":::Firstly, please, I'll appreciate if you will use colons to format your responce properly (in the same way I've done for you). That makes the thread more readable."

Gonna quote your ansewers. Just don't edit my posts. I don't like this.

":::Re IJA offensive, yes, I think the USSR had no chances against the whole Axis in the case if Britain and the US never existed. However, in this case the Axis would never formed: Hitler was very suspicious of Japan, and there would be no Germano-Japanese alliance."

I think it would be REALLY difficult. Still it cannot be said it would be impossible. I'm not saying that confractuations are facts, my goal is try keep this whole thing in the confractuation zone. Therefore mather of personal opinion only. You that are trying to put confractuations as facts.

And the use of "Britain and the US never existed" was too much in my view. They could simple have remained neutral while the Axis fought against the Soviets.

"Regarding the Japanese decision not to attack the USSR (in Dec 1941 and Dec 1942), they did plan to do so in the case of major Soviet defeats under Moscow or Stalingrad. However, that hadn't happen, and the role of the Western allies was minimal in that. In addition, as some scholars believe, the Khalkhin Gol (Nomonhan) lesson was duly learnt by the IJA staff."

Minimal? Stalin loved the oil embargo that Roosevelt put in Japan. It could have been this very factor that saved his neck. The Japanese were a military government, and both the Army and Navy did put pressure for their attacks. The attack in the in the Pacific was purely desesperation. If Roosevelt didn't mather with the Soviets, it was just question to give the Japanese their oil and good will to put them against Stalin. However at this time the US was already allied with the Soviet cause. And I don't remember were I read now, but the US embassador even treath the Japanese embassador in a conversation if they launched an attack against the USSR.

About Nomonhan, the IJA staff learned some serious lessons on how to FIGHT the Soviets with it. The Army never give up of the idea of attack the USSR. Even the Navy had some simpaty for the cause if it's advance in the Pacific would not be halted. War between the two countries was probably inevitable. Get rid of the Communist treat was one of the largest security problems for Japan. Matsuoka's secretary comments this in the World at War Banzai episodie. He said: "But when an integration against the north parted [oil] the Army naturally joined up with the Navy". Obviosly, only for maintein the war in China and could fight the Soviets in the future because the critical resources needed.

Battle of the Bulge: 

"Please, clarify"

Why you don't see the aspects of the battle from the Allied side?

Why the Soviets can loose like they did in Barbarossa and this be extremely analized by hypocrital "intelectuals" like you and the causes of one supossed less than expected performance the Western Allies not be?

Battles are won by several factors. Anacronism is not nice here. The Western Allies win in the Bulge. The Soviet sucess in Bagration for instance, was not garanteed when it was launched. It could had end up much worse than in the Bulge. With even defeat.

Re::: Lend Lease:

Yes, the Soviets could produce everything they needed. Look the link I posted above. The importance of the Lend Lease is well illustrated. Also, no Lend Lease, less material produced, more casualities for the Soviet side. They would resist this and the combined offensive of all the Axis powers? Pehaps, isn't? I'm just trying to point all this is something of impossible complexity, and therefore should be let in the field of personal opinions. 

"That means about 40,000 German tanks were not built'' And what crew was supposed to drive these tanks? Germany had a desperate situation with personnel, due to the Eastern front"

Perhaps they wouldn't have if they could master their forces there from the start. 

Also the money and the time spent with the subs could be used to solve many other problems, produced even more refined weapons, and this includes weapons of mass destruction. 

I'm here to "fight" with you as long as I can. But one thing you already admit: you don't belive the USSR could hold all the Axis countries together. Repeating, I said this would be much difficult, but not impossible. Just don't want confractuations as truth. Wars are like plane crash investigation, it's usually not one or the big factor, but several of them together. ;)