thompsonx
Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
The Japanese were a minor consideration and were dealt with primarily by the USMC, which had less than 40,000 men when WWII started and only about 600,000 at wars end...by comparrison the germans lost over 600,000 just at Stalingrad.
Define "minor consideration." The Japanese defeated and occupied most of Asia during World War 2.
China was occupied by Japan, as was the majority of SE Asia.
Well, I am sure our Navy will be proud to know that 40,000 marines defeated all of Japan in World War 2. I recall reading about naval battles including Midway, Wake Island, Coral Sea, etc., which my grandfather was involved in on a light cruiser, which resulted in the destruction of the Japanese supply line to maintain their troops, allowing the USMC to defeat them. But according to you, this was a minor consideration, as was the Doolittle raid on Tokyo, etc.
While I am willing to grant a point to those who decided to drop a Uranium based atomic weapon on Hiroshima, the United States refused to meet with the Japanese delegation trying to sue for peace until after they had tested a plutonium based weapon Nagasaki.
The only criteria you give any credence to in terms of war effort seems to be number of troops on the ground, or even troops dead in the ground.
I have read the various books that claim that Hitler's grand plan was to invade Russia, but I am not certain I agree with it. I am one of those historians that think World War 1 and World War 2 were the same war with 25 or so years in the middle to rebuild armies. I personally suspect Hitler attacked Russia to prove he was a more capable military commander than Napoleon.
Just me, could be wrong, but there you go.
Sinergy
I thought I had defined minor consideration ...@ 20 divisions of troops on both sides in the pacific and @ 600 divisions on both sides in Europe....does that make it more clear?
The Japanese did not defeat and occupy most of Asia...their attempt to take India was a failure,,,,they never occupied more than about a third of China....The were invited into indochina by the Vichy French and not a shot was fired.
Perhaps you should reread my post...I mentioned that the USMC was less than 40,000 at the beginning of the war and over 600,000 by wars end.
Yes you are right the Doolittle raid was neither a tatical or stratigic victory but was a big boost to American moral. I never sugested that the navy's contribution to the war in the pacific was minor but rather that the heavy lifting ie. body bags was done by the ground troops, ANZAC,army and marine, who never found the Japanese to be short of ammunition.
Yes you are quite correct the Japanese started peace overtures in 1943 which the allies ignored.
Again spot on, world wars vol.1 and 2 were essentially, but not completely, the same conflict with a bit of R&R in the middle.
Hitler attacked Russia with a force that was more than ten times the size of his total commitment to Europe. and N. Africa...that seems to most serious historians to be a bit more than personal vanity.
|
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread