Nazi Germany VS The Soviet Union

In August 1945 the Soviets attacked Manchuria and the Kwangtung Army folded like a cheap tent. It was basically the same army as 1941. Of course moral was not so good.

Yes but you can’t compare the 1945 Soviets to the 1941 Soviets…

The Japaneese were just as suicidal as the Russians which were the making of major losses to both sides.
each side didn’t care about the losses in men.

Japan would have been at a disavantage in armor department but there air-force comprising of Zeros would have helped out…

Moscow was saved in 1941 also by intervention of the siberian troops. Had the Japanese attacked the Russia together with Germany in June 1941, those troops had to stay in the Far East, and Zukov haven’t had any reinforcement on Moscow, so Russian had lost one of the positive factor of the battle. There was no need for the Japan to defeat the Siberian troops (and they hardly had defeated Russian, they alredy was defeated in 1939 in Manchuria). It had been sufficient just to keep them occupied, avoiding going as reinforcement to Europe. Having signed a treaty on non aggresion alloved Stalin the freedom to strip all the troops from Far East and bring them in defense of Moscow. Had Moscow fallen, beside of the political and moral effects, Russia had lost their greater rail center, effectively separating north from south rail networks and severing their link with the East. Industry beyond Urals, in fact, used Moscow railway net to deliver their products to Red Army. Lost Moscow, Russian logistic have had very big problems, almost impossible to resolve in few time.

However there is also a German logistical problem to consider. In the plan of Hitler URSS have to fall in 6 weeks. So Hitler do not allow to plan for the winter campaign, because in his view war with Russia have to be finished before. Who touched this argumentation in the OKW was at the risk of being assailed by Hitler with accuse of defeatism. By the way, Winter of 1941 had been the most cold winter of the XX century. Even Siberian troops suffered the cold. Guderian was stoppend more by the frost than from the enemy at Tula, that is at few Km from Moscow. German soldier on the Moscow front entered in battle with the summer uniform. Rifle and MG have not lubricant oil adapt to the lower temperature. Even Panzer may stay always with engine on to avoid freezing problems.

Not to re-open a discussion, but there is a big difference between Waffen SS and SS. The former was essentially Wehrmacht crack soldiers. The latter are originally a private militia of Nazi Party, that first became an internal policy force and then was appointed to manage affairs in the occupied teritories of Europe. Their “management” was cause of a lot of atrocities, murdering, deportation and plundering. They were also involved in the genocide of Jews.

Waffen SS were wonderful soldiers, among the best in WWII. Maybe only veteran Marines and hardened Guard Red Army Soldier may compare with them. There are some episodes of they being involved in atrocities, this is true. Particularly where there was not the possibility for the ordinary SS to intervene. But also soldiers of other nations make the same thing.
For example, in a recent book I read I was orrified by the story of what Russian soldiers made in Germany and specifically in Berlin, in 1945.

The only reason the Russians crushed the Japanese so easily in 45 was because they had transfered so many divisions back to the east once the Germans where defeated. With these divisions came all of their latest weaponry ranging from JS3 Tanks to MIG fighters. In 1941, the Russian presence in the east was hollow.

In 1939 the border clashes with Zhukov proved an another disaster for the Kwangtung Army which at that point was in its prime as a fighting force after fighting China for a few years. Whats the explanation that time?  The Soviets had inferior equipment and planes and poor mechanization in 39.

This was the primary reason why they didn’t consider attacking the Soviets.

1. they could not beat them

2. no exploitable resources

3. no value as a military conquest ( except to Germany)

4. didn’t help establish Greater East Asia Co- prosperity sphere.

5. no coordination of larger global war with her allies ( cultures radically too different led to some suspicions)

1. Zhukov couldn’t be in two places at once. I think he would have been more concerned with the Germans then the Japaneese.

