When was Germany closest to winning against the USSR? Close enough

Moscow.
And even then it was with so much of their momentum spent that they didn't have a chance.

The Axis intelligence was a horrible failure. They didn't know what they were walking into. They thought the USSR a far easier target than it had become. It learnt from preceding wars.

>>594389

Before they launched their attack.
Germany could have won, but it couldn't have won with the goals they set for themselves.

October 1941
August 1942

Although some historians say they lost their chance as early as Kiev/Smolensk.

If the Japanese went north, the USSR would have fallen.

Too bad Hitler was a fucking retard and didn't ever bother to think of his allies in his plans.

>>594403
>If the Japanese went north, the USSR would have fallen.
kek the Japanese weren't ever capable of that

gotta agree with >>594393 and go for the beginning - and even then they were so strained it was simply extremely unlikely

what >>594397 says presumably tied the of advance towards stalingrad is a close second id say, but i think at that point a soviet loss would have been a huge blow but one to a country and army already in a much better and less fragile position than a year ago, and with allied deliveries ramping up

>>594403
I don't think you understand why the Japanese went to war.

Also, Hitler did ask them.

>>594403
the japanese tried going north a while before the germans did
they failed spectacularly

Late 41 to early 42. After they failed to take Moscow it was on desperate move after another.

>>594403
>If the Japanese went north, the USSR would have fallen.

In what kind of fantasy

where would they even get the resources for that

this comment id fucking retarted

>>594389
At the beginning of the German push into Russia Stalin was absolutley surprised and refused to believe that they had been attacked; he was completely ill-prepared and as such the Germans pushed through with ease and built a lot of momentum. But for the sake of much needed oil, the Wehrmacht turned south in hope of capturing the oil fields, this however caused them to lose all their momentum and thus lost them the advantage they had, and therefore Moscow never fell.

>>594407
they could have done it easily if they didn't attack the US like tinydick retards
though yeah, they definitely wouldn't have been able to reach far beyond the southeast, that i know for sure

>>594403
> If the Japanese went north, the USSR would have fallen.
They sill had PTSD from meeting Zhukov on Khalkhin Gol.

>>594413
In a fantasy where the Axis actually bothered to work together and Japan instead of trying to hold the south, pooled their resources into keeping troops tied up in the east.

Moscow was largely won because the USSR was able to pull all it's forces (who were the most elite of the elite of the Red Army) from the east.

>>594413
If anything Japan got absolutely skullfucked by the Russians in Mongolia, plus the last thing the Japs wanted to do was opening another front on the west and sacrificing assets in the Pacific just because Hitler wanted something.

>>594411
id argue that even taking moscow wouldnt change things that much - first off their advance towards moscow had simply ran out of steam, whatever alternate history happenings would have to happen would have to be very drastic

such as leaving the entire southern flank unprotected and thus having to face the arguably strongest soviet forces at the time which would not be engaged as they were in the original timeline

then there is the issue of getting to moscow proper, sure "some units" came "close" but you still have entire divisions in front of you, then there is the city proper itself, which could very well turn into protracted fighting

and for what? a transport hub first and foremost and anything else a distant second, but by going for it you have extended yourself so much more or weakened your other positions elsewhere, bottom line you put even more strain on your already strained forces, so now you are stuck in a city which is nice, but very little changes in a positive way for you otherwise

>>594418
at that time, any army except for germany would have too

>>594422
>Japan should've abandoned its strategic goals and follow Hitler instead

For what purpose?

>>594422
Actually, the Soviets increased their forces in the Far East, every year of the war.

This still doesn't explain:
1) Why the Japanese would give up all their goals and plans just to help out Germany
2) How any of this would actually represent a strategic threat to the Soviet Regime
3) How the Japanese are supposed to avoid getting absolutely fucking crushed.

>>594422
>Moscow was largely won because the USSR was able to pull all it's forces (who were the most elite of the elite of the Red Army) from the east.
>all it's forces from the east
but thats not true
the eastern districts still had hundreds of thousands of battle ready troops despite some of them being withdrawn westwards
in fact, in just the first year of the war alone, soviet troop numbers in the east DOUBLED (!!!)
as in, during the fiercest, most desperate fights of barbarossa, at a time when the german menace was at its peak, when the red army was suffering terrible losses... during that timeframe, the soviet eastern district force grew to over 200% of its number

File: 1389967412543.png (299KB, 591x405px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 591x405px

22 June 1941, it went downhill afterwards

>>594413
>>594410
>>594407
Not him but, I'm not too versed on the second World War; can someone explain to me why Japan bombed Pearl Harbour and gave reason for America to go full war mode and commit troops when it was obvious that the American congress didn't want to commit to a war?

