The Pacific War, 1941-1945

[Fade the Butcher]

A few questions to kick off the debate. . .

1.) Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor?
2.) Did FDR have prior knowledge that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbor?
3.) Did FDR use Japan as a backdoor to get into WW2?
4.) What was the goal of U.S. foreign policy in East Asia?

[Sulla the Dictator]

A few questions to kick off the debate. . .

1.) Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor?


Yes.


2.) Did FDR have prior knowledge that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbor?


No.


3.) Did FDR use Japan as a backdoor to get into WW2?


Certainly. Kuddos for him on it, too.


4.) What was the goal of U.S. foreign policy in East Asia?

Containing a bellicose and irrational Japan.

[Fade the Butcher]

Yes.You can do better than that. :p No.I agree.Certainly. Kuddos for him on it, too.I'm not convinced.Containing a bellicose and irrational Japan.Is it fair to say that the U.S. tolerated Japanese aggression in Asia for years; that, in fact, U.S. planners supported Chiang Kai-shek in order to use China as a punching bag to divert Japanese imperial ambitions away from Southeast Asia?

[Thomas777]

1.) Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor?
The Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor constituted a forward deployment, and an undeclared war between the USA and Japan had been underway since the early 30s in China. It was inevitable that the United States and the Japanese Empire would go to war...the USA wanted to reassert fledging Western influence in the far East and the Japs were trying to establish a pan-Asian imperium. The Japanese attacked so as to conduct the war on their own terms (so they reasoned).


2.) Did FDR have prior knowledge that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbor?
Maybe. I honestly do not know. However, FDR was very fixated on the Third Reich and was far more interested in provoking a fight with Germany than he was with Japan, IMO.

3.) Did FDR use Japan as a backdoor to get into WW2?
There was no guarantee that the Reich would declare war on the USA after Pearl Harbor...as the Japanese were unreliable allies and it was not clear whether or not Hitler would honor their defense pact. The Japanese never seriously considered declaring war on the USSR (other than rogue elements in the militarist camp who were quickly vetoed). I do not believe FDR could have gotten a declaration of war against Germany after Pearl Harbor had Hitler not declared war on the USA. It seems farfetched that FDR would think that provoking war with Japan would be the best way to engage Germany in hostilities (which clearly was his ultimate priority).

4.) What was the goal of U.S. foreign policy in East Asia?

Maritime hegemony...uncontested control of Pacific sea lanes.

[Thomas777]

Is it fair to say that the U.S. tolerated Japanese aggression in Asia for years; that, in fact, U.S. planners supported Chiang Kai-shek in order to use China as a punching bag to divert Japanese imperial ambitions away from Southeast Asia?

I disagree. The US genuinely feared a hegemonic alliance between the USSR and a Communist superstate in China.

US Marines engaged Japanese forces in China with regularity during the 1930s (in small but pitched battles)...WEB Griffith wrote about these events.

The USA wanted a nationalist state in China to offset the Reds and the Japanese.

[Excorcism]

keep in mind that FDR was making plans for the b-29 bomber in the 30's...and military technology was being pursued before the U.S. entered the war...so he was easger to get in, but needed a way to convince the isolationist people to fight in the war. Pearl Harbor gave him just that. Of course, I'm not saying he knew Pearl Harbor would happen but it is funny how on the day Japan attacked Pearl Harbor that all of the U.S. carriers were not there. Perhaps just a weird coincidence.

[OVERWATCH]

1.) Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor?

They wanted to strike a death blow to the US pacific fleet in order to buy time for what they considered was going to be unavoidable war with the US.

2.) Did FDR have prior knowledge that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbor?

FDR knew that a Jap attack was coming, but he didn't know when nor where.

Still in all, US forces should have been put on higher alert.

3.) Did FDR use Japan as a backdoor to get into WW2?

Yes.

4.) What was the goal of U.S. foreign policy in East Asia?

Exploiting China.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

I still do not quite understand why Hitler went and honored his pact with Japan. Japan (like the Italians) went on their own and instead of helping matters only made them worse. I believe I read somewhere that the Japs even told Adolf that if he would honor his treaty with them (after the attack) that they would also help him out in the east by tiing up some Soviet Divisions. In hinsight Adolf should have declared war on Japan too after that attack. Sink a Jap freighter interned in Hamburg for show.

[cerberus]

They wanted to strike a death blow to the US pacific fleet in order to buy time for what they considered was going to be unavoidable war with the US.
I agree , American atempts to curb an expanonist Japan had backed them into a corner , they reacted by going to war.

Did FDR have prior knowledge that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbor?

That an attack might take place yes , but where ? Hitler knew nothing about Pearl harbour so why would FDR ?
Perhaps not informing Germany saved the Japanese from being ambushed themselves ?
It was a very brave and finely balanced decision to attack . I don't think that America would not have missed the chance to have some provision to attack such a major force so far from home waters , having had advance knowledge of their attack in advance.
Did FDR use Japan as a backdoor to get into WW2?
Did he have a choice ? The ball was in the Japanese court.
Where would this back door lead ?
Any reasonable person might say the Pacific against Japan alone , Allied with the British and the Dutch.
The French had already allowed the Japanese into Indo China , which turned up the heat further certainly making the British look to be next on the list.

What was the goal of U.S. foreign policy in East Asia?
To contain Japan and protect her what she saw as her own interests.

Japan becoming a member of the Axis - a political move which didn't seem to match Japan's "willingness" to talk with the US.
Could Japan be trusted ? ( N0 !)

That Hitler declared war on America - could FDR have seen this coming , it was a completely stupid decision - Japan had no intention of acting to support German in any of her military adventures.
At best Japan was a paper and political signature , Japanese interests demanded her total attention given the limted resources she had to hand.
The six months of success ended almost to the day and against American resources did the Japanese ever really have a hope ?
Halsey's carriers being away from Pearl and the lost opportunity to go back with another air strike to destroy the fuel depots on Ford Island proved to balance the book on PH.
Bad luck and a bad decision made by a nervous commander .

[ironweed]

A few questions to kick off the debate. . .

1.) Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor?

They felt they needed to deliver a 'knockout' punch that would sweep the US Navy from the Pacific. Darn near succeeded.

As an aside, has anyone else heard the possibly apocryphal story that every time they replay Midway at the Naval College the Japanese always win? And that's WITH the carriers. Had they been at Pearl Harbor Japan would required a much, much greater effort on the part of the US throughout the entire war. (At no time did the Pacific theater use more than 20%-25% of American resources, though that may be partially offset by the fact that that was where the Marines went.)


2.) Did FDR have prior knowledge that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbor?

I don't know. I found the arguments Toland made in his book on the topic kind of strained. I do think the top admiral and general who were scapegoated probably shouldn't have been.

3.) Did FDR use Japan as a backdoor to get into WW2?

I don't think so. Had Germany not declared war on the USA, I'm not so sure Roosevelt could have got a declaration of war through Congress. He probably would have tried to get the Declaration through Congress, maybe have had to force the issue, but that all would have taken some time.

Hitler basically handed Roosevelt a gift.

4.) What was the goal of U.S. foreign policy in East Asia?

I think the State Dep't. got very nervous when the Nips went into French Indochina, though I don't recall exactly when the steel and oil embargo went into effect, I think that's what caused it. They basically didn't seem to care much as long as the Nips confined themselves to China and Korea, even doing nothing when a US gunboat got bombed. And They probably laughed at that border conflict with the USSR, where the Nips got their asses handed to them.

[cerberus]

Hitler basically handed Roosevelt a gift.


Hitler seemed to have a knack of doing this to his enemies , he was the greatest Ally the Allies had in the German camp.

[ironweed]

keep in mind that FDR was making plans for the b-29 bomber in the 30's...and military technology was being pursued before the U.S. entered the war...

You can't possibly be serious. For most of the 1930s the US Army (and the Air Corps, part of the Army at that point) in particular was an utter joke. No tanks, none really even beyond the drawing board. In fact they CUT the manpower levels as the depression hit. Somewhere or other I remember reading that the US Army in 1935 was the 17th or so largest in the world, and the US generals declined invitations to attend war games in Europe for the simple reason that they'd have been embarassed when it came time to reciprocate. To say nothing of the fact that to fight a war in Europe or Africa they had absolutely no way to get there.

The US Navy and by extension the Marines were in better shape, but not by a whole lot. You couldn't fight a war against another industrial power with just the Marines, and even with the Navy a lot of the fleet was aging.

Germany went to war with bombers (though no 4 engine ones) armor and troops equipped with excellent rifles, side arms and machine guns. The US had a few bombers, no armor to speak of and started off with World War I technology in the hands of their infantry, when it was even available. Which side looks like it was spoiling for a fight? :rolleyes:

[Kodos]

and the Japs were trying to establish a pan-Asian imperium

More like an asian slave state...

[Felix the Cat]

I still do not quite understand why Hitler went and honored his pact with Japan. Japan (like the Italians) went on their own and instead of helping matters only made them worse. I believe I read somewhere that the Japs even told Adolf that if he would honor his treaty with them (after the attack) that they would also help him out in the east by tiing up some Soviet Divisions. In hinsight Adolf should have declared war on Japan too after that attack. Sink a Jap freighter interned in Hamburg for show.
Either

1) Hitler underestimated US determination to fight in Europe, and ability to do so

or,

2) Hitler believed war with the US was inevitable anyway, and this way he allowed his submarines to strike the first blow

[ironweed]

1) Hitler underestimated US determination to fight in Europe, and ability to do so

I think this is the position Shirer took. Makes some sense.


2) Hitler believed war with the US was inevitable anyway, and this way he allowed his submarines to strike the first blow

Wouldn't a delay of a year or even six months in beginning hostilities with the US have proven quite helpful? Especially if all American eyes were turned towards the Pacific theater at first. Of course, with all American effort in the Pacifc Japan wouldn't have lasted very long, either.

[cerberus]

Hitler believed war with the US was inevitable anyway, and this way he allowed his submarines to strike the first blow

He effectively disarmed Donitz when he sent boats to Norway and the Med. , "drumbeat" openned with a mere six submarines operating of the east coast.
Hardegen said that if they had another dozen boats with them they would have all had targets , an opportunity was diluted and squandered.


FDR was making plans for the b-29 bomber in the 30's

Given that the B-17 was new when US went to war I don't think in the absence of hostilities you would have seen the B-29 appearing.
You don't produce such a weapon without having the need of it and a target at which to aim it.

and the Japs were trying to establish a pan-Asian imperium
The " Co-prosperity shpere" in other words Japan taking what she wanted and replacing Eurtopean masters with ones based in Toyoko.

[Excorcism]

You can't possibly be serious. For most of the 1930s the US Army (and the Air Corps, part of the Army at that point) in particular was an utter joke. No tanks, none really even beyond the drawing board. In fact they CUT the manpower levels as the depression hit. Somewhere or other I remember reading that the US Army in 1935 was the 17th or so largest in the world, and the US generals declined invitations to attend war games in Europe for the simple reason that they'd have been embarassed when it came time to reciprocate. To say nothing of the fact that to fight a war in Europe or Africa they had absolutely no way to get there.

The US Navy and by extension the Marines were in better shape, but not by a whole lot. You couldn't fight a war against another industrial power with just the Marines, and even with the Navy a lot of the fleet was aging.

Germany went to war with bombers (though no 4 engine ones) armor and troops equipped with excellent rifles, side arms and machine guns. The US had a few bombers, no armor to speak of and started off with World War I technology in the hands of their infantry, when it was even available. Which side looks like it was spoiling for a fight? :rolleyes:

No, seriously, FDR made plans to improve the bombers. I remember distinctly from watching the program on the History Channel and found it interesting how there were efforts to be made in research, although keep in mind that the U.S. was split for awhile on whether to research tanks and if they would be effective in war. The Marines in WWII were given old weapons while the army that was in the European theater were mainly issued Thompsons (variation of the Tommy Gun) and had the Browning Automatic Rifle (made in 1918). Although it is true for the most part that alot of technology for most of the 30s was being placed primarily in consumer goods, FDR did make some effort to try and research somewhat in arms. Although it is without a doubt how much more advanced Germany's technology was in concerns to planes, tanks, and infantry.

[Sulla the Dictator]

You can do better than that. :p


LOL I actually misread that. I thought you said "Did Japan attack Pearl Harbor", which normally would be an odd question. :p

The Japanese were seeking to destroy America's ability to project power into the Pacific and thus eliminate any serious rival to their effort to achieve regional dominance.


I agree.


Excellent.


I'm not convinced.


There is no argument that Hitler's whimsy made it easier, but even without Germany declaring war on the United States, we would have been able to increase wartime material production and naval growth even if they hadn't. The next time German u-boats sank an America transport, it would have been war.


Is it fair to say that the U.S. tolerated Japanese aggression in Asia for years; that, in fact, U.S. planners supported Chiang Kai-shek in order to use China as a punching bag to divert Japanese imperial ambitions away from Southeast Asia?


The US couldn't stop Japanese aggression, realistically, until they attacked us in the way they did. The Japanese, however, felt the pressure from American embargos and boycotts.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I still do not quite understand why Hitler went and honored his pact with Japan. Japan (like the Italians) went on their own and instead of helping matters only made them worse. I believe I read somewhere that the Japs even told Adolf that if he would honor his treaty with them (after the attack) that they would also help him out in the east by tiing up some Soviet Divisions. In hinsight Adolf should have declared war on Japan too after that attack. Sink a Jap freighter interned in Hamburg for show.

Nah. The Japanese ambassador to Berlin apparently put on a good show for Adolf, and he bought the rather nebulous promises hook, line, and sinker. But Hitler also wanted more liberty in sinking US freight headed to England. Also, the Japanese were the only Axis nation other than Germany who didn't need constant propping up. They also kept Commonwealth troops reasonably bottled up in the Pacific, as well as substantial amounts of American naval resources.

[A. Radek]

Japan wasn't much of a threat to the U.S., so Roosevelt concentrated on preparing for war with Europe. The Japanese military planners knew attacking the U.S. was a bad mistake, but, a right-wing coup put the usual nutcases and 'Master Race' morons in power in the government and ordered it anyway. Hitler was prodding them to attack in an effort to draw off British and U.S. naval capabilities from the Meditteranean and Atlantic theaters, and the Jap politicians fell for the scam.

Roosevelt knew about what the Japanese were capable of, and knew they would be toast by 1943, based on U.S. sales of oil and material right up to the embargo, and had a good idea of their reserves and how long they could last, and also knew they couldn't take Pearl and hold it, so the risk was a calculated and easily defensible one, even if he knew in advance of the attack. The rather small Japanese Navy wasn't shit compared to what U.S. production could turn out in a short time once activated. Nor were the Japanese going to invade the U.S.; they didn't have the resources or the talent to manage such an operation, nor did the Germans for that matter.

My personal opinion is he knew an attack on Pearl was going to happen; after all, it was our main forward base, and we had been beefing it up since the late 1920's, so that would be a no-brainer. He also knew that they were fairly disorganized and incapable of handling the logistics of controlling their empire over large distances. Their logistical failures in China and against the Soviets proved they didn't have the talent to hold on to much, and were nothing to fear in that dept., so, as somebody said, the losses at Pearl were a very small price to pay, since it finally put the isolationists on the defensive and put us on a war footing. I doubt Roosevelt planned it to the minute, or he wouldn't have made contingency plans for England falling before we entered the war in Europe.

