Was Japan doomed to lose?

[Polskamoze]

When Japan invaded china for the third time, Could they win any war on the Major scale? And I think Germany's failure was because of incompetent allies, like Italy and Japan.

Also if Germany picked China to be its ally, could they delay or win WW2?

 

[wcv215]

When Japan invaded china for the third time, Could they win any war on the Major scale?

Uh...maybe...

Not to the scale they were pushing for though, and if it hadn't been the Third Sino-Japanese War that destroyed Imperial Japan it would have been the fourth, or the fifth. The IJA couldn't keep itself from attacking China just because the lower ranks felt like it, and the Japanese manner of conducting war was always going to make the Chinese hate them so much that they wouldn't be easy to occupy.

And I think Germany's failure was because of incompetent allies, like Italy and Japan.

Also if Germany picked China to be its ally, could they delay or win WW2?

This is just straight-up untrue. Germany looked at the world and decided that fighting the other two most powerful countries in the world at the SAME TIME was the best idea ever. Fighting the USSR would have been an enormous challenge for Germany regardless of anything else going on, but picking a fight with the United States at the same time might be the stupidest decision of WWII, a war which also included Pearl Harbor. And before you say that Japan started the war with the US, Germany had been going down that path for months. The Undeclared War in the Atlantic was going on, and peace between the two was increasngly shaky. Most likely the US would have declared war on Germany within a year regardless, by which time the Two Ocean Navy would have been in effect, and the US might have stepped up its escort game as it did later in the war.

Meanwhile, inefficencies in the German economy, the general shittiness (overall) of many of their designs, resource problems, and infighting would have still weighed the Nazis down.

 

[Ian_W]

When Japan invaded china for the third time, Could they win any war on the Major scale? And I think Germany's failure was because of incompetent allies, like Italy and Japan.

Also if Germany picked China to be its ally, could they delay or win WW2?

No, they couldn't. They couldnt beat China, and China had two allies in the USSR and the USA that were happy to keep them in the fight.

Germany's failure was far more about being incompetent to their allies than their allies being incompetent. If, for example, Rumanians had been equipped to the same standard as the German units on either side - the way the Allies did it with their Brazillians and so on - then things go better for the Axis.

 

[Barry Bull]

Uh...maybe...

Not to the scale they were pushing for though, and if it hadn't been the Third Sino-Japanese War that destroyed Imperial Japan it would have been the fourth, or the fifth. The IJA couldn't keep itself from attacking China just because the lower ranks felt like it, and the Japanese manner of conducting war was always going to make the Chinese hate them so much that they wouldn't be easy to occupy.



This is just straight-up untrue. Germany looked at the world and decided that fighting the other two most powerful countries in the world at the SAME TIME was the best idea ever. Fighting the USSR would have been an enormous challenge for Germany regardless of anything else going on, but picking a fight with the United States at the same time might be the stupidest decision of WWII, a war which also included Pearl Harbor. And before you say that Japan started the war with the US, Germany had been going down that path for months. The Undeclared War in the Atlantic was going on, and peace between the two was increasngly shaky. Most likely the US would have declared war on Germany within a year regardless, by which time the Two Ocean Navy would have been in effect, and the US might have stepped up its escort game as it did later in the war.

Meanwhile, inefficencies in the German economy, the general shittiness (overall) of many of their designs, resource problems, and infighting would have still weighed the Nazis down.

Do not forget about the Commonwealth forces too. The Third Reich were crazy enough to fight against 3 industrial powers at the same time and each of the said powers was capable of at least equivalent level of industrial output as the Third Reich. The Nazis' early victories and "achievements" were the combination of luck and skill, but long term failure is hardly in doubt.

 

[wcv215]

Do not forget about the Commonwealth forces too. The Third Reich were crazy enough to fight against 3 industrial powers at the same time and each of the said powers was capable of at least equivalent level of industrial output as the Third Reich. The Nazis' early victories and "achievements" were the combination of luck and skill, but long term failure is hardly in doubt.

Right, but (and I mean no disrepect to the Commonwealth forces here, I am speaking solely from industrial power) the British Commonwealth wasn't on the level of the USSR or the US. There's a reason the two of them became the superpowers following the Second World War. The Royal Navy was a foe that Nazi Germany could never overcome yes, but it would always be the USSR or United States who defeated the Nazis after the Fall of France, Britain simply wasn't strong enough to do so on its own. It speaks VOLUMES of Nazi inefficencies that they were outproduced by Great Britain alone for years during the war in virtually every category, despite having a higher industrial output in theory.

