How Japan Should Have Won WWII

[fastpat]

That and read World War II: The Rest of the Story and How It Affects You Today : 1930 to September 11, 2001 And The Thousand Year War in the Mideast: How It Affects You Today, both by Richard Maybury.

[DavidI]

Originally posted by tabs
No but you have bought into the perception of the Defeatist Liberals...That we are overstretched bad guy baby killers...

Tabs, I think you have an incorrect perception. America is the greatest country in the world and I have staked my life in the belief of freedom. You are mixing two entirely different concepts that have nothing to do with each other.

America is overstretching our capabilities to sustain mass military operations in the world. That has nothing to do with conservative or liberal. That is a military tactical concept ensuring that our assests are focused on our enemies to give our soldiers the best opportunity for victory.

"Bad guy baby killers" is an entirely different subject. As a Marine, I believe that war is a necessary evil and blood must be let for Democracy and Freedom to reign.

Did I miss something?

David

[fastpat]

Originally posted by DavidI
Tabs, I think you have an incorrect perception. America is the greatest country in the world and I have staked my life in the belief of freedom. You are mixing two entirely different concepts that have nothing to do with each other.

America is overstretching our capabilities to sustain mass military operations in the world. That has nothing to do with conservative or liberal. That is a military tactical concept ensuring that our assests are focused on our enemies to give our soldiers the best opportunity for victory.

Strategic concept, not tactical. Otherwise, you are correct.

"Bad guy baby killers" is an entirely different subject. As a Marine, I believe that war is a necessary evil and blood must be let for Democracy and Freedom to reign.

Did I miss something?

David

The only moral war is one in which you are defending your self, family, neighbors, and nation. Wars for any other reason are immoral. Every war engaged by the US government in the 20th century was immoral; either initially (World War One, Phillipine War, Boxer Rebellion, Invasion of Nicaraugua) or eventually (World War Two).

[aap1966]

Originally posted by fastpat

The only moral war is one in which you are defending your self, family, neighbors, and nation. Wars for any other reason are immoral. Every war engaged by the US government in the 20th century was immoral; either initially (World War One, Phillipine War, Boxer Rebellion, Invasion of Nicaraugua) or eventually (World War Two).

As someone whose country was saved from invasion by the US intervention in WWII, may I say we Aussies are pretty bloody glad the US chose to involve itself in that particular "immoral" war.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by aap1966
As someone whose country was saved from invasion by the US intervention in WWII, may I say we Aussies are pretty bloody glad the US chose to involve itself in that particular "immoral" war.

What, I thought the British saved you?

Why would the Japanese have invaded Australia, an unlimited supply of Foster's?

[fintstone]

Just makes me even happier that I am not a liberal. When one finds that fastpat is on their side in an argument (even worse, most arguments)...it must make them want to reevaluate their entire belief system.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by fintstone
Just makes me even happier that I am not a liberal. When one finds that fastpat is on their side in an argument (even worse, most arguments)...it must make them want to reevaluate their entire belief system.

You ARE a liberal, that you don't know that is typical of guys like you; loyal only to a government and not your country.

[fintstone]

It only saddens me that you claim to represent the views of southerners. It unfairly paints an entire region as ignorant and confused.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by fintstone
It only saddens me that you claim to represent the views of southerners. It unfairly paints an entire region as ignorant and confused.

Attempting to tar me with the filth of your beliefs won't work.

If you want to learn what it is to be a Southern Man, then I can point out places to go to learn it, but you must do the work yourself.

[aap1966]

Originally posted by fastpat
What, I thought the British saved you?

Why would the Japanese have invaded Australia, an unlimited supply of Foster's?

No, the Brits saved Europe.
Japs were after coal, iron ore, strategic dominence over trade routes and space. (more or less in that order.)

[tabs]

Pat must always be right.....

Albert Speer was refering to the 80,000 Flak guns that Germany had deployed to try and stop Allied Bombing...So how did those guns get to the West Wall again?

