RE: WWII and Who Won It

RE: WWII and Who Won It (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Sinergy -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 7:53:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I think I didnt explain it clearly enough then - of course we didnt know in 1940 that the static aircraft carrier and jump off point would come to be - the point was that because we stayed in the war and circumstances changed, this was possible later. This is true, LadyEllen, although... The Japanese knew going in that naval air power would either make or break their empire. In the West, there was a deeply held believe that the most powerful naval weapon was the biggest, most heavily armed and armored, floating juggernaut one could build. These are known to naval aviators as "targets" quote: Roosevelt I feel, wanted to get involved more than this, but isolationism at home prevented him - Pearl Harbor was just the reason he was looking for and its suspected the attack was known to be coming, which was why perhaps on a Sunday of all days, the Pacific Fleet's carriers were all at sea, far away. I posted a link somewhere on here which expressed the view, and possibly orders, that showed that when the Japanese (forget which number) fleet went missing in the Pacific, Roosevelt ordered the Pacific Carrier fleets out of harbor. I tend to think he left the battleships because Germany had no real navy to speak of, and carrier task forces made battleships irrelevant. I have also posted a link on here that US intelligence had determined that Japan had spent the previous months testing a new form of aerial torpedo for use in shallow water... I tend to think Roosevelt left them there, knowing that an attack on Pearl Harbor would force the hand of Congress to give him his war declaration. I hope they have a special place in hell reserved for the man that left all those servicemen to their deaths. Sinergy

Alumbrado -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 7:56:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Lost to what? There is more than one way to victory, including sacrificing poorly equipped troops at a rate greater than your opponent can absorb. A strategy that the Chinese have no compunction about employing should it suit their purposes. Ron Seems logical... and made scarier by the fact that their troops are no longer so poorly equipped. DaDaos went out as primary issue weapons a while back, and their high tech inventory has pretty much filled in the gap left by the Soviets

LadyEllen -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 7:57:04 AM)
What the Japanese wanted was materiel rather than territory. Living on islands with vastly increasing population, they needed food. Living on islands lacking the kind of resources needed for the industrial economy they had been building for a few decades, they needed oil, metals, rubber and so on. Couple that with a martial view of the world and one comes to the conclusion that buying all this stuff is a bit weak - even assuming the prosperity wherewith to purchase them, and conquest is the honourable way to acquire them. The rest seems to be a matter of convenient excuse - "liberating" locals from the oppressive Europeans and so on. Problem the Japanese found though, that acquiring the materiel and maintaining control over it required forces which ate up the materiel they attained, and the more they needed and acquired the greater their need became. Vicious circle. E

caitlyn -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 7:57:29 AM)
General response ... The difficulty I have with this discussion, is when people start to bring the need for validation into it ... be it American validation, Soviet validation ... or whatever. I would prefer to look at the practical. Great Britian - Held out, when nobody else could or would. There would have been no allied advance, without the stubborn resistance of Great Britian. The British were also the ears of the West, in continental Europe. The Americans were relative babes in the woods when it came to the inner workings of Europe. British spies and code breakers were vital to the war effort. Oh, and lets on forget that small matter of North Africa. The case can be made, that with a few more tanks and a few more planes (tanks lost in North Africa, and planes lost in the Battle of Britain), operation Barbarosa might well have been a complete success. It was certainly close, correct? The case can be made, that when the British stood tall, and that they stood tall on their own, was pretty vital. A person might also consider that the British showed the Germans to be slightly less invincible, that the Germans would have liked. Can anyone say, momentum? United States - Provided nearly the entire deep ocean-going navy and merchant marines for the Western theater. To underestimate this contribution, is to ignore logistics. Provided a lot of "war gear" when it was needed most. Loong only at raw numbers, just doesn't make sense. When material was provided, and that is was delivered, is equally important. Provided the backbone of the bombing campaign that destroyed more war materials in factories, than were destroyed in combat. The 8th Air Force needs to be looked at here, as well as the contribution for RAF Bomber Command. There is danger in looking at raw numbers, as the United States was in fact fighting it's own war in another theater. Lets not forget that the war was in Europe, not in North America. Do some people really feel the need to claim that Americans need validation, for a war that wasn't even in their own yard? Come now, lets pull this discussion out of the area of "laugh test." Soviet Union - Sustained the brunt of the European war on the ground. This is obviously a major contribution, but is no more, or less, than war in the air, or war on the seas, or the war of logistical support. You can shudder at Soviet casualty figures ... but not perhaps as much as Soviet leaders can ignore them. Even late in the war, when the Germans were beaten, the tactics of the Soviets inflated their own casualties exponentually. The Soviets sustaining in the darkest of days, was obviously vital, as were large tank battles like Kursk. These battles had to do much to demoralize the Germans, perhaps more to force the German hand to place more tanks and men on this front. Lets not forget Australians, Canadians, etc ... Meatcleaver made the best point ... there were winners, and losers.

