Deleted member 1487
I'm sure you'll enjoy your smug sense of self righteousness no matter what.So in other words, you fulfill what I'd expect about you given your choice of username.
Good to know.
I'm sure you'll enjoy your smug sense of self righteousness no matter what.So in other words, you fulfill what I'd expect about you given your choice of username.
Good to know.
I'm sure you'll enjoy your smug sense of self righteousness no matter what.
What mistake? How does acknowledging that you cited one book in one or two posts mean I was wrong? What does it prove if I search through this thread to tabulate every since instance you cited one book when in citing that book its taking the issue out of context and blanket apply it to a situation in 1941? I didn't say you never ever have cited a source, but the vast majority of your posting is opinions. Even the citing of Khalkhin Gol to bolster your arguments on this thread are once again an issue of taking an event out of context and using that as proof of your opinion. I'd love more civility, but you and your clique have been mischaracterizing my points and outright lying about my arguments to 'win' and feel that you're right. I've frankly had enough and see no point in being civil when that standard isn't being lived up to.You know, you could have just said "okay, sorry, my mistake"... Instead you repeated the mischaracterization and took time to say you were too busy to try and find evidence to justify your comment.
Nothing like civility to make conversations more pleasant.
Best,
Yeah, the same group that likes each others' comments over and over and adopts the same lines of attack to dismiss arguments they don't agree with.My clique?
Pass.
In response to Wiking's criticism above, I posted numbers drawn from Coox, which seems to be the only widely available English language text, and pointed out some of the potential impacts and options in the wider strategic sense.
No more, no less.
Best,
Nuker might have said that taking Vladivostok was possible, though pyrrhic, but that is just his opinion, not fact, and based off of Bobthebarbarian's info, its likely wrong.
Your opinion is that it would be pyrrhic based on his info and your bias for the Soviets and against the Japanese.Ironic, given that my statement that Japan taking Vladivostok would be pyrrhic is based on BtBs information.
Your opinion is that it would be pyrrhic based on his info and your bias for the Soviets and against the Japanese.
In terms of the embargo then yes we can agree on that, in the long run the Japanese wouldn't survive that. Its debateable how long, but the end result is not in doubt given their lack of domestic production. In terms of combat losses I disagree about how costly it would be to take down Vladivostok when you can totally cut it off and have air superiority over the fortress.Again, incorrect. It's entirely based on his info. In any case, it's a no-brainer that any Japanese attack against the Soviets would be pyrrhic. The subsequent embargo would ensure that.
That's entirely reasonable. But 150k casualties, including over 50k dead is not a pyrrhic victory. That's a stiff loss, but fully managable, given that it is less than 10% of the force that would be committed and that they'd be wiping out at least 400k Soviets in the process and huge amounts of equipment and perhaps supplies stockpiled in Vladivostok. Its certainly a less flashy victory than the Southern Strike IOTL, but without that insane level of success with low losses perhaps than the Japanese wouldn't get victory disease and stay more sober about what they could achieve.Overall any Japanese attack into the Soviet Union is ultimately a strategic loss even if it produces a tactical win. In terms of the actual fighting I think it's fair to say that while Soviet casualties would be much higher than the Japanese this would still lead to the IJA suffering serious losses if only because of the sheer number of people involved. Based on previous ratios plus a few other considerations I would, as stated earlier put money on the battle for the Maritime Province alone costing the Japanese something like 150,000 casualties including over 50,000 dead. This figure by itself is around 5 times what they actually lost during the entire Southern Offensive of 1941-42.
For the record TFSmith121 I see no issue with your input in this thread- opposing viewpoints are necessary for a healthy discussion and a deeper examination of the topic in question compared to a "debate" in which both sides blandly agreed over everything.
Specifically your observations of the strategic situation the Japanese would have confronted vis a vis the Western Allies I consider for the most part spot on; Britain and America would never have sat idly by as Russia is stabbed in the back on Germany's behest.
My clique?
Pass.
Even if they did, the Russians could completely ignore them. Barbarossa was logistics nightmare for Germany. For Japan it would be hellish. They don't have the tanks, they don't have the trucks, the infrastructure is abysmal and they're already heavily tied down elsewhere.IOTL yes, but the reason they went south IOTL was the embargo and need to seize resources. They could prepare and succeed in the invasion of the Soviet Far East once the Germans invade and distract the Soviets.
And what do the Japanese have left after reinacting the Somme or Verdun?
The IJA never experienced the Western Front, after all; their frame of reference is Mukden or Port Arthur, overlain by their defeat at Nomonhan. The words "pyrrhic victory" come to mind...
Based on what Bob has said about the Japanese planning, they weren't intending to do 1905 style human wave assaults. They had learned since from the attacks on German fortifications during WW1 in China, as well as their war against China, plus of course European WW1 combat. The lessons of Verdun were not lost on anyone. They had a large siege train of fortress busting artillery that they were going to use, as well as hundreds of aircraft. Its not simply silly, but borderline racist to think that the Japanese were unable to learn the lessons of the intervening 30+ years as well as anyone else.The siege of Port Arthur included many assaults by Japanese infantry into the teeth of Russian fortifications with emplaced machine guns. Yes, the Japanese lost very heavily in these assaults, which usually failed.
Western military observers failed to draw the obvious conclusion, instead arguing that the attacks failed because the Japanese lacked the strength of body and character to carry them through - unlike white men, of course.
The Japanese also drew false conclusions - in particular, that the eventual success of these attacks was due to the superior willpower of their troops.