2. The clashes they had were Japan “testing the waters” and I agree with you they could not do much against them and there was no gain for them really…

BUT if they had decided to team up with Germany in 1941 and attack Russia then that makes a difference, if Japan had trully committed everything to help Germany bring Russia down, I would have imagined they would have shared resources of the spoils…etc…

The problem was yes Japan had a pact with Germany but they had 2 seperate goals, they were only really considered allies I suppose because the allies didn’t like either of them and had to fight both of them

If Japan did as you say… then they would run out of oil in 6 months because they didn’t take all these pacific islands to create and safeguard the empire from Anglo incursions. The fleet would not move and be just the like the rusting Italian fleet… and the empire would be easy pickings. And they could not do BOTH… it took them till April 42 just to finish all these operations. If they invaded in May 42 the bulk of their Army now in eastern Russia… then China would gather its strength and throw them out of Manchuria. As it was that campaign became a constant occupation of Japaneses forces just to hold on to what they had.

Japan didn’t have the capability to Invade China, Take out Pacific fleet, Remove British power from the orient, AND invade Russia… this is way too much to ask a nation that hasn’t modernized her economy.

The only solution was to negotiate peace with USA and THEN turn to Russia. China was like having a second front for the Japanese.

I don’t think thats correct. The question is when the Germans could take Moscow. If that could happen in October-Sept 1941 instead of diverting and envelopment of the Kiev pocket the advance was pressed to Moscow that would have broken the Soviets.

The main rail centers run predominantly in a north to south path which all intersect to Moscow. Taking this prize would have ended the deployment of forces to sustain Leningrad (which would soon fade) and the Caucasus which got the Soviets their oil. Also, the transfer of military industry to Urals would have ended. With the major hub of communication and transportation in German hands it would be a quick fade and retreat to the Urals with no real base left to fight. The Soviets would now be defending in the vast wilderness deprived of major cities while the German would be in Moscow rather than in the snow outside of it.

Mmmm, that old capture the capitol thing.

Seem to remember Napoleon capturing Moscow, and much good did it do HIM.

I tend to think that the Germans would have been overwhelmed by sheer numbers sooner or later anyway.  Stalin might have been tempted to do a deal, but sitting in the Kremlin Hitler would not have been interested.

As Ezto said by conducting the war in the way they did the Germans gave the Russian people no choice BUT to fight them, even if it meant supporting Stalin.

Mmmm, that old capture the capitol thing.

Seem to remember Napoleon capturing Moscow, and much good did it do HIM.

I tend to think that the Germans would have been overwhelmed by sheer numbers sooner or later anyway.  Stalin might have been tempted to do a deal, but sitting in the Kremlin Hitler would not have been interested.

As Ezto said by conducting the war in the way they did the Germans gave the Russian people no choice BUT to fight them, even if it meant supporting Stalin.

spelling is CAPITAL… anyway Napoleon didn’t have to deal with modern logistics which would have safeguarded his army. Back then they didn’t “rail back home” … they had to walk. With modern mobilization the rail is very important in those days and Moscow was by far the major hub of all Stalins control over the territories.

Stalin sent third party peace ‘feelers’ as early as October 16th what it would take in concessions for Germany to end her war. The Germans refused to listen.

Spelling is dependent on context, as in A&A standard rules if you capture the Capital you also get to capture the Capitol.  Do you see?

No sir! In terms of taking London, Berlin, Paris etc…the word its clearly spells Capital as in a nations capital. However their is such a thing as the capitol building in washington

You did no see, sir.  What I’m meaning is that if you capture the “Capital” (city) then you get the “Capitol” (money) as well, understanding?

the captiol is in the capital. you can say Germany attacked SU’s capital but the did not fight over the capitol. VE day was when the Capitol of Berlin was taken because the Soviets already controlled almost all of Berlin.

Except the Nazis had salted all their capitol away in Swiss bank accounts.

Or do you believe that when Berlin was captured there was a big safe in the Chancelor’s office with “German Capitol; do not spend until next turn” printed on it?

@Flashman:

Except the Nazis had salted all their capitol away in Swiss bank accounts.

Or do you believe that when Berlin was captured there was a big safe in the Chancelor’s office with “German Capitol; do not spend until next turn” printed on it?

no it said give to soviets in case berlin is captured.  :lol:

Cyan:

Both of us know this to be true. Capital is what he was referring too…not Capitol.

But it doesn’t matter really.

@Imperious:

Cyan:

Both of us know this to be true. Capital is what he was referring too…not Capitol.

But it doesn’t matter really.

yeah i know. you could probablly use capitol in the sense of th ebuilding interchanablly with capital but their slightly differnt. but you can’t use it in the sense of money that way.