What was the biggest mistake made during WWII? - Page 15

The once and future king · #**141** 07-13-2006, 08:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The Soviets might have done a better job tactically had not Uncle Joe killed or exiled to Siberia much of the top echelon of the Red Army in '37.

[/ QUOTE ]

Top Echolon staff have more to do with things at the strategic or operational level. Whilst the soviets where piss poor on the whole in 41 at this level later in the War they totaly pwned the Germans operationaly.

oreopimp · #**142** 07-15-2006, 10:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Germans: Failing to give up the beachheads in france and launch a counter attack instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think more so Hitlers failing to send support to troops on the beach when he could have is the first mistake here.

-Yeah, the whole Russia thing was a mess.
-I also remember something about Hitler could have made Jets but had a fasicnation with bombers instead.

oreopimp · #**143** 07-15-2006, 10:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Japan: Failing to seize the Pearl Harbor initiative
Germans: Failing to give up the beachheads in france and launch a counter attack instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Japan actually did not fail to seize the Pearl Harbor initiative. Going into the Pearl Harbor invasion, Japan knew with a successful strike, that they would be able to control the Pacific for 6 full months, with uncertainty looming thereafter. As a matter of fact, Japan did control the Pacific, for almost exactly six months, taking over almost all of Asia, and building a huge perimeter defense. It was their demolition at Midway (where I don't believe they should have even engaged battle in), which lead to their demise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldnt say there was uncertainty after. Their plan was brilliant.

1. bomb Pearl Harbor destroying US fleet

2. build bases all over the pacfic, stocking them with plans, troops, etc hence making it almost impossible for the US to successfully "retakeover" because u attack 1 or 2 or 3 bases, the japanese send out immediate back up from other bases. The japanese called this the "Circle..." or "Sphere of something"

3. Control all trade in the pacific, which the US had essentaily been doing and which Japan had been subjigated to.

oreopimp · #**144** 07-15-2006, 10:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The question, of course, that lingers to the present--would the Japanese government have surrendered expeditiously on the basis of the bombing of Tokyo--or did the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki forestall the need for an invasion of Japan? If the latter would Hiroshima have been enough, or was Nagasaki necessary?

[/ QUOTE ]

neither was neccassary, Japan had been trying to enter talks with the US for sometime about ending the war. The US stalled because, and this is true, some in the governement felt the need to use the bombs as a display of power.

True story, look it up. It also talks a little bit about this in the documentary called "Why we Fight." I also remember talking to one of my grandfathers friends about this, at the time they were told the bombs were used out of neccassity and for a while he belived that the US using the bombs was a way of saving lives. He was pretty disgusted when he found out a while later that Japan had tried to enter talks of surrender or peace before hand. sick stuff.

OrigamiSensei · #**145** 07-15-2006, 12:42 PM

Oreo, I addressed this issue before. There are two good books on the subject that are well-researched and do well at showing objectivity while making their case. "Downfall" by Richard B Frank takes the position that dropping the A-bombs was the right thing to do while "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb" by Gar Alperovitz takes the opposite view.

The US refused to consider the Japanese feelers for surrender because those feelers were all intended to negotiate a conditional surrender, something we said we would not accept.

MrMon · #**146** 07-15-2006, 02:10 PM

Just watched American Experience's "Victory In The Pacific", which goes into pretty good detail about those "peace negotiations". (Link here.)

The idea that the Japanese wanted peace is correct, but has been spun by leftists historians in such a way as to obscure the fact that it was peace on Japan's terms, not the Allies terms. The Japanese were trying to use the Russians to broker a peace, but one that would involve no occupation, no war crimes trials by anyone other than the Japanese themselves, and maintaining the power of the emperor and the military, in short, maintaining the status quo in Japan. And even these terms were never relayed to the Allies. Even if they had been, they were totally unacceptable and would not have formed the basis for further negotiations.

Considering that the Japanese only surrendered when the emperor decided that they should, that certain factions tried to overthrow him when he made the decision, and that the military was continuing to build up defenses for a climactic battle on Kyushu, the idea that Japan wanted peace is rather far-fetched.

Peter666 · #**147** 07-15-2006, 04:07 PM

I read the whole link, and although the Germans were crushed in specific battles like Stalingrad, casualties were actually higher for the Russians in the overall campaign:

"(Soviet est.) 400,000 killed, 158,000 POWs, 590,000 wounded (German est.) 260,000 killed, 250,000 wounded 116,000 POWs 178,507 KIA/MIA, 587,308 WIA/sick, Total Casualties: 765,815"

It is not surprising considering the Russian tactic of mass attack. They basically went all in before the flop with mediocre hands, but had a larger bank role than the expert Germans.

Your Mom · #**148** 07-15-2006, 06:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The internment of thousands of US citizens based on their heritage.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is worse than killing for the same reason? No, you are wrong.

Your Mom · #**149** 07-15-2006, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Just watched American Experience's "Victory In The Pacific", which goes into pretty good detail about those "peace negotiations". (Link here.)

The idea that the Japanese wanted peace is correct, but has been spun by leftists historians in such a way as to obscure the fact that it was peace on Japan's terms, not the Allies terms. The Japanese were trying to use the Russians to broker a peace, but one that would involve no occupation, no war crimes trials by anyone other than the Japanese themselves, and maintaining the power of the emperor and the military, in short, maintaining the status quo in Japan. And even these terms were never relayed to the Allies. Even if they had been, they were totally unacceptable and would not have formed the basis for further negotiations.

Considering that the Japanese only surrendered when the emperor decided that they should, that certain factions tried to overthrow him when he made the decision, and that the military was continuing to build up defenses for a climactic battle on Kyushu, the idea that Japan wanted peace is rather far-fetched.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh c'mon. Let him spew his Anti-American leftist bull$hit rhetoric.

The once and future king · #**150** 07-16-2006, 07:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I read the whole link, and although the Germans were crushed in specific battles like Stalingrad, casualties were actually higher for the Russians in the overall campaign:

[/ QUOTE ]

Which campaighn are you talking about? Stalingrad has no operational relation to Kursk or Bagration as it happened well before these operations.

At the end of Bagration the casualties are given as:
Overall the near-total annihilation of Army Group Centre cost the Germans 2,000 tanks and 57,000 other vehicles. German losses are estimated at 300,000 dead, 250,000 wounded, and about 120,000 captured; overall casualties at 670,000. Soviet losses were 60,000 killed, 110,000 wounded, and about 8,000 missing, with 2,957 tanks, 2,447 artillery pieces, and 822 aircraft also lost.

Thats 300,000 dead for Germany 60,000 dead for the Soviets. You may want to stop using the casualty figures from wilky as it contradicts itself.

However the pertinant point is the difference in scale,advancement and destruction that the Soviets achieved in this operation compared to the slow ponderous advancement of the Western allies in west Europe.

You keep using the Soviet army in 41 as your frame of refrence without understanding the evolution that the Soviet army went through from 41-45. Its no wonder the Soviets suffered huge casualties in 41-42 but by 44/45 it was a totaly different beast. Why do you think the Western Allies let them keep Poland etc, coz they could sweet FA about it.