It seems (in hindsight at least) obvious that if they had of actually used their allies to advantage, not bombed Pearl Harbour and attacked Russia from China which they occupied, they would have opened a new front and the Russians would have been severely weakened.

It just seems weird to call the Nazis and the Japanese allies when they never helped each other

File: 1449843150740.jpg (35KB, 720x718px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 720x718px

>>594389
They lost the moment they divided Barbarossa to target Leningrad, Moscow and the Caucasus

>>594436
1) there were two lines of thought within japanese leadership - expansion in china/siberia, and expansion in the pacific
2) a japanese attack was repelled fairly easily by the soviets a few years prior to barbarossa, helping the naval proponents of the latter plan above -> hence pearl harbor
3) it is something of a safe bet that even if the opposite happened, the soviets would not have been severely weakened, seeing they still had a sizeable force in the east - that only grew in strength despite the conflict with germany - and had beaten the japanese a short time ago

>>594436
Japan had major ambitions of carving out an Empire in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, the US oil embargo left them with two choices:

1) Attack the US and seize sources of Pacific oil in places like Indonesia, then hold out and hope for an armistice.

2) Give up on building an Empire altogether through lack of oil with which to conduct military operations.

>>594436
America had seized Japanese gold assets (which were theoretically held in New York. In reality there was just a bunch of gold in New York that all nations had a share in), and made the Dollar non-convertible with the Yen.

Because the Pound, the Franc, lire, Reichmark, Ruble and Dutch Dolaridoo were all non-convertible from the war, this meant that it was impossible for the Japanese to engage in international trade.

This critically hindered Japanese warmaking potential in China (which was the goal of the policy). Some people will tell you that they needed oil as a result of this policy, and so their war aim was to seize the Dutch East Indies, but this is not the case. The Japanese had plentiful strategic reserves of petroleum. They lacked for refined fuels and petroleum products, which you need for a military campaign.

Japan entered war with the United States because it could not win the war in China without fundamentally altering the arrangement of global politics. Rather then get back down from a conflict they had been fighting in one form or another for over a decade at this point, they tried war with the United States.

>>594436
> attacked Russia from China which they occupied, they would have opened a new front and the Russians would have been severely weakened
But there was nothing in there, Siberian Oil hasn't been discovered by that time, it was more or less frozen wasteland up to Ural, without any way to supply your troops. At the same time, destroying half of USA fleet and capturing Pacific would bring them resourced they needed and could possible swung the American public opinion to some kind of quick honorable peace they hoped for.

>>594445
>>594448
ah okay that makes perfect sense, thanks guys. I had no idea the had attacked Russia prior to

>>594436
>>594445
also remember that pearl harbor or not, the (future) allied powers already condemned japanese pacific expansion, the war in china etc., and the united states responded with an embargo against japan, and already supported the soviet union
chances are japanese pacific conquest would still go on to some degree, shifting anyone still reluctant or merely in a support role to a much more active one

>>594448
>>594445
No. Here, this man will explain to you the priorities, objectives and ambitions of Japan in the 1940s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDrfE9I8_hs

>>594456
ha
cant stump

>>594456
Chai-na

i don't know if it's weeaboos or what, but i think people really overestimate japan's military capabilities compared the powers in the west.
they were godlike compared to other asian nations but just couldn't stack up against the western armies they had gotten strong imitating without anywhere near the industrial capability. they always lost smoothly against offensive force, even under great defensive conditions with fanatical soldiers all willing to die fighting.

>>594389
Alternative history? Alright then.

The more the Germans waited, the more the Russians had time to prepare in building up their military and industry, which meant that the Germans would be working against time. This would even include if they didn't decide to go with Operation Barbarossa.

If they could maintain their logistics up to Moscow, confronting the Russians directly with the full might of AGC, then Leningrad and the AA line would become plausible victories to follow. The Soviets would still have the industrial regions past the Urals, but they would lose at least 2/3 of their manpower at this point, limiting the effectiveness of their offensive/defensive capabilities.

Perhaps the Germans shouldn't have been obsessed with covering virtually all the Soviet territory they gained, especially since millions of Russians they faced in Kiev and elsewhere surrendered, which they could used against the remaining Soviet forces, instead of imprisoning them.

>>594461
Schainyuh.

>>594462
i remember reading a funny description of the japanese land forces in ww2 - something along the lines of the 'IJA being hands down the best ww1 army... except in ww2'

>>594473
That is extremely accurate.

>>594389
> When was Germany closest to winning against the USSR? Close enough to have had a good chance?
August, 1939 - if they had accepted Polish (outrageous) demands and launched a joint (including Allies) attack on USSR.

I'd give Axis Allies 70% chance of winning the war (it would've deteriorated into the Vietnam-style fubar, though), provided they would've whipped citizenry into appropriate kind of frenzy, to keep fighting offensive war for no discernible reason for 4-5 years.


>>594403
Nah.

Soviets had an army sitting in the East, waiting for Japs to attack. Even during Stalingrad they waited. Granted, there wasn't enough troops to end Japanese invasion with the buttrape a-la '45 (or Khalkhin Gol), but there is no way USSR would've collapsed. For that to happen, Japs would've had to fight their way through the Siberia, to the Urals. That's was impossible.

>>594456
>"China all the time."
>"...when was the last time you heard China..."
Chuckled at the ending.

how did japan rape russia in 1904 war but couldnt in WW2?

>>594547
It didn't. Czar chickened out midway.

Also, Communism and better supply lines in Siberia.

>>594547
>how did one event turn out different than another event decades later??????

>>594427
Moscow was also a fairly important communication hub, and would have made communication between the rest of the Soviet Union much harder.

Germany's strategic situation was completely hopeless. German ambitions for world power were unachievable after the First Battle of the Marne. Maybe even as early as the signing of the entente cordiale.

After the capture of Smolensk, just prior to the redirection of Panzergruppe Guderian is the only correct answer

File: 3727.png (59KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 400x225px

>>594558
Also logistical reasons.
Imo Germany could have won if
>capture of Leningrad insteade of siege(sieging a city requires a lot of resources), this was possible i the early stages of battle, but ultimately failed. Also somehow pressurizing Finns to support the capture. The siege of leningrad tied down huge amount of artillery and pretty much prevented the AGN from doing any more strategic operations.
>Destruction of the hydroelectric plants in the Urals
Plans to destroy these didn't come up until in 1942, and in 1943 Germans were no longer in range. Even partial destruction of these plants wouls have hindered Soviet war production, as the turbines could not be locally produced and import from the USA would have taken a fucklong time.
>Not doing Führerdirective 45, and instead gone with the original single-spearhead plan of first taking Stalingrad and then focusing in the south caucasus, this would not have granted victory but would have prevented losing over a quarter million soldiers in Stalingrad

>>594609
>world power
This was never their target, dude.
European dominance, yes, but that's pretty much it.

>>594547
Russia didn't exist in the 30s and 40s

>>594389
1939 with the pact. Then they had to go invade.

>>595098
>What is the RSFSR

>>595118
Molotov-Ribbentrop was designed for Hitler's failed attempt to defeat the Western Powers, not his failed attempt to conquer Russia

>>595122
Not a country.

>>595122
Russia ceased to exist with the tzar's "abdication" and won't exist again until the monarchy is recreated.

>>595152
Nobody talked about a country.
Russia didn't stop existing.
It stopped being an independent country

leningrad. if finnish army had joined the actual attack the city would've fallen fairly fast and that would've caused entire northern soviet lands to collapse.

>>594627
Why didn't Finns support it anyway?

>>595183
>>595183
Because Marshal Mannerheim was a man of principle.
"Finland is not and can never be a threat to Leningrad"
It was to prove to the soviets that their arguments and worries during 1938-1939 negotiations about "safety of Leningrad" were wrong.
The whole point of the Continuation war was to take back what we lost in the Winter War
Also attacking the birthplace of the Revolution would have been quite a political statement.

>>594627

>Destruction of the hydroelectric plants in the Urals

Building up the sort of capability to do that would likely involve sacrificing development of their CAS planes. That's a lot to give up, German doctrine for air support was very probably the best in the war, and they got a lot out of their tactical bombers. Trading it for strategic bombing capabilities is probably a loss, not a gain.


Plus, getting to the plants through the Soviet air defenses when none of your fighters can even begin to cover that distance is going to require a lot of luck.

>>595209
They could've done it just by making He 177 a traditional 4-engined bomber.
They also made calculations that "only" 3 0 bombers per target would be enough.

>>595209
>German doctrine for air support was very probably the best in the war,
What the fuck are you smoking? German air support was absolute shit compared to the USAAF.

>>594451
>dolaridoo

>>595220

And when, like say, the Lancasters or the Halifaxes that were more conventional, it ran into Soviet fighters while flying unescorted and got shot to ribbons? Because nothing the Germans have in the arsenal can reach far enough to protect them if you want to strike in the Urals.