 

[History Learner]

Japanese plans for 1942 originally included an early version of their IOTL 1944 Ichi-Go Offensive that nearly broke the Chinese, but the American recovery from Midway on derailed this and increasingly sucked up Japanese resources into fights across the Pacific Basin. Had they not elected to go to war with the Western Powers, they probably could've conducted said offensive in late 1942 and used diplomatic pressure, as they had in 1939, to get the British to close the Burma Road once again for 1942. Such twin blows, combined with the free hand to keep hitting the Chinese in 1942, would've allowed them to score a decisive victory in the China conflict by early 1943.

 

[Ian_W]

Right, but (and I mean no disrepect to the Commonwealth forces here, I am speaking solely from industrial power) the British Commonwealth wasn't on the level of the USSR or the US.

Yes, but it was within coo-ee of the Third Reich.

Putting the Commonwealth together, in about 42-3, you are a bit better on aircraft production, a bit worse on armour production, a bit better on pilot production and a lot better on naval construction.

 

[Ian_W]

Japanese plans for 1942 originally included an early version of their IOTL 1944 Ichi-Go Offensive that nearly broke the Chinese, but the American recovery from Midway on derailed this and increasingly sucked up Japanese resources into fights across the Pacific Basin. Had they not elected to go to war with the Western Powers, they probably could've conducted said offensive in late 1942 and used diplomatic pressure, as they had in 1939, to get the British to close the Burma Road once again for 1942. Such twin blows, combined with the free hand to keep hitting the Chinese in 1942, would've allowed them to score a decisive victory in the China conflict by early 1943.

Had they not elected to go to war with the Western Powers, the Army runs out of oil in late '42, and makes urgent enquiries as to the Navy as to why are the Navy stealing all the oil.

 

[History Learner]

Had they not elected to go to war with the Western Powers, the Army runs out of oil in late '42, and makes urgent enquiries as to the Navy as to why are the Navy stealing all the oil.

Indeed, and obviously there'd have to be a reason for electing not to go to war; I recall seeing a thread last year or so about how the occupation of Indochina was decisive in bringing about the Oil embargo, while the easier (and better, IMHO) option would be the discovery of Manchurian oil reserves in the 1930s. A Japan that finds such will be a Japan that will reorient itself more towards being a land power to better protect such resources and to secure its conquest of China, meaning an effective armored element, a stronger Anti-Soviet stance, and the ability to collect massive currency reserves by selling its oil.

 

[Ian_W]

Indeed, and obviously there'd have to be a reason for electing not to go to war; I recall seeing a thread last year or so about how the occupation of Indochina was decisive in bringing about the Oil embargo, while the easier (and better, IMHO) option would be the discovery of Manchurian oil reserves in the 1930s. A Japan that finds such will be a Japan that will reorient itself more towards being a land power to better protect such resources and to secure its conquest of China, meaning an effective armored element, a stronger Anti-Soviet stance, and the ability to collect massive currency reserves by selling its oil.

The actual Japan of this period had a studied contempt for actual oil and gas production - the Daqing discovery well was five times the depths of the East Timor deposits that the OTL Japanese Army figured pits would be a good idea as far as a production technique goes (the Chinese had invented the "oil well" about 3000 years earlier).

As far as "a reason for electing not to go to war", you've got it backwards as far as Japan of this time goes. Lack of enthusiasm for going to war is what gets you assassinated.

 

[History Learner]

The actual Japan of this period had a studied contempt for actual oil and gas production - the Daqing discovery well was five times the depths of the East Timor deposits that the OTL Japanese Army figured pits would be a good idea as far as a production technique goes (the Chinese had invented the "oil well" about 3000 years earlier).

I'll admit to being not aware of the exact specifics of Japanese oil industry in this era, so I will defer to paging @Zachariah and see what he can share on this; his thread suggests it was just a matter of luck that the Japanese didn't get to extract from the Oil deposits in China.

As far as "a reason for electing not to go to war", you've got it backwards as far as Japan of this time goes. Lack of enthusiasm for going to war is what gets you assassinated.

Indeed, in so far as the China war goes but the decision to wage war against the West was a result of the desire to continue operations in China.

 

[Ian_W]

I'll admit to being not aware of the exact specifics of Japanese oil industry in this era, so I will defer to paging @Zachariah and see what he can share on this; his thread suggests it was just a matter of luck that the Japanese didn't get to extract from the Oil deposits in China.



Indeed, in so far as the China war goes but the decision to wage war against the West was a result of the desire to continue operations in China.