Roosevelt also knew enough about naval strategy to build a more numerous fleet of smaller pocket carriers than go with the plan to build a small number of large super carriers, a sound strategy that paid off.

American foreign policy in the Pacific was to back our British and Australian Allies, retain access to Chinese and Asian markets, and contain the Reds on the mainland. The Japanese were ruining Chinese and other Asian markets, so they had to go; not that hard or complex to divine. American and European businesses had already carved up Asian markets and had their monopoly agreements in place, so no conflicts there.

Edited to add: American intelligence knew a Jap fleet was heading to the general area around Pearl, so having the carriers out on manuevers was no big deal, as was leaving the old outdated and ultimately useless fuel sucking battleships in harbor as a precaution, if they didn't know the destination or exact location of a potential enemy was, all conspiracy theories aside.

[A. Radek]

http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/historicalbackground/JapWarPreps.html

Stinnett does not ignore the moral dimensions of the Roosevelt strategy. How did those who knew the attack was coming justify the deliberate sacrifice of over three thousand American lives? A bone-chilling comment by Lt. Commander Joseph J. Rochefort, commander of Station HYPO at Pearl Harbor, provides the answer. In a postwar assessment of the attack made to a naval historian, he remarked of Pearl Harbor that "it was a pretty cheap price to pay for unifying the country." There you have it. Massive deception, lying, the sacrifice of military careers, the betrayal of friends and fellow officers, and the deaths of thousands of American servicemen – all is justified for the cause of inciting a peaceful people to go to war. Stinnett himself is far from being unsympathetic to Roosevelt’s strategy. He agrees with the pre-war interventionists that America needed to go to war against the Axis powers. According to Stinnett, Roosevelt and his advisers "faced a terrible dilemma." The public was overwhelmingly opposed to entering the war, and in a democracy the people are supposed to rule. Yet, Roosevelt believed this war would be both necessary and just. What to do? In the end, they decided that "something had to be endured in order to stop a greater evil."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/trask1.html

Of course, many think all the above makes Rooselvelt more sinister, and it's the usual lousy facile attempt at smearing Roosevelt, but in fact it enhances FDR as the greatest President the U.S. ever had, being adept at both politics and military grand strategy, a rare combination among the 'ruling elite', which mostly produced thick headed halfwits with high self esteem, George W. Bush being a common example of the type.

UNITED STATES - JULY 1940
U.S. Navy - Two major naval developments take place in July. On the 11th, Frank Knox, a prominent Republican takes office as Secretary of the Navy. (Another Republican, Henry L Stimson also becomes Secretary of War). And on the 19th, the President signs the "Naval Expansion" or "Two-Ocean Navy Act" allowing for a massive extra 1,325,000 tons of warships, 100,000 tons of auxiliary shipping and 15,000 aircraft. This will double the size of the existing Navy, but take valuable time.
Nearly 30 "Cleveland" class light cruisers (11,700t, 12-6in) are eventually completed, some not until after the end of the war. "Cleveland" herself is laid down in July 1940 at New York, followed by three more in 1940. Five ships are commissioned in 1942, five in 1943, and ten in 1944.
United States/Japanese Relations and the Pacific - Prince Konoye forms a new and more aggressive Japanese cabinet that includes Gen Hideki Tojo as Minister of War. To hold back Japanese war plans, President Roosevelt invokes the new Export Control Act to stop the export of iron, steel, oil and other strategic and military materials and equipment to Japan.
http://www.naval-history.net/WW2USN194006.htm

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/bases/pearl_1919-1941.htm

[ironweed]

No, seriously, FDR made plans to improve the bombers. I remember distinctly from watching the program on the History Channel and found it interesting how there were efforts to be made in research, although keep in mind that the U.S. was split for awhile on whether to research tanks and if they would be effective in war.

I'm thinking of biographies I've read of both Patton and MacArthur, and how both were so frustrated with conditions in the interwar years both almost left. And MacArthur really de facto did, becoming a military advisor in the Phillipines.