Alumbrado -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 8:07:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen What the Japanese wanted was materiel rather than territory. Living on islands with vastly increasing population, they needed food. Living on islands lacking the kind of resources needed for the industrial economy they had been building for a few decades, they needed oil, metals, rubber and so on. Couple that with a martial view of the world and one comes to the conclusion that buying all this stuff is a bit weak - even assuming the prosperity wherewith to purchase them, and conquest is the honourable way to acquire them. The rest seems to be a matter of convenient excuse - "liberating" locals from the oppressive Europeans and so on. Problem the Japanese found though, that acquiring the materiel and maintaining control over it required forces which ate up the materiel they attained, and the more they needed and acquired the greater their need became. Vicious circle. E The proto=Borg, hmmmm? [8D]

samboct -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 8:08:06 AM)
"What is the factor for resources needed to secure continental territory as opposed to island hopping? I suspect that for those actually involved, the 'main show' was wherever someone was shooting at you." Economics- that dismal "science". However, I'm always a little leary of these guys because they also came up with the conclusion that the bombing campaign against the German aircraft industry accomplished little, since by the end of the war, there were still lots of airplanes available. However, the economist who treats one fighter plane the same as another- failed to account that many of the airplanes were obsolete designs such as the Me-109, which by 1944 was getting pretty outclassed. The US rebuilding of Germany and Japan was one of the smartest moves post war that anybody's ever done. However, the idea was terribly unpopular- Truman's approval ratings in the polls may have been lower than the current imbecile in the White House. The idea to rebuild Germany was Truman's- but since he was so unpopular, it became the "Marshall" plan. In Japan, rebuilding was a combination of MacArthur and Truman- and much as I detest much of what Dugout Doug did, I grudgingly have to admit that he did a good job in Japan. In terms of France- I haven't been there in 15 years, but when I was there, I never got the sense that as an American, I was unwelcome. (I do have some schoolboy French though- that clearly helped a lot.) And there are plenty of monuments to the US troops who lost their lives in that retaking the country- and as far as I could see, there's been no effort to sweep that under the rug. Also recall that Germany was divided into a 4 power zone, Britain, France, US, and USSR. France's economic woes post war were largely her own doing. These days- the US has been acting the bully and I'm embarassed by the actions of the current administration. I called Pres. Bush a dummkopf to a taxi driver in Berlin- he got quite a laugh from that. Sam

Alumbrado -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 8:10:48 AM)
Should have referred to him as a 'Duftwaffe'

Sinergy -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 8:13:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct These days- the US has been acting the bully and I'm embarassed by the actions of the current administration. I called Pres. Bush a dummkopf to a taxi driver in Berlin- he got quite a laugh from that. I was in Eastern Canada (cottage country) a few years ago chatting with my former neighbors, and one of them made a comment about AnencephalyBoy and his Reign of Error. Then they looked extremely embarrassed and apologized profusely, in a way that only eastern Canadians can, about insinuating that our President might not be overly competent. I smiled and pointed out that no insult or criticism they could possibly throw at the US President's actions which would come near to the contempt and disgust I have for his behavior. They laughed politely, but were uncomfortable (again) in that lovely way one finds in eastern Canadians. Sinergy