There was a thing called Lend Lease where America supplied the USSR with Trucks, Airplanes, Tanks and other assorted war material such as tires, airplane engines etc.

Without those the Soviets would have been hard pressed.

Secondly Stalins orders in the summer of 1941 were to hold standfast and not give an inch...which proved diasterous, causing nearly a Million Soviet troops to be captured.

In the summer of 1942 the Soviets gave ground to the Germans as they advanced into the Caucauses and towards the Volga.

Imagine what another Army Group could have done in front of Moscow in the Fall of 1941, instead of being tied down in France.

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by fastpat
Attempting to tar me with the filth of your beliefs won't work.

If you want to learn what it is to be a Southern Man, then I can point out places to go to learn it, but you must do the work yourself.

Talledega, Daytona, Charlotte,....BYOB.

[Moses]

Originally posted by fastpat

Why would the Japanese have invaded Australia, an unlimited supply of Foster's?

Japans planned invasion of New Zealand/Australia was a critical goal of the war in the Pacific. The island hopping campaign of the Japanese had one goal in mind; secure Australia/New Zealand and everything north to Japan. They were nearly successful. Had they controlled that part of the Pacific, a conventional invasion of Japan would have been nearly impossible. Only after sustaining heavy losses in the Solomon Islands did Tojo eliminate Australia as a primary target.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforAustralia/battaust/JapdebAustinvade.html

[1967 R50/2]

There is a whole book written on this called Rising Sun Victorious. Various historians play out possible Japanese "victory" scenarios. However, none of them are truly a victory. Once the A-bomb came into existence, it's pretty hard to imagine Japan to winning. For example, let's say Japan somehow maintained complete naval supremecy in the Pacific. Well, a carrier task force is still an easy target for Fat Man.

There is a similar book called Third Reich Victorious , and again, it is difficult to imagine that Germany could be victorious after the completion of the A-bomb. Remember, we were building the bomb because we thought they were. If the war in Europe hadn't ended in the spring, Berlin would have been high on the nuclear target list.

Even if a cold war scenario were to emerge, with Germany dominating continental Europe (including Russia), it would probably have gone very badly for them. We would likely have just covertly supplied partisans throughout Europe with weapons, supplies etc. Imagine Vietnam on a continental scale. Would have been difficult, and extremely futile for Germany to hold onto it's conquests and still maintain a conventional and nuclear parity with the US.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by tabs
Pat must always be right.....

Albert Speer was refering to the 80,000 Flak guns that Germany had deployed to try and stop Allied Bombing...So how did those guns get to the West Wall again?

Normally when one referes to "guns" one is referring to artillery pieces, my mistake. One must remember that the western theater was ongoing when the military genius, Hitler, decided to create an eastern front. That decision effectively meant that Germany would lose the war no matter what occured further down the road. The British long range bombers would have been enough, the arrival of US bombers simply meant the British could concentrate on their night bombing of German civilians, euphemistically called "area bombing", instead of military targets in the day time.

There was a thing called Lend Lease where America supplied the USSR with Trucks, Airplanes, Tanks and other assorted war material such as tires, airplane engines etc.

Without those the Soviets would have been hard pressed.

Yes, the Soviets used these things, but they did not need them. Their war production output was very large.

Combat Aircraft Production
1940
Germany 10,247
USSR......10,565
1941
Germany 11,776
USSR.....15,735
1942
Germany 15,409
USSR......25,436
1943
Germany 24,807
USSR......34,900

Tank Production
1940
Germany 2200
USSR......2794
1941
Germany 5200
USSR......6590
1942
Germany 9200
USSR......24446
1943
Germany 17300
USSR......24089

Artillery Piece Production
1940
Germany 5000
USSR.....15300
1941
Germany 7000
USSR.....42300
1942
Germany 12000
USSR.....127000
1943
Germany 27000
USSR.....130300

Keep in mind that the German war production was split between two fronts, and it's pretty easy to see that they had a huge problem. Not only that, but the Soviet T-34 was superior to the most numerous German tank which were light tanks. The Tiger and Kingtiger were never produced in large enough numbers to be effective. Here's info on the Panther V, heavy tank for example. The USSR's war materiel production was out of reach of the Luftwaffe while Germany's war production was under constant assault by strategic bombardment.

