Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Japanese Invasion of the USSR

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
    The one defect with the Bellamy & Lahnstein paper is that no-one has bothered to check the officially published Japanese data (or at least no-one English speaking). Even my Russian account is light on Japanese figures.
    How much are you willing to bet this will remain unanswered and unchecked for another 100 years? When it comes to Japanese not willing to disclose their archives, it's fine with these people, but see them go all accusatory when it comes to the topic of Russian archives.
    www.histours.ru

    Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Philip F View Post
      I have not have time to do your research for you.
      Im quite happy to let you believe the Japanese did not invade Indo-China if you want.
      I know it happened as I would think do most here so that is enough for me.
      Let's see, you can't provide references. You might be interested to know that when Gerhard Weinberg discusses FDR's imposition of the oil embargo in a lecture I've linked to in the WW2 section he refers to the Japanese 'occupying' Indo-China. Given that he's quite happy to use the 'I' word elsewhere one wonders why he would choose not to use it here. Could it be that he knows something about the move that you don't?
      Signing out.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
        Let's see, you can't provide references. You might be interested to know that when Gerhard Weinberg discusses FDR's imposition of the oil embargo in a lecture I've linked to in the WW2 section he refers to the Japanese 'occupying' Indo-China. Given that he's quite happy to use the 'I' word elsewhere one wonders why he would choose not to use it here. Could it be that he knows something about the move that you don't?
        As I said im quite happy for you to live in your world of delusion.
        If you want to believe the Japanese did not invade Indo-China then carry on.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Philip F View Post
          As I said im quite happy for you to live in your world of delusion.
          If you want to believe the Japanese did not invade Indo-China then carry on.
          So you're saying that Gerhard Weinberg is delusional?
          Signing out.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
            So you're saying that Gerhard Weinberg is delusional?
            No im saying you are.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Philip F View Post
              No im saying you are.
              So Weinberg and Van Der Vat aren't but I am? Despite the fact that their views are in accordance with mine?
              Signing out.

              Comment


              • I am hoping the house rules say that Japan ended its war in China. This is the only way that this is going to work

                Comment


                • Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                  The one defect with the Bellamy & Lahnstein paper is that no-one has bothered to check the officially published Japanese data (or at least no-one English speaking). Even my Russian account is light on Japanese figures.
                  The figures given seem consistent with the outcome when you consider the timeframe and forces committed against losses. The Soviets had more casualties overall, but as a percentage of forces engaged clearly the Japanese had a far higher attrition rate. So I personally wouldn't consider that much of a defect in the linked source, all things considered. I see the major flaw in the assumption of Soviet superiority in this scenario by extrapolating from the results of Khalkin Gol as an apples to oranges contrast in effort levels. To assume that a maximum effort by the Japanese would suffer the same fate as a self limiting effort did is too much of a reach IMHO. All of the information to prove that point is in the linked source.
                  "Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics"
                  -Omar Bradley
                  "Not everyone who studies logistics is a professional logistician, and there is no way to understand when you don't know what you don't know."
                  -Anonymous US Army logistician

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Javaman View Post
                    The figures given seem consistent with the outcome when you consider the timeframe and forces committed against losses. The Soviets had more casualties overall, but as a percentage of forces engaged clearly the Japanese had a far higher attrition rate. So I personally wouldn't consider that much of a defect in the linked source, all things considered. I see the major flaw in the assumption of Soviet superiority in this scenario by extrapolating from the results of Khalkin Gol as an apples to oranges contrast in effort levels. To assume that a maximum effort by the Japanese would suffer the same fate as a self limiting effort did is too much of a reach IMHO. All of the information to prove that point is in the linked source.
                    Also the Japanese army probally will have improved equipment or organization because of the benifits actually having time to industrialize itself and Korea and Northern China.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by craven View Post
                      Also the Japanese army probally will have improved equipment or organization because of the benifits actually having time to industrialize itself and Korea and Northern China.
                      Whether they could do that before the Soviets were on the Korean peninsula is another question...

                      Regards
                      Scott Fraser
                      Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

                      A contentedly cantankerous old fart

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
                        Whether they could do that before the Soviets were on the Korean peninsula is another question...

                        Regards
                        Scott Fraser
                        not really since the industrialization would start way before any war with Russia.

                        Plan starts in 37 ish with planned war in 42 from what i been reading.

                        The amount of money and resources saved from not moving south is fairly impressive. For example one year expense was 5 billion yen of or so. they only spent 3 billion in non military pursuits

                        Also with the release of the Japans merchant fleet they will be seeing an increase in income.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
                          Whether they could do that before the Soviets were on the Korean peninsula is another question...

                          Regards
                          Scott Fraser
                          If no war in Pacific is assumed then it's quite unlikely that Soviet could reach Korea in initial stage of war. According to Glantz, in 1944 Soviets wrongly held Japanese forces as potent explaining the massive build up made on 1941 forces assumptions. And even in 1944, Soviets invasion of Korea would have been problematic.

                          Edit : Scott, of course read 1945, not 1944. Writing in middle of the night lead to some funny surprise once wake up
                          Last edited by Metryll; 21 Nov 13, 03:14.

                          Comment

                          Latest Topics

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X