samboct -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 8:16:07 AM)
Lady E There's a tendency to minimize the US's role in Japan's actions. The US had set up a de facto economic blockade of oil in response to Japan's invasion in China. We were also threatening their supply of rubber. The idea that Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack is a bit laughable- we certainly were pushing the Japanese very hard economically. If the blockade had stood, within 6 months, Japan would have been out of oil. However, like Germany, the lack of a free press, lead to actions that were in hindsight, doomed to failure. Yamamoto certainly had no illusions about the strength of the US, and he knew damn well that most people in Japan were in la-la land. Caitlyn-nice post- sounds like we're on the same page. The only disagreement I've got is the relative importance of code breakers- although clearly key at Midway, it's hard to come up with another battle where the codebreakers were decisive. However, you could argue that the reassurance they provided was important. Sam

kittinSol -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 8:19:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: The US played a significant role in WW2; however, in comparison with the Russians, they were the supporting act. Because of course, it was the Russians who took the Pacific, island by island, and carrier by carrier.[8\|] Is revisionist history easier than having to think for yourself? Oh for crying out loud, Alumbrado, I didn't say this: you quoted somebody else and put my name in the bar. This is literally putting words into my mouth. Scroll back and correct your error, will you?

Alumbrado -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 8:25:28 AM)
I cut and pasted directly from NG, not you...and your name is nowhere to be seen in the quote bar...what are you talking about?

Politesub53 -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 8:26:22 AM)
The Chinese deserve some credit as well. Although the Japan/China war started in 1937, they were still fighting at the end of ww2 and lost as many people as Russia. 20,000,000 people, 4,000,000 plus of which were servicemen. China had provided the US with many forward air bases. India also lost some 85,000 troops.

Alumbrado -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 8:27:48 AM)
quote: ...we certainly were pushing the Japanese very hard economically. If the blockade had stood, within 6 months, Japan would have been out of oil.... Sam Ahhh.. kind of like Iraq pushed the US into attacking them?[:D]

kittinSol -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 8:29:57 AM)
Thanks for the apology.

LadyEllen -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 8:30:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Lady E There's a tendency to minimize the US's role in Japan's actions. The US had set up a de facto economic blockade of oil in response to Japan's invasion in China. We were also threatening their supply of rubber. The idea that Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack is a bit laughable- we certainly were pushing the Japanese very hard economically. If the blockade had stood, within 6 months, Japan would have been out of oil. However, like Germany, the lack of a free press, lead to actions that were in hindsight, doomed to failure. Yamamoto certainly had no illusions about the strength of the US, and he knew damn well that most people in Japan were in la-la land. Sam Thanks - that certainly sets the background for supporting my post. I have to admit my knowledge of the war against Japan is minimal compared to that regarding the more local conflict, so that gives me something to learn about! E

Alumbrado -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 8:31:35 AM)
quote: Thanks for the apology. An imaginary apology for an imagined slight?... seems fair enough

kittinSol -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 8:33:21 AM)
Look, check out your own post #41 and tell me, what does it look like? No big deal, really, but your bad faith's starting to grate.

Alumbrado -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 8:46:50 AM)
It looks like your name is nowhere to be seen in the entire quote.

thompsonx -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 8:50:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael We sent them the shit aircraft like the p39 Airacobra because if we had flown that underpowered POS in the West the 190s would have blasted them from the sky. SimplyMichael: Pokryshkin,Russia's second leading ace (somewhere between 60 and 80 kills ....Russia had a much more rigorous criteria for validation than the rest of the allies or Germany) used that underpowered coffin to good effect against the 109 and the 190 bringing them down in flocks. Proving once again as Von Richthofen said and Yeager repeated..."It is not the crate but the man flying the crate" thompson

kittinSol -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/9/2007 8:55:49 AM)
It's not in the quote? But who's the post addressed to? To me. Means you were thinking of me, come on now, admit it [:)] , since you quoted something from meatcleaver and inserted it in a reply to moi, le petit chat. It's alright, you know, to like somebody from afar [sm=hello.gif]

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625