Ask miajag81 a question about World War II - Page 9

miajag · #81 03-24-2006, 10:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then we would have nuked Kiev. Then Leningrad. Then Stalingrad. Etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are a "fake". I have studied history at university, and WWII and aftermath was covered quite detailedly. I don't think the US were anywhere close to being capable of nuking all of Soviet Union. The Russians were/are very patriotic and nationalistic, and as others have pointed out, you would eventually have to fight man to man in the snow. Later, of course, this dramatically changed, but in the time frame we discuss here, I think your conlusions are very wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

All this is purely speculation so I think it's ridiculous that you're calling me a "fake" because you disagree with me. Obviously no one can say what would have happened, but I don't think my guess is too far off. Look at the effect nuking Japan had on them. The leaders were warmongering maniacs who many thought would never consider surrendering, but after two A-bombs they said "Uh, yeah, you win." I think you may be underestimating the effect even one or two nukes would have had on the USSR.

Arnfinn Madsen · #82 03-24-2006, 10:20 PM

Just stating, that IMO, your posts makes me think you don't know much about WWII. I am still under that impression.

Have you ever been to Russia? Have you ever discussed WWII with Russians? You would see that in the Russian population there is an enormous national pride connected to WWII. This national pride existed during the war as well, do you really think that it is possible to send millions of youths westward and make them attack fierclessly (some even not having a weapon, just told to enter the battlefield and pick up one from a dead comrade or enemy) without any national pride/motivation being existent. Do you really think it would all disappear due to some nukes falling on Moscow when years of enormous suffering did not kill it? Very naive way of thinking, IMO.

HotPants · #83 03-24-2006, 10:26 PM

Had Britain allied with Germany from the start, what do you think the chances are the Axis would have won instead?

Had Britain ever considered this?

Why do Americans keep saying they saved Britain's ass when in reality they saved each other's asses? (you don't have to answer that one [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) no I'm not British

Luzion · #84 03-24-2006, 10:27 PM

Which side had the best firearms?

Was the M1 Garand really "the rifle that won the war?" The weapon isnt too impressive in the WWII FPS games, and the Japanese seemed to do just fine with their "inferior" firearms.

miajag · #85 03-24