Secondly Stalins orders in the summer of 1941 were to hold standfast and not give an inch...which proved diasterous, causing nearly a Million Soviet troops to be captured.

Yes, most view this as a mistake, perhaps it was, but most also don't realize how many men were available to Stalin to fight a worn out German army. Germany's population was 66 million, the USSR's population was 166 million. Stalin had no trouble wasting men, and would go on to waste millions more, but there is no doubt that without the assistance from the US government, the Soviets would have pushed Germany back to Germany by 1945-46.

In the summer of 1942 the Soviets gave ground to the Germans as they advanced into the Caucauses and towards the Volga.

Imagine what another Army Group could have done in front of Moscow in the Fall of 1941, instead of being tied down in France.

They were tied down in France under any circumstances, by the British. American lives were not needed for sacrifice in the european theater.

[red-beard]

What if, instead of preparing an Invasion of England, and a bombing companign, Germany stopped after the consolidation of Continental Europe. What if Hitler had sent peace envoys to England and told Chamberland/Churchill that he would not invade and would stop. Do you think England would have agreed? I would bet they would.

Imagine other scenarios, like the Hitler assination plot succeding. The Generals in Germany immediatly contacting the Allies and agreeing to a conditional surrender. It could easily have happened.

Japan never had a chance, once America was turned loose. They were extremely foolish in attacking Hawaii. And Germany was foolish in declaring was on the US the next day.

I thought 9/11 would be a Pearl Harbor wakeup for the US. Unfortunately, I think it will take the destruction of a city with a nuclear weapon. I think even a mass chemical attack will not do it.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by red-beard
What if, instead of preparing an Invasion of England, and a bombing companign, Germany stopped after the consolidation of Continental Europe. What if Hitler had sent peace envoys to England and told Chamberland/Churchill that he would not invade and would stop. Do you think England would have agreed? I would bet they would.

I think the problem with that scenario is that it would have been difficult for Germany to stop and consolidate their holdings. One of their continual problems was financing their government spending programs. A large part of those were funded with stolen national treasuries of occupied countries. Like most socialist countries, Germany was actually on the verge of a depression several times throughout the 1930's, and like Argentina when they invaded the Falklands to move public opinion away from their economic troubles, Germany did the same.

Imagine other scenarios, like the Hitler assination plot succeding. The Generals in Germany immediatly contacting the Allies and agreeing to a conditional surrender. It could easily have happened.

Japan never had a chance, once America was turned loose. They were extremely foolish in attacking Hawaii. And Germany was foolish in declaring was on the US the next day.

I thought 9/11 would be a Pearl Harbor wakeup for the US. Unfortunately, I think it will take the destruction of a city with a nuclear weapon. I think even a mass chemical attack will not do it.

If there is another terrorist attack, which country would you suggest the US governemnt invade this time, Indonesia?

[tabs]

The Soviets would NOT have been able to produce as many Tanks and Airplanes if it weren't for Lend Lease sending them Trucks.

The Brits switched to Night Bombing because they suffered too many losses during daylight bombing. Brit Bombers didn't have a Bottom Ball Turet gunner and were vunerable from underneath.

The russian T-34 was probably the best Tank of WW2 overall..simple to produce, simple to maintain, heavy armour, Big Gun...all made up for its realitive crudity.

The German Army was in its PRIME in 1941. Hitler in the Autum of 1941 went for the capture of a large number of Soviet troops instead of keeping his eye on the prize...which was Moscow. If he had pushed on, Moscow would have fallen, if more troops were available from the Westfront..Moscow would have fallen. If instead of pursuing a Southern campaign in 1942 he had taken Moscow and Leningrad...Hitler would have won in Russia. And WHY was Moscow so important...it IS THE RAIL HUB of Russia....all roads lead in and out of Moscow. Without Moscow the Soviets would not have been able to move troops laterally, it would have effectivily crippled the Soviet military.

In 1943 General Keitle figured that without fighting a major battle Germany was losing 150,000 men a month, and was only able to replace 75,000 a month..so it was only a matter of time before attrition would sap Germanys manpower reserves..So in 1943 Keitle knew the war was lost.

Hitler in the early months of 1940 tried to make peace with Great Britain and again after the fall of France...some think that why he relented on capturing the whole British Army at Dunkirk. Hitler never really wanted a war with GB. So Chamberlin and Churchill would never have made peace with Hitler. Also Hesss flight to GB some think was a Peace feeler with GB.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by tabs
The Soviets would NOT have been able to produce as many Tanks and Airplanes if it weren't for Lend Lease sending them Trucks.

The Brits switched to Night Bombing because they suffered too many losses during daylight bombing. Brit Bombers didn't have a Bottom Ball Turet gunner and were vunerable from underneath.

The russian T-34 was probably the best Tank of WW2 overall..simple to produce, simple to maintain, heavy armour, Big Gun...all made up for its realitive crudity.

The German Army was in its PRIME in 1941. Hitler in the Autum of 1941 went for the capture of a large number of Soviet troops instead of keeping his eye on the prize...which was Moscow. If he had pushed on, Moscow would have fallen, if more troops were available from the Westfront..Moscow would have fallen. If instead of pursuing a Southern campaign in 1942 he had taken Moscow and Leningrad...Hitler would have won in Russia. And WHY was Moscow so important...it IS THE RAIL HUB of Russia....all roads lead in and out of Moscow. Without Moscow the Soviets would not have been able to move troops laterally, it would have effectivily crippled the Soviet military.

In 1943 General Keitle figured that without fighting a major battle Germany was losing 150,000 men a month, and was only able to replace 75,000 a month..so it was only a matter of time before attrition would sap Germanys manpower reserves..So in 1943 Keitle knew the war was lost.

Hitler in the early months of 1940 tried to make peace with Great Britain and again after the fall of France...some think that why he relented on capturing the whole British Army at Dunkirk. Hitler never really wanted a war with GB. So Chamberlin and Churchill would never have made peace with Hitler. Also Hesss flight to GB some think was a Peace feeler with GB.

The logistics of the Warfare between Soviet Russia and Germany point out the fact that Germany could not have won the war with Russia under any circumstances, unless the British et al had signed a peace treaty with Germany, virtually impossible.
See: Whey the Allies Won and Russia's War both by Richard Overy.

When Germany lined up in Poland to attack Soviet Russia; they had 3350 tanks to oppose Russia's 15,000. Most of the German troops were depending on the 650,000 horses alloted for the invasion. The Germans withdrew two divisions from France to send to the eastern front. Left facing the British in France were one half an armored division, one mechanized division, and 45 divisions with horses as their main transportation method.

[tabs]

Patsy U need to read your History...The Germans came with in about 15 miles of Moscow in December of 1941. Imagine if they could have thrown in an extra 10 or so fresh Divisions from the Western front or Norway. They would have done it.

The German attack on Russia in June 1941 wiped out the Soviet AF on the ground and many of those 15000 tanks were obsolete and were quickly destroyed.

Also the Germans delayed their attack on Russia from the Spring of 41 to June...because of a slight detore in the Balkans and Greece/Crete.

Another factor you have dismissed is the fact that the Soviet Army had undergone a purge in 1938 where 90% of the General Officer Corp was among the missing. So the Soviet Army was Badly led by inexperienced Officers. Also quality of the Russian soldier and basic unit structure were far inferior to the German. The kill ratio for a German Tank I believe was something like 10 Russian to every German.

Hitler during the war said that if he knew that Russian had 10,000 tanks he would have reconsidered his attack. Never the less they came so close...