>They also made calculations that "only" 3 0 bombers per target would be enough.

Harris and Chennault made some interesting calculations about strategic bombing and its effects. They were all wrong, but they made the calculations.

>>595231

Doctrine, not the planes themselves, not the industrial might to keep churning them out, not their control of the skies.

The Germans had the best systems for identifying where tactical air support was needed and delivering it to that point, and the U.S. didn't really even narrow the gap until very late in the war, preferring to make up for it by brute force.

This is a pretty good paper on the subject.

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/comparat.pdf

File: don-san.jpg (36KB, 309x400px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 309x400px

>>594403
>If the Japanese went north, the USSR would have fallen.
no

>>595136
My point being that the closest that Hitler came to a permanent solution where the NSDAP controlled German state existed, in terms of the USSR, was their diplomatic Pact prior to the invasion of Poland.

After that, he was fucked.

>>594403
Japs could not defeat even China.

>>594403
this http://webmshare.com/play/Gyex0

>>595284
Neither side intended the modus vivendi of 1939 to last for longer than end of the war between Germany and France. My point is that at no point did Hitler or the Kaiser even get close to achieving durable German hegemony in Europe, because it was impossible

>>594403
Japanese staff considered such invasion to be impossible given their logistical situation.

Remember that there is 1 decently big and worthwhile city in eastern Syberia - Vladivostok and then you have to reach Baikal to get to another one(Irkutsk). Russians could've just retreat slowly while delaying Japanese and waiting till they reach stalemate, they've didn't had much to lose here.

>>594436
If you have questions about Japanese during WW2 read Robert Guillain's book about it.

It almost doesn't treats specifics of warfare but it shows perfectly how was Japanese state functioning back then.

>>594547
Because Tzardom was shit and Russia needed another Peter the Great who would kill all the retards and modernise Russia once again.

>>595156
Tzar abdicated normally, he was killed later on. Few years later that is.

>>595334
Yes, that's why when Hitler invaded Poland he moved further away from a successful modus.

German hegemony in Europe was impossible: there were 4 other great powers in Europe.

>>595388
>Peter the Great
But Peter the Antichist was dictator liked anal with European friends, and hating Orthodox christian values like wear beards as Bible order.

>>595426
At least it was Russian dictator. I mean if it wasn't for him they'd have Carolus to rule them instead.

>>595413
German hegemony in Europe was possible, just crash England first, then USA would did alliance with MegaGermany and after that do not connect with snowy desert.
Also Empire require an united imperial language. Make Europe speaking and thinking at one language is not one year task.
>>594389
May be economic model of USSR, government based management of firms, did not work under German banner, so civil people just did leave to rebels because poverty.

>>595484
>just crash England first
>just

You do realise that the "just crash England" was tried several times by Spanish and French and it was in times when eternal anglo had less power than they did in 20th century?

>>595484
>just crash England first

It is pretty hard to hide the 8 years of building a navy capable of conquering the United Kingdom.

>>595426
That's mostly Swedish propaganda, you know.

>>595183
> Why didn't Finns support it
What the hell are you talking about? Finns supported Leningrad's siege. They just couldn't breach through Soviet defenses.

>>595535

Not him, but the Finns never attacked Leningrad from the north, which almost would have certainly taken the city, what with the Soviet defenses being stretched and concentrated in the south the way they were.

>>595535
>Finns supported Leningrad's siege.
they didn't
>They just couldn't breach through Soviet defenses.
they could've if they tried

>>595484
Why not just crash America first, take all of its industry and resources, then take moon and build a huge artillery battery on it, then shoot Russia to death?

>>595545
> Finns never attacked Leningrad from the north
That statement doesn't make much sense.

In case you are imagining some kind of Sitzenkrieg on Finno-Soviet frontline: there was a lot of fighting and only heavy losses (as per Mannerheim himself) prevented Finns from reaching Leningrad proper in '41.

If you want specifics: Erfurth (Der finnische Krieg, 1950) mentioned over 30k dead and over 80k wounded Finns by September '42. This does not look like "never attacked".

Finland might've not launched any independent offensive during the first part of '42, but Finland was part of Nordlicht - the planned offensive against Leningrad in late August 1942 and was expected to have a major role in it. It's just Soviets launched their own offensive before that, and the Nortlicht got scrapped.


>>595561
Is this what Finns told you? Because Mannerheim was quite pessimistic about ability of Finland to successfully execute attack against Leningrad. Nowadays people pretend that he was lying, of course.