The exact specifics is there wasn't any. It really was that bad.

You're dealing with a bunch of people who went to war to, essentially, seize the oil from the Southern Resources Area without a clue as to what they do if the British and Dutch don't leave it in perfect working order.

I mean, their German allies did have a little bit of a clue about how to extract oil - while grabbing Baku it was a dumb plan and involved a lot of handwaving as to 'and this is how we get the oil refined and to home', it was at least a plan that involved Army engineering units being taught a couple of things about oil drilling and how it works.

Now, whats the odds of a bunch of Bushido-crazy Japanese Army types lowering themselves to such merchant activities ?

I'm not even going to get to the technical details of the Songliao basin being non-marine, which means you basically need to abandon the known at the time thinking about petroleum geology, and go for the Soviet approach of 'lets just drill lots of wells'.

 

[hipper]

Right, but (and I mean no disrepect to the Commonwealth forces here, I am speaking solely from industrial power) the British Commonwealth wasn't on the level of the USSR or the US. There's a reason the two of them became the superpowers following the Second World War. The Royal Navy was a foe that Nazi Germany could never overcome yes, but it would always be the USSR or United States who defeated the Nazis after the Fall of France, Britain simply wasn't strong enough to do so on its own. It speaks VOLUMES of Nazi inefficencies that they were outproduced by Great Britain alone for years during the war in virtually every category, despite having a higher industrial output in theory.

applying your test do you think that either the USSR or The United States could have Defeated the Germans on their own?

 

[wcv215]

applying your test do you think that either the USSR or The United States could have Defeated the Germans on their own?

In theory? Yes.

The USSR was hampered by poor leadership early in the war, with most of its military wiped out in the initial Nazi attacks, with something like a 30-1 advantage on the German side in destroyed planes alone. There were a variety of reasons for this, but the purges, Stalin's general refusal to believe the reports that an attack was imminent, and general incompetence really hampered the Soviet military at this stage. Piling right on top of all of that was that the Soviets had moved into Poland previously, abandoning their older defenses for positions inside Poland which had not been properly fortified. Much like the Fall of France the circumstance really meant the USSR was fighting on the back foot for years. Fix these issues and the Soviets could have stopped the Nazis in 1941. Hell, have a few decisions from the Nazis change (for example, don't divert soldiers south to Kiev and the Nazis are left with a massive flank that can't be defended), and this could have happened anyway. Lend-lease made up for a LOT of the losses from this stage of the war, but with better luck and more competent leaders many of the losses probably could have been prevented in the first place. When does the war end? Probably 1943 or 1944, depending on Soviet losses early on. With more of the Soviet forces intact, and more German losses, as well as the Soviet industrial heartland and agricultural area untouched the Soviet advantages can really be brought to bear. Now, the interesting thing here is that in theory Germany and the Soviet Union are evenly matched, but German inefficiencies mean the Soviets are going to outproduce them drastically, and have a higher population to call to arms. Stopping the Nazis early also means far, far less slave labor for Germany to use in upping their production later in the war, meaning the differences will be drastic even without lend-lease.

The US has a tougher time for two reasons. First, and most obvious the sheer distance between North America and Nazi Germany. The perils and difficulty of a trans-oceanic invasion are fairly well-known, but it requires a truly colossal understaking, especially if the enemy is fortified and numerous enough. Compounding this is the second factor, the miniscule American army at the beginning of WWII. There were something 100,000 active duty soldiers when WWII began, making the American army about the same size as Romania's, and this mean a HUGE expansion was needed, which came with its own growing pains as officers had to be promoted to new positions, and millions of people had to be trained. All of this adds time for the Nazis to fortify. Had the US had an army on the size of say...Italy's (3,000,000) then the American Army might have been able to quickly sweep in and secure the coasts of France before shipping in the main body of the army early, before the Atlantic Wall had even really begun. As it was though it required years for the US to even really get started, which is where the difficulty comes in. So ultimately any solo war between Nazi Germany and the United States is basically going to lack ground combat most likely and instead be a war of economics, naval clashes, and air battles. All of which the Reich is doomed to lose due to the VASTLY larger American air and naval power, as well as the American economy dwarfing that of Germany (and everyone else, but that's beside the point). How does the war end? Most likely with German economic collapse. The Nazi economy was stupidly innefficient. As mentioned above they were outproduced by Britain in virtually every category for YEARS due to these issues, despite having larger economic power in theory. When put up against the industrial giant that was the United States there's no way they can win. How long does this take? Honestly, no idea, but quite a while, meaning victory is far slower than in the Soviet example above. Or the US develops a few dozen/hundred atomic bombs and burns the continent to the ground.

Yes, but it was within coo-ee of the Third Reich.

Putting the Commonwealth together, in about 42-3, you are a bit better on aircraft production, a bit worse on armour production, a bit better on pilot production and a lot better on naval construction.

Right, I mentioned this. Britain alone outproduced the Nazis for at least a couple of years, only really lagging behind in small arms (which aren't nearly as important as the others.) It wasn't until 1944 ironically enough that the Nazi manufacturing picked up significantly enough to overtake Britain. And it never even came close to that of the USSR or US.

 

[hipper]

In theory? Yes.

The USSR was hampered by poor leadership early in the war, with most of its military wiped out in the initial Nazi attacks, with something like a 30-1 advantage on the German side in destroyed planes alone. There were a variety of reasons for this, but the purges, Stalin's general refusal to believe the reports that an attack was imminent, and general incompetence really hampered the Soviet military at this stage. Piling right on top of all of that was that the Soviets had moved into Poland previously, abandoning their older defenses for positions inside Poland which had not been properly fortified. Much like the Fall of France the circumstance really meant the USSR was fighting on the back foot for years. Fix these issues and the Soviets could have stopped the Nazis in 1941. Hell, have a few decisions from the Nazis change (for example, don't divert soldiers south to Kiev and the Nazis are left with a massive flank that can't be defended), and this could have happened anyway. Lend-lease made up for a LOT of the losses from this stage of the war, but with better luck and more competent leaders many of the losses probably could have been prevented in the first place. When does the war end? Probably 1943 or 1944, depending on Soviet losses early on. With more of the Soviet forces intact, and more German losses, as well as the Soviet industrial heartland and agricultural area untouched the Soviet advantages can really be brought to bear. Now, the interesting thing here is that in theory Germany and the Soviet Union are evenly matched, but German inefficiencies mean the Soviets are going to outproduce them drastically, and have a higher population to call to arms. Stopping the Nazis early also means far, far less slave labor for Germany to use in upping their production later in the war, meaning the differences will be drastic even without lend-lease.

The US has a tougher time for two reasons. First, and most obvious the sheer distance between North America and Nazi Germany. The perils and difficulty of a trans-oceanic invasion are fairly well-known, but it requires a truly colossal understaking, especially if the enemy is fortified and numerous enough. Compounding this is the second factor, the miniscule American army at the beginning of WWII. There were something 100,000 active duty soldiers when WWII began, making the American army about the same size as Romania's, and this mean a HUGE expansion was needed, which came with its own growing pains as officers had to be promoted to new positions, and millions of people had to be trained. All of this adds time for the Nazis to fortify. Had the US had an army on the size of say...Italy's (3,000,000) then the American Army might have been able to quickly sweep in and secure the coasts of France before shipping in the main body of the army early, before the Atlantic Wall had even really begun. As it was though it required years for the US to even really get started, which is where the difficulty comes in. So ultimately any solo war between Nazi Germany and the United States is basically going to lack ground combat most likely and instead be a war of economics, naval clashes, and air battles. All of which the Reich is doomed to lose due to the VASTLY larger American air and naval power, as well as the American economy dwarfing that of Germany (and everyone else, but that's beside the point). How does the war end? Most likely with German economic collapse. The Nazi economy was stupidly innefficient. As mentioned above they were outproduced by Britain in virtually every category for YEARS due to these issues, despite having larger economic power in theory. When put up against the industrial giant that was the United States there's no way they can win. How long does this take? Honestly, no idea, but quite a while, meaning victory is far slower than in the Soviet example above. Or the US develops a few dozen/hundred atomic bombs and burns the continent to the ground.


Right, I mentioned this. Britain alone outproduced the Nazis for at least a couple of years, only really lagging behind in small arms (which aren't nearly as important as the others.) It wasn't until 1944 ironically enough that the Nazi manufacturing picked up significantly enough to overtake Britain. And it never even came close to that of the USSR or US.

The Russians Had the Land army to defeat the Germans but were deficient in Competency and Equipment, they reason they were incompetent is that they were run by a paranoid Dictator who was afraid that a Competent army would replace him. The Russians had a large incompetent army by design, to defeat Germany Russia needs a drastic change in politics in the thirties.

Grant the UK a drastic change in Politics in the thirties and Germany is Defeated between 1933 and 1936.

To Defear Germany you Suggest that The US would have to rely on sea and air power to destroy the German Economy. this was the View of the British Goverment it was incorrect because of the massive support granted to Germany by the Soviet Union Prior to Barbarossa.

