Help support TMP

"How Germany and Japan Could've Won " Topic

10 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board

Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land

540 hits since 7 Mar 2019
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP07 Mar 2019 9:48 p.m. PST

"Fortunately for the United States, the Japanese strategic plan for World War II was flawed in that the Japanese High Command decided to take on a sleeping giant in order to gain control of the Pacific basin, rather than attack the USSR. There was no way for the Japanese to beat the U.S., even with their alliance and the support of Italy and Germany. On the other hand, if the German grand strategy had been followed and carried out by Germany AND Japan, we could, very possibly, have lost the war, and today be speaking German on the East coast and Japanese on the West coast!

A lot of historic material exists to support various theories about how the Germans and the Japanese could have won World War II. What follows here is my take on this subject, based not only on standard history books, but on information gathered from formerly classified intelligence from U.S., German, and Soviet files, much of it published in excellent books. This treasure trove includes the released German files from Enigma deciphered and other captured materials, the Venona transcripts, the selectively released KGB files, and best and perhaps most authoritative of all The Mitrokhin Archives (i.e., almost the complete files from the archives of the KGB's First Chief Directorate up to 1984)…"
Main page


rmaker07 Mar 2019 11:41 p.m. PST

Author fails to notice that the IJA had already tried on the Red Army and lost.

Personal logo Patrick R Supporting Member of TMP08 Mar 2019 3:06 a.m. PST

People still believe that in 1941 there were two magical countries where refined oil naturally bubbled up from the ground and flowed into your gas tanks, Saudi Arabia and Siberia.

In reality Saudi oil exploitation had barely started in the decade before and was still in the exploratory phase. Persia was where the oil was at.

1941 Siberia furnished about 8% of total Soviet oil production with most of it concentrated in West Siberia about 1000 km to the west of the Japanese starting line.

So they could invade east Siberia and help themselves to a trickle of oil and ignore a production capacity in the Dutch Indies only 30 times bigger than what they could get out of East Siberia.

Just about as credible as saying Germany and Japan could have won if they had built more flying tanks and nuclear-powered mecha.

Marc at work08 Mar 2019 4:25 a.m. PST

oooh, nuclear powered mecha. Yes please :-)

RudyNelson08 Mar 2019 5:19 a.m. PST

The Russians would have stomped the Japanese with economic production and manpower.

The Japanese would still had to have the resources of British controlled and other territory under their protection, Dutch, French etc. USA still gets into the war.

Uncle Goblin08 Mar 2019 5:29 a.m. PST

That article is what happens when people with very limited knowledge of history try to speculate with What ifs.

There's only one thing worse; armchair history youtubers who pretend to know history to gain clicks for their channels. Later you discover their references are a couple of documentaries and sometimes a book.

RudyNelson08 Mar 2019 5:52 a.m. PST

The Russians would have stomped the Japanese with economic production and manpower.

The Japanese would still had to have the resources of British controlled and other territory under their protection, Dutch, French etc. us still gets into the war.

Frederick Supporting Member of TMP08 Mar 2019 6:42 a.m. PST

The Germans and Japanese could have made a go of it but it would have required much, much more strategic coordination plus a few years of prep work – like developing a decent anti-tank capacity in Japanese infantry units, a coordinated attack plan, sharing technology, etc.

Thankfully the Germans and Japanese were terrible partners

Legion 408 Mar 2019 7:43 a.m. PST

As we saw at Khalkin-Gol before WWII in '39, the Russians defeated Japan. Albeit with heavy losses. link

Then at the end of the war in the ETO. The Russians turned East and rolled up the IJFs in Manchuria, etc. in a couple of weeks.

No matter what, IMO the USSR would always defeat the IJFs, but again with heavy losses. That seems is the way the USSR fought. They were willing to take the losses. As were the IJFs it appears. However, AFAIK the Japanese during WWII lost pretty much more to non-combat deaths, e.g. starvation, disease, etc., than the Allies killed out right.

Once the Russian numbers and tech got rolling, the IJFs would have died in place. In many situations … The IJF's may of have a good Navy and some good aircraft. But generally when going toe-to-toe with the USSR on the ground … they'd lose overall. The Japanese were more than willing to take losses. The massive Russian numbers and firepower were more than willing to help with that. Even if at a cost to themselves.

Personal logo Patrick R Supporting Member of TMP08 Mar 2019 9:27 a.m. PST

Back in 1939 the consensus was that the Soviets had been thrown back by the Japanese with extremely heavy losses, with observers taking the Japanese propaganda claims at face value, it wasn't until later that the Soviet side of the story became accepted.

This and the Finnish campaign influenced Hitler in his assumption that the Soviets were too weak to put up a good fight.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.