How Japan Should Have Won WWII

[DavidI]

Originally posted by jluetjen

* Sun Tzu -- The Art of War -- Translated and with an introduction by Samuel B. Griffith.
* Lao Tzu and Taoism (Kind of Taoism for non-Taoists) -- Kaltenmark
* The Wiles of War (36 Military Strategies from Ancient China) -- Compiled and translated by Sun Haichen
* The Prince -- By Niccolo' Machiavelli

I've read the listed ones except for * The Wiles of War (36 Military Strategies from Ancient China) -- Compiled and translated by Sun Haichen

I'll check it out. I love reading these types of books. Most have a common theme of deception, deception, and more deception. That is how war is won.

David

[fastpat]

Originally posted by cegerer
"America is overstretching our capabilities to sustain mass military operations in the world. That has nothing to do with conservative or liberal."

An argument could be made that we are 'overstretching" our military these days. But that's different from overstetching America's potential military capabilites. We haven't even scratched the surface of our capabilites. Remember, we're fighting with a relatively small volunteer military (a VERY small fraction of our fighting-age population). If we had the public will, there's nobody who can match US resources, technology and military might. The problem, as John pointed out, is that the American populace today seems unphased by even attacks on US soil!! We are so polarized and political these days, I have serious doubts whether we could ever fight a war like WWII again, even if we were nuked.

Even thinking of a draft for military slavery is a non-stgarter these days. There is no conceivable scenario (among the possible) that would warrant a draft for military service today.

Who would invade America?

Other than Mexico, who is already doing so, and the US government is aiding and abetting them.

[DavidI]

Originally posted by cegerer
"America is overstretching our capabilities to sustain mass military operations in the world. That has nothing to do with conservative or liberal."

An argument could be made that we are 'overstretching" our military these days. But that's different from overstetching America's potential military capabilites. We haven't even scratched the surface of our capabilites. Remember, we're fighting with a relatively small volunteer military (a VERY small fraction of our fighting-age population). If we had the public will, there's nobody who can match US resources, technology and military might. The problem, as John pointed out, is that the American populace today seems unphased by even attacks on US soil!! We are so polarized and political these days, I have serious doubts whether we could ever fight a war like WWII again, even if we were nuked.

I agree that we are not putting forward a military anywhere near our potential capability. Winning a war is not about killing more of the enemy than we lose. If that were the case, Vietnam should be a clear cut victory for the US. The primary goal of a war is an objective, usually something of value (land, resources, etc.). In Vietnam, the "stated" objective was to save the South from the North. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful in achieving that goal. However, we put the smackdown on the NVA in most of the battles.

Our technology is incredible and our ability to quickly dispatch our enemies is astounding. I don't know if the public has the stomach to witness the necessary bloodletting of a full scale war again. In the months following Sept 11, 2001, the patriotic support was unwielding. It has tapered off since. America is the greatest nation and the most powerful.

David

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by tabs
Then how do U explain Midway....the sinking of Japans 4 Carriers and the equally important loss of Aircrew effectivily ended Japans Offensive capabilty in the Pacific and sealed her fate. Yet the war would go on for over 3 more years.

Actually, your example proves my point. Yes, it essentially ended Japan's offensive capability, but it didn't end the war. That would take 3 years and a island by island march across the Pacific from two directions. Failure to capture any one of the key islands would have posed a significant set-back, but would not have caused the US to lose the war.

In Europe, from D-Day to capitulation took a year. Half of Nazi occupied Europe was recaptured within 6 months of D-Day. So once the Allies successfully landed in France, and let Patton's 3rd Army (my Dad's unit BTW) loose, it was just a question of logistics (how fast could supporting fuel and supplies be moved to the front) before Germany was finished. The Battle of the Bulge was a big "Hail Mary" play by the Nazis.

Pretty much everything before D-Day in Europe was practice or diversion in the global scheme of things. Disclaimer -- Yes the Italian campaign was a life-or-death struggle for those who were fighting it (as was every island or sea battle in the pacific), but in the global scheme of things the Allies were not really expecting to defeat Germany by crossing the Alps. That was the hard way. But they were able to tie up enough troops there and elsewhere that the number of forces available to defend France from the Allies was limited. And having the Russians advancing from the east was key too, but they wouldn't have been able to do that without the threat posed by the Allies in the west and south keeping a significant portion of the Nazi forces there.

It was definitely a team project on the part of the Allies. As someone mentioned earlier, "Team" was not one of the things that the Axis "master races" seemed to master very well.


Speaking of my Dad; here's a picture of him guarding a bridge in Luxembourg during the winter of '44 and '45.



By chance I just interviewed him this past weekend on his WW2 experiences. Nothing "Band of Brother"ish, just an American doing his duty in the 734 FA (Long Toms). They'd chase after the infantry, set-up, fire a few rounds and then break everything down and move up again. After the "Battle of the Bulge" it seems like they spent more time collecting and shuttling POW's to the rear then they did firing the gun.

[nine_one_4]

Originally posted by jluetjen




In Europe, from D-Day to capitulation took a year. Half of Nazi occupied Europe was recaptured within 6 months of D-Day. So once the Allies successfully landed in France, and let Patton's 3rd Army (my Dad's unit BTW) loose, it was just a question of logistics (how fast could supporting fuel and supplies be moved to the front) before Germany was finished. The Battle of the Bulge was a big "Hail Mary" play by the Nazis.

The Germans had been fighting the Russians on the Eastern front for years and at that point were outnumbered 6 to 1.