The only semi-realistic argument was that Finns did not use artillery to shell Leningrad. However, Mannerheim's letter in 1941, as well as Finland' army commanders statement in 1945 claim that Finnish artillery was simply incapable of reaching Leningrad - it was out of range. Not because of some orders not to shoot.

>>595729
>it was out of range.
because they never tried to get them any closer

>>594389
They were never close. Taking Moscow doesn't defeat Russia, as history has shown several times.

>>595729
> mentioned over 30k dead and over 80k wounded Finns by September '42. This does not look like "never attacked".
On the whole fucking front from Petsamo to Viipuri. That's btw 50% of all the losses during continuation war, including the 1944 Soviet offensive.
>Because Mannerheim was quite pessimistic about ability of Finland to successfully execute attack against Leningrad
Mannerheim thought the cost would be too high, and he also had other principles behind his view
The Finns stopped immediately after reaching Leningrad defense structures, and didn't even try to break through.
>only heavy losses (as per Mannerheim himself) prevented Finns from reaching Leningrad proper in '41.
PREDICTED heavy losses.
Heavy losses haven't yet occured, but attacking the Leningrad defenses would have created those heavy losses, which we didn't need.

>>595866
it might had triggered a counter revolution. soviet union wasn't yet that stable.

>>595917
>muh jesus was a fin
>muh finnish european empire
>muh simo haya killing a thousand tanks with his bare hands

File: kek.jpg (85KB, 653x864px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 653x864px

>>594389

Glorious Comrade Stalin was never going tio be defeated by counter-revolutionary traitors.

>>595930
Angry commie detected. Finns stopped at the old border and never tried to attack Leningrad. Almost all of those losses came from the Eastern Karelian front.

File: finnish empire.jpg (1MB, 1942x1223px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1942x1223px

>>595917
This is what Finns actually believe.

>>596096
The fuck is this?

>>596103
What Finns learn in school.

>>596107
Sauce?

>>596096

This is 100% accurate though. It is more of a liberal / Marxist / Reddit-tier meme from blue haired feminists who claim the Finnish Empire never existed.

>>596133
This post will probably convince people the Ancient Finnish Empire actually existed

File: leningrad.jpg (199KB, 1024x900px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1024x900px

>>595778
The implied idea here was that Mannerheim explicitly gave order not to shoot. Some nutjobs (Seppälä) even suggested that Mannerheim should recieve a medal for defending Leningrad.

I really hope that was some weird Finnish humor.


>>596066
> Finns stopped at the old border
That's a lie and you know it. They crossed the old border in summer and tried to fight through the Karela penninsula (i.e. "Stalin's line") in September, but were unable to breach it. By September 21 Soviets launched a counter-attack (7th Army), that forced Finns to completely stop their offensive.

Since the Germans decided to siege the Leningrad, the Finns saw no point in trying to take it alone. Besides, as Mannerheim wrote (4th September) - "it is more efficient to starve the city into capitulation".

> Almost all of those losses came from the Eastern Karelian front.
Please, provide exact numbers.

>>596221
>Finnish crossed the old borderin the summer
In the Karelian peninsula Finnish offensive reached the 1939 borders 1. Of September, the offensive was officially halted on the 8th,
During the battles between 4th and 7th of september, no concentrated effort was made to penetrate the Stalin line.
On northeast side of Ladoga Finns advanced to positions prescribed in the plans made with the Germans in June.
Germans never reached those positions

>>596221
>Besides, as Mannerheim wrote (4th September) - "it is more efficient to starve the city into capitulation".
Can I get a source on that?

>>595508

muh dutch
muh restoration

>>594389
They focused a bit too much on Kiev and redirected forces that would have been vital for taking Moscow there. While it was a huge victory for them there it wasn't as important as Moscow would be and even then taking Moscow is no guarantee that they would win; there forces would have been dangerously stretched there and the Soviet industry, army, and most of the leadership would still be intact. Honestly I don't think they ever had a chance; the Russians were determined to fight to the death for their country and you can only put so many forces in Siberia before the entire operation collapsed on itself.

>>594403
That either would have failed horribly for the Japanese or gained literally nothing for the Axis. The only thing of value in the area was Vladivostok, everything else would have been a waste of time, supplies and men to try and take. Even best case scenario for the Japanese the most they can do is block off some lend lease the most certainly would have gone elsewhere and gain a couple small cities and towns. Most likely scenario that would come from that is the Japanese take a couple cities and maybe parts of outer Manchuria while accomplishing almost nothing in stopping the Russians and wasting valuable men and recorces that would be vital in China and the Pacific