldershot zone , 1

in
the
Eastern Zone at Colchester, 2 TA Divisions in the London Zone, 1 regular
division in the Northern Zone , 1 TA Division in Scotland, 1 Armored
Division
and 1 regular infantry Division in Southern command and 2 TA Divisions in
Wales

In total 5 Regular Infantry divisions, 4 of TA Infantry and 1 Armored
Division
not all of the TA divisions were suitable for short term use


2) Although leadership in all three services still had its share of

idiots
(blame the class/caste system which was still a major factor then), we

at
least had the advantage that most officers, particularly at higher

levels,
had experience of fighting in WW1, an advantage shared only by Germany

of
the other major participants.


The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find


For sure, but not (with all respect) in the second. They were invaded,
defeated, surrendered, collaborated or resisted according to taste, and then
liberated themselves with the help of a third of a million US and UK troops.
For most of the war, most of the time, most of them weren't involved.

In Churchill, once he was PM, and for all his many faults, we had a

truly
great war leader with not only an intimate knowledge of the minutiae of
warfare but also a developing ability to delegate.


And had screwed up royally at Gallipoli


And served his time in the political wilderness for it.

the British Army was no more
ready for amphibious warfare in Norway in 1940 than it had been
in the Dardanelles


Was much more ready for it at Normandy though, at least partly for the bad
experience at the Dardanelles.

3) As far as equipment goes, while the army in particular was poorly
equipped and the RN still largely depended on WW1 vintage ships, the RAF

had
(just!) begun to equip with truly first-rate kit, some exceptions like

the
Battle and Stirling accepted.


The Stirling didnt arrive in numbers until 1942 I think you'll find.


My mistake. I remembered it as a crap early war big bomber.

Unlike (for example) the US, we also had (2)
above which meant that particularly in ASW tactics and naval gunnery we

had
very much more of a clue than in WW1. Radar was another good thing, as

was
cryptography. Overall, these factors IMO gave us the edge over the US in

the
1939-40 time frame.


Damm few ships had radar in 1939/40


True. But airfields benefitted from radar detection of raids, and the ships
that did have it benefitted big-style, whether against surface ships or
U-Boots.

soc.culture groups trimmed from reply


John


  #30  
Old October 22nd 03, 02:42 AM
John Mullen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mikhail Medved" wrote in message
om...

(snip)

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.


That battle was actually on the continent of Africa. The real biggest land
battle didn't come until 1944 when we teamed up with the US to invade
German-occupied France. Meantime we were fighting in the air, at sea, and in
the minor theatres like N Africa. Would have become important had we lost
though, doubt it not.

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


We did not badly to win the air and sea battles with Nazi Germany. Neither
was easy and both had costs attached. Of course we couldn't have won overall
without the support of the USA and the USSR, both of which in their own ways
hedged their bets until the decision to enter the war was forced upon them.
Of the two, that of the USSR was IMO the less honourable.

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


Having a fairly balanced view about history, and exchanging ideas with
people about it, both definitely make me feel better.

John


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.