The Marines in WWII were given old weapons while the army that was in the European theater were mainly issued Thompsons (variation of the Tommy Gun) and had the Browning Automatic Rifle (made in 1918).

I stand corrected here, though my point was more that the Marines were much more ready to fight than the Army was in 1941. I see your point, and agree, that the Pacific Theater was certainly secondary to Europe.


Although it is true for the most part that alot of technology for most of the 30s was being placed primarily in consumer goods, FDR did make some effort to try and research somewhat in arms.

Are you sure about this? I'm particularly thinking of armor, where the US really did do nothing. As to the rest of it, I'm under the impression that nobody in the Roosevelt Administration thought much about foreign policy one way or the other until 1937 at the earliest.

Although it is without a doubt how much more advanced Germany's technology was in concerns to planes, tanks, and infantry.

I shall have to look into this, someday...and I apologize for the flippant tone I took with your previous post. Didn't realize it came out that way until I read it again this AM. Having a five month old baby that likes to wake up four or five times a night is making me downright grumpy lately. I can hardly wait until he gets to the age that he only wants his mother when he does this. :p

[cerberus]

Given the advantage of surprise and the short term benefits of taking out the American Fleet at Peral Harbour , America made a quick recovery against Japan.
There really was very little which could be done to prevent the six months of rampage which Japan had but after Guadalcanal and the "draw" of the Coral Sea , Japan had very little her own way.
Midway was the graveyard of any hope she had and in six or seven minutes her future was very much decided.
The Japanese really did bite of much more than they could ever hope to chew and time was never on their side from day one.
The sleeping giant filled with a terrible resolve really did sum up the situation.
One Japanese official who played a small part surrender in Toyoko Bay looked at all the nations which japan had waged war on and on the fleet which now stood before her and he wondered how Japan had ever thought that she could win.
The move towards Japan and the securing of air bases to bring her within range of the B-29's must rank as an outstanding accomplishment .
Certainly had America been totally focused on Japan alone its difficult to see Japan having lasted much past 1943-44.
The series of land and sea battles around Guadalcanal did place the writing on the wall , Japan was in a war she could not win against an enemy who could and would use every resource at her disposal to win.
Like Germany Japan played the race card against American and Britain , it proved to be a hollow and empty piece of propaganda.

[A. Radek]

The U.S. could have lost that battle and even a couple more like it and still won the war in the Pacific, IMHO. Outside of shelling LA or SF or something they could never follow up any victory with anything that would have been more than an annoying nuisance, relatively. Their Navy was just too small, and Mao would have eaten them alive eventually, without the well funded Nationalist opposition of Shek to hinder him.

[cerberus]

The U.S. could have lost that battle and even a couple more like it and still won the war in the Pacific, IMHO. Outside of shelling LA or SF or something they could never follow up any victory with anything that would have been more than an annoying nuisance, relatively.

I agree , in common with "Barbarossa" there was no end game for the japanese.
germany would have had to occupy and subdue all of Russia to win , something she could never hope to do and Japan would have to at the very least put America back on her own shore line something she could never hope to do.
Yamamoto got it exactly right. Time would be on Japan's side for only a very short time ,thereafter she would always be on the back foot.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

I do not think Hitler planed for occupying all of the Soviet Union. A trounced SU would have led to the destruction of the Commonwealth Middle East and possibly India where to shake hands with the Japs. The SU could not have been all occupied but it could have been kicked out of the war along the planed A-A line.

[Petr]

I do not think Hitler planed for occupying all of the Soviet Union.
Top Nazis often mentioned the Ural Mountains as the natural border and limit of their ambitions - although in his Posen speech, Himmler indicated that coming generations might push even further:

http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconhh.html

"When the "mass man" arises on the other side with 1 to 1.5 billion people, then the germanic people with its, I hope, 250 to 300 million people, together with the other European peoples, for a total of 600 to 700 million people, on a perimeter extending the Urals, or, in one hundred years, extending over the Urals, will carry on its battle for life against Asia. "


Nazism was quite simply an ideology that was ultimately based on the permanent state of war:

"We will dictate our laws to the East. We shall burst forth and press gradually onwards to the Urals. I hope that our generation succeeds in enabling every age group to fight in the East, so that every divisions spends a winter in the East every two or three years. "


Petr

[cerberus]

Ebus, The line of the Volga and the Urals had often been mentioned, but the Soviets being the Soviets might not have played ball on this.
Point I am making is that defeating Russia ( for Germany) was not unlike Japan hoping to defeat America.
The undertaing was well beyond the resources that both had and time would always work against them.
In short "mission impossible."

Look at it this way by 1944 America had destroyed compleltely the Japanese merchant fleet , IJN was a destroyed force , no hope of winning.
By 1943 Germany was running out of soldiers , in partiuar good quality NCO's and officers.
She could not attack along the whole front in the east and could at best hope to create a local superiority by focusing all her resoucres on a patricular area.
Victory would not be happening.

[Petr]

Point I am making is that defeating Russia ( for Germany) was not unlike Japan hoping to defeat America.
Not true. If Nazi Germany would have fought against USSR only (not having to worry about the Western allies), it would have had very realistic chances of annihilating Russia's armed forces and occupying the whole area to the Ural Mountains.

"Japan hoping to defeat China" would be a more apt comparison.


Petr

[cerberus]

Not true. If Nazi Germany would have fought against USSR only (not having to worry about the Western allies), it would have had very realistic chances of annihilating Russia's armed forces and occupying the whole area to the Ural Mountains.

I doubt this , even with the much talked about six weeks lost on Greece and the Balkans its unlikely that Germany could have beaten Russia.
The numbers game left Germany at a great disadvantage and industry wise Russia could out produce her , Germany would have bled to death in the same manner as she did 1941-45.
The small number of troops in Africa would have made little difference.
China , same ball game as America.
Japan had limited reseources and time to achieve victory , germany was in the same boat.
Quality of soldier yes and in some quarters of arms but the edpth of manpower and industry to defeat Russia, no.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

I agree with Petr here. Germany could have taken the important chunks out of the SU and disable its possibilities of keep waging war. Germany vs the SU was not Japan vs the USA.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Not true. If Nazi Germany would have fought against USSR only (not having to worry about the Western allies), it would have had very realistic chances of annihilating Russia's armed forces and occupying the whole area to the Ural Mountains.


The Soviets were able to stop the Germans at their military's highest point in quality, and by 1942 were already pushing them back. Even if the Germans didn't have to worry about a massive American/British landing, they would still have to defend against British raids as well as garrisoning the various nations under their thumb.

Allied war material sent to the Soviets was the biggest difference the West made in the Eastern Front. By the time Western troops landed in Europe the Germans were already in a lot of trouble.

[Petr]

Even if the Germans didn't have to worry about a massive American/British landing, they would still have to defend against British raids as well as garrisoning the various nations under their thumb.
You seem to have problems with reading comprehension. I was clearly describing a scenario where Germany was not fighting Western allies at all, which could have happened easily if they had let Hitler swallow Poland in peace and then attack the Soviet Union.


Petr

[Felix the Cat]

You seem to have problems with reading comprehension. I was clearly describing a scenario where Germany was not fighting Western allies at all, which could have happened easily if they had let Hitler swallow Poland in peace and then attack the Soviet Union.
What of Alsace?

Is it possible Hitler could have turned to Russia without first settling that particular grievance?

[cerberus]

I am having the same problem.
Its a "what if".
Even allowing for a Germany / Russia only its still a big "what if".
Russia would have to be broken and the political system would have to collapse.
Germany just didn't have the men and material to do it.
Could they have retained the "bites" they took ?
German in 1940 able to topple the Soviet Union and advance as far as the Volga and hold it ?
In 1941 they had been run into the ground , I can't see 1940 being any different.