I don’t think there is much difference Between the ammount of air power the Uk and the US could project over Germany by 1944/45 but the UK has an advantage due to position.

In short I don’t believe either the US The USSR or the UK could have defeated Nazi Germany on its own after 1939.

 

[The Red]

The Russians Had the Land army to defeat the Germans but were deficient in Competency and Equipment, they reason they were incompetent is that they were run by a paranoid Dictator who was afraid that a Competent army would replace him. The Russians had a large incompetent army by design, to defeat Germany Russia needs a drastic change in politics in the thirties.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Red Army was incompetent by design, there were a myriad of factors as to why the early fronteir battles of Barbarossa was a disaster for the Red Army, but it's important to note that the Germans bled as well. In July 1941, the German losses were higher than in any month between the beginning September 1939 and the last months of 1942. Soviet resistance ensured Barbarossa would be a strategic failure by August 1941, and by the start of September the Red Army had won its first victory in forcing a German withdrawal from Yelnya salient. A serious learning curve was required but the Red Army rose to the challenge, despite Stalin's meddling often making that difficult.

 

[lionhead]

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Red Army was incompetent by design, there were a myriad of factors as to why the early fronteir battles of Barbarossa was a disaster for the Red Army, but it's important to note that the Germans bled as well. In July 1941, the German losses were higher than in any month between the beginning September 1939 and the last months of 1942. Soviet resistance ensured Barbarossa would be a strategic failure by August 1941, and by the start of September the Red Army had won its first victory in forcing a German withdrawal from Yelnya salient. A serious learning curve was required but the Red Army rose to the challenge, despite Stalin's meddling often making that difficult.

those statistics don't hold up i think. German losses during July 1941 were acceptable. it doesn't compare to the earlier years seeing the scale of the invasion. Soviet losses by December 1941 were 5 times that of the Germans. Barbarossa had had not yet become a failure untill October, when the Soviets had stalled the offensive enough.

During that time the Red army was still hugely underequipped and outmatched in almost all aspects. Its the winter at first and the lend-lease later that saved the red army from falling apart. And Stalin wasn't helping a lot, but his generals did(like Zhukov and Vasilevsky).

 

[The Red]

German losses during July 1941 were acceptable.

Not exactly, by August 1941 there were already concerns that the Ostheer was losing more men than could be replaced, and that units who had suffered losses would have to make do with less men in the future.

Soviet losses by December 1941 were 5 times that of the Germans.

Soviet losses were disproportionately higher, but they also showed a greater ability to build up new forces quicker, which helped to level things out somewhat.

Barbarossa had had not yet become a failure untill October, when the Soviets had stalled the offensive enough.

Kiev was more of an attempt to achieve two of Barbarossa's failed objectives, seize the Ukraine and destroy the Red Army whilst doing so. It can be seen as a continuation of Barbarossa but the original operation had already burned out.

During that time the Red army was still hugely underequipped and outmatched in almost all aspects.

And yet they held on and managed to score victories whilst having to modernise and rebuild at the same time. I don't see why this is considered to be a Soviet failure.

Its the winter at first and the lend-lease later that saved the red army from falling apart.

The German failure to prepare for winter is more a matter of logistics than of choice, it's important to note the extent to which the German army was already expected to live off of the land at the expense of Soviet citizens. An adequate supply of winter clothing was arguably always going to be impossible for such a large, spread-out force, and one must consider what would be sacrificed instead?

Lend-lease was certainly important, but the decisive victories against the Germans had already been acheived by the time it began to make a significant impact.

 

[hipper]

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Red Army was incompetent by design, there were a myriad of factors as to why the early fronteir battles of Barbarossa was a disaster for the Red Army, but it's important to note that the Germans bled as well. In July 1941, the German losses were higher than in any month between the beginning September 1939 and the last months of 1942. Soviet resistance ensured Barbarossa would be a strategic failure by August 1941, and by the start of September the Red Army had won its first victory in forcing a German withdrawal from Yelnya salient. A serious learning curve was required but the Red Army rose to the challenge, despite Stalin's meddling often making that difficult.

The Red army was incompetent by design because Stalin as a matter of Policy had killed 50% of the officer corps and three out of five Marshals.

 

[The Red]

The Red army was incompetent by design because Stalin as a matter of Policy had killed 50% of the officer corps and three out of five Marshals.

Paranoia is very different from designed obsolescence, it's important to note that even those conducting the purges were alarmed at the fact that the paranoia had taken on a life of its own.