Originally posted by no1marauderWhat if Germany and Japan actually cooperated on a common goal istead of each pursuing their own separate interests. What if Germany knew the Japanese intended to attack the US, but persuaded them to attack the Soviet Union in conjunction with their own attack instead. A double whammy from both Japan and Germany may have put the Soviet Union over the edge.
The only place the German navy seriously contested British naval supremacy was during the campaign for Norway. The German surface fleet got mauled. The Germans could never even establish naval superiority for 20 miles in the English channel; never mind the Med. After the initial deployment of the Afrika Korps, which caught the British by surprise, somewh ...[text shortened]... ve succeeded, but absent an invasion of the Home Isles I can't see how the Nazis win the war.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't think Hitler ever trusted the navy or was scared of losing ships. But if he'd contested the Med if could have been different. Thank goodness not. If I were in a wargame I would want to own the Med given that I have most of western Europe and England is my sole enemy.
The only place the German navy seriously contested British naval supremacy was during the campaign for Norway. The German surface fleet got mauled. The Germans could never even establish naval superiority for 20 miles in the English channel; never mind the Med. After the initial deployment of the Afrika Korps, which caught the British by surprise, somewh ...[text shortened]... ve succeeded, but absent an invasion of the Home Isles I can't see how the Nazis win the war.
Why would the Germans have wanted India? They only needed a source of oil.
PS. My uncle bombed the Tirpitz a couple of times and got a DFC for his efforts. But medals were handed out like confetti in those days.
Originally posted by rwingettInteresting idea. The Jap military decided on the attack in the face of US sanctions. They needed rubber and oil, so decided on taking out the US' capabilities to respond. This was a putsch in a way and the politicans had no part ini it.
What if Germany and Japan actually cooperated on a common goal istead of each pursuing their own separate interests. What if Germany knew the Japanese intended to attack the US, but persuaded them to attack the Soviet Union in conjunction with their own attack instead. A double whammy from both Japan and Germany may have put the Soviet Union over the edge.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettThe Japanese did not want war with the Soviets for two main reasons: 1) The Soviets, under Zhukov, had beat the stuffing out of a Japanese force in Mongolia in an undeclared war in 1939. I forget the name of the battles, but the Japanese army got creamed by a combined armor-mechanized infantry corps. The Japanese had a healthy respect for the Red Army. These Siberian units were kept in the East through the first few months of the Nazi invasion as the Soviets believed the Japanese would attack; when they didn't, large elements of these troops wound up in the great counterattack in front of Moscow that started on December 6, 1941. It they were tied up in the East, what would have happened in front of Moscow? I'm not sure, but I don't think the Nazis win even if they take Moscow;
What if Germany and Japan actually cooperated on a common goal istead of each pursuing their own separate interests. What if Germany knew the Japanese intended to attack the US, but persuaded them to attack the Soviet Union in conjunction with their own attack instead. A double whammy from both Japan and Germany may have put the Soviet Union over the edge.
2) The Japanese were primarily interested in oil and there wasn't any significent fields in the Soviet east at the time, certainly nothing that compared to the Dutch East Indies. The Japanese needed those if the US was going to be hostile and they were going to maintain a large fleet. Thus, there was nothing of strategic value for the Japanese to go to war with the Soviets over.
EDIT: A good summary of the Soviet-Japanese clash in 1939 is at http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcentury/articles/nomonhan.aspx
Originally posted by buffalobillGiven that the Germans never even took Gibraltar, I don't know how those Nazi surface ships were going to "contest" the Med, anyway.
I don't think Hitler ever trusted the navy or was scared of losing ships. But if he'd contested the Med if could have been different. Thank goodness not. If I were in a wargame I would want to own the Med given that I have most of western Europe and England is my sole enemy.
Why would the Germans have wanted India? They only needed a source of oil.
...[text shortened]... f times and got a DFC for his efforts. But medals were handed out like confetti in those days.
Originally posted by no1marauderRubbish. The British had retreated to Dunkirk, escaped across the sea, leaving most of their armamants behind them. They were not in a position to wage war with anyone. France was alone and totally exposed with Paris due to fall. It's not what you've got but where they are. And six weeks is too short for industrial production to make a difference in the outcome of a war. France got militarily crushed, so did England, Holland and Belgium.
It's working for me.
The fact that as I said countries who's main industrial areas got overran were crippled is not contradicted by the fact they were overrun quickly! In truth, one of the reasons the French surrendered even though they still had a large army in the field and the British were landing reinforcements was because their industrial areas fell.
Originally posted by buffalobillThe only way the Germans could have taken Gibraltar was through Spain. Instead of attacking Russia, they should have taken down Spain when it became apparent that Franco wasn't going to join the Axis. Gibraltar would have fallen. Maybe Malta would have subsequently fallen. Then the Germans would have gone on to Egypt and gained access to the Lost Ark of the Covenant like in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Well...maybe not that last part, but they could have taken Gibraltar anyway.
They never contested it, that's my point. But if they had?
1 edit
Originally posted by buffalobillThe British had landed reinforcements in France; I suggest you check your history. The Brits were "prepared enough to wage war" to prevent the Germans from winning which is what was required of them in 1940. France was not entirely militarily occupied at the time; did you ever hear of Vichy France? You are again speaking a non sequitur; the fact that France's industrial producing areas were overran and they felt compelled to surrender due to this fact supports, rather than refutes, my point.
Rubbish. The British had retreated to Dunkirk, escaped across the sea, leaving most of their armamants behind them. They were not in a position to wage war with anyone. France was alone and totally exposed with Paris due to fall. It's not what you've got but where they are. And six weeks is too short for industrial production to make a difference in the outcome of a war. France got militarily crushed, so did England, Holland and Belgium.
Originally posted by Silver SlayerSo you mean the extent to which the military might of the U.S.S.R helped them succeed in defeating Germany in WWII.
Arms = the military equipment eg tanks, aircraft, weapons, naval forces etc
Basically all the hardware of war.
In my opinion this did of course have a great impact on the way the war turned out; mostly on the eastern fronts. However, you have to think about what other factors could have helped Soviet Russia win the war if they had not had the equipment that they had. Would they, for example, have been able to rely purely on force in numbers or mistakes made by Germany? Personally I doubt it; without Russia's "hardware of war" it would have been almost impossible for them to win the war. In the years leading up to WWII Stalin had been imposing his 5 year plans on the Russian people; trying to catch up with the defecit that Russia found itself in, in terms of industrialisation in comparison to the other powers of the world. Russia was trying to improve its status within the world by making itself appear to be a great military power; which of course it became, but not without great cost. The economy was crippled, as well as the structure of the Politburo and Central Committee; which were being dominated by Stalin's favourites, due to his placing of supporters in important positions. Russia appeared to be incredibly strong; but really it was falling apart at the knees; the purges had created a huge gap in Russian society and Stalin's demands were unable to be met because the peasants were starving and there were not enough of them to provide the necessary production levels.
I went off on a bit of a tangent there but the main idea is that Russia's military power allowed them to win the war and without it, or if Germany had managed to defeat it, Russia would have fallen into total collapse and would almost certainly have been defeated by the Germans. At least this is my point of view. I wish I could go into more detail and think about it more now but it is 1:30 and it won't come out very intelligently!!!
Originally posted by no1marauderSigh. The Brits were soundly defeated in France in 1940 and incapable of continuing the war in France further. Ever heard of Dunkirk?
The British had landed reinforcements in France; I suggest you check your history. The Brits were "prepared enough to wage war" to prevent the Germans from winning which is what was required of them in 1940. France was not entirely militarily occupied at the time; did you ever hear of Vichy France? You are again speaking a non sequitur; the fact that Fra ...[text shortened]... nd they felt compelled to surrender due to this fact supports, rather than refutes, my point.
As for France, the Germans were virtually as the gates of Paris, the Maginot Line had long been taken. The occupation of industrial production areas was irrelevant, as France had had a year to build up supplies. I did not say or intimate that all or most of France was occupied at that time. The fact was that it was utterly militarily defeated in just six weeks. Production capacity or lack thereof played no role in this campaign.
And yes, I've heard of Vichy France - a bunch of collaborators who either were executed or jailed. The rest had very short hair cuts.
2 edits
Originally posted by buffalobillYour stubborn refusal to admit facts is most annoying. I've heard of Dunkirk, but you've apparently not heard that more than 60,000 British troops had been landed in Brittany within days afterwards. The Maginot Line had "long been taken" is factually incorrect; some of the Line was only captured AFTER the Armistice. No one said industrial capacity played a part in the campaign, hence you continue to state a non sequitur and a strawman. I did say, and it is undoubtedly true, that the FACT that the French had lost their main industrial areas was a major factor in their decision to give up. As that is undoubtedly and unquestionably true, your refusal to admit it is simple intellectual dishonesty.
Sigh. The Brits were soundly defeated in France in 1940 and incapable of continuing the war in France further. Ever heard of Dunkirk?
As for France, the Germans were virtually as the gates of Paris, the Maginot Line had long been taken. The occupation of industrial production areas was irrelevant, as France had had a year to build up supplies. I did n a bunch of collaborators who either were executed or jailed. The rest had very short hair cuts.
Your comment about Vichy France is also irrelevant; my point was the French were not completely defeated or the Germans would not have allowed them to retain ANY territory. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other nation that the Nazis allowed to maintain independent control of a large portion of their territory. Perhaps if you want to debate history you could stick to historical facts.
EDIT: According to this website http://www.geocities.com/shipwrecks_magazine/aerial.htm
162,000 mostly British troops were withdrawn from Brittany after the French surrender, though on June 18, German forces were still 180 miles from the port of Brest.
