>imperial japan
>land offensive
ahahahahahahaha
i'd take the 1938 Heer over the IJA in any point in the war. Certainly the 1939 Heer.
I'd take the 1917 Reichsheer over the IJA at any point between 1939-1945
>imperial japan
>land offensive
ahahahahahahaha
i'd take the 1938 Heer over the IJA in any point in the war. Certainly the 1939 Heer.
I'd take the 1917 Reichsheer over the IJA at any point between 1939-1945![]()
Lots of people are saying neither China or Japan would be the "ideal" ally for Nazi Germany. But, in the geopolitical world of the late 1930's and early 1940's who else would be a better ally than Japan - presuming of course the other main members of the Axis and Allies remain the same? Argentina? South Africa? Only Japam had the military power to pose a potential threat to both the USA and the USSR.
Obviously the best possible realistic ally for Germany is the Soviet Union. Had Hitler an ounce of sense instead of insane anti-Slav racism, he probablycould have played to Stalin's greed and had access to Soviet materiel and resources for several more years - possibly long enough to defeat or at least neutralize Britain and strengthen his position against the USA.
But, see, that is what is so baffling to me about the fact that China is winning in the poll. The IJA was pretty much a pre-WWI army, and yet they were able to destroy much larger Chinese armies in the field over and over again. In the Second Shanghai Incident/Battle of Shanghai, the Chinese fielded over 600,000 troops, including their crack German-trained units. And yet, despite outnumbering their foe two-to-one and fighting a defensive battle, they lost over 250,000 KIA, compared to about 70k Japanese killed, and lost the city. If the IJA was that outclassed by modern European armies (and they were), what does that say about China's military might? If Nazi Germany has to pick an ally with a second- or third-rate army, shouldn't they at least pick one that isn't already being trounced in a war?
The problem is, it did nothing to help against the USSR because Germany never gave any sign that it might want a coordinated attack. Let's face it: If Hitler was willing to let Japan in on its plan, there's the possibility that the IJA might have not signed off an invasion against USSR, sinking the Advance South strategy. The isolation of Japan even with its "Allies" was part of the reason why it committed itself to the Pacific War.Instead, it dragged the most powerful nation in the world into the war, did nothing to help against the USSR, and possibly lost Germany the war. But Hitler had no way of knowing that would happen (on the other hand, it was partially his fault -- he didn't have to declare war on the US).
I think the rational behind the posters' Chinese choice is more of economic/political potential than military.
There was no sign of oil being in Siberia or Manchuria at the time. Therefore, oil couldn't have been a factor in the decision to go to war with USSR for Japan.You're right that Hitler could and should have communicated better. However, Barbarossa occurred before Pearl Harbor. Japan didn't need to attack the US. I know that the embargo was triggered by the Advance South, but Japan didn't end up getting any oil out of the US in OTTL, anyway. It could have instead attacked the USSR from the East, and used its oil. Then the Axis would have been in control of most of Eurasia, at war with no major powers, and in possession of a heap of oil, instead of struggling to survive (and eventually failing) in a simultaneous war with the two most powerful nations on Earth.
First, there were particularly militarily important materials such as tungsten and antimony, which China could supply in bulk. While Barbarossa would probably have cut the supply, Germany might have had four more years to stock up on the raw materials, which MIGHT help (can't say this for sure).What economic potential does China have in 1937?
Personally I don't see much benefit in politics except possibly making the US less anti-German. You'll have to ask others for that.As for political considerations, I am not sure what you mean. If you mean public opinion in tne US and UK was pro-China in the war, you are correct. I don't see the benefit for Germany in courting the British public, however, when they know they will be at war with tnem soon. If I am missing something, then please do fill me in.
Given the public atmosphere at the time (willing to help the Allies with material but not actually be in the war), there's a strong chance that not allying with Japan may help Hitler avoid having to worry about the US in the militarily sense.The other alleged benefit of allying with China--no Pearl Harbor--I have already explained why I think the alliance with Japan was actually Germany's best chance. 1940 is not 1916. There was good reason to think that the US would be at war with Germany sooner or later. As soon as that happens, huge amounts of US troops floods accross the Atlantic. The choice for Germany is not to fight the US or not fight the US. The choice is fight them alone, or fight them while they are distracted with another huge fight on the other side of the world. The IJN is Germany's only hope for slowing down the US push into Europe.
You are correct that Germany had more trade with China than Japan (as opposed to the US, who did much more with Japan). However, even with German aid, I don't see how China can hold on to the coast. All of the populated areas, including the major ports, will fall under Japanese control. Even if they do not, Japan is more than capable of blockading China. I don't see how any large-scale trade will go on between China and Europe. If the UK decides to allow it, some can come through Burma, or maybe Hong Kong, if it runs the blockade. However, it will be a trickle at best. Japan has less to offer Germany in trade, but it can control their own sea lanes. So, yes, goods can travel from Manchuria to Germany.Second, there was no real economic benefit for trading with Japan. Germany could not access the Northern Chinese and Manchurian markets. When we include the loss of the "Free China" market, we're seeing a great deal of loss in terms of market partners. While I don't expect for China to be trading that much since it is being clobbered, the amount would surely be more than what went on with Japan.
Given the public atmosphere at the time (willing to help the Allies with material but not actually be in the war), there's a strong chance that not allying with Japan may help Hitler avoid having to worry about the US in the militarily sense.
Which never was more than a trickle. This is really a question of how much China could have traded with Germany via the USSR.Japan has less to offer Germany in trade, but it can control their own sea lanes. So, yes, goods can travel from Manchuria to Germany.
I'd take the 1917 Reichsheer over the IJA at any point between 1939-1945![]()
Why? The Japanese Army had no problem taking on the Brits and Americans during the period.
Regarding the point earlier about how Japan beat China on land at that time, it's not so much that China is better as Japan is worse. The Asian land war doesn't affect Germany, but a war in the Pacific is extremely risky, as we saw OTL. Between one war that won't make Germany any more enemies and another that will make an enemy of the most powerful nation on earth, the choice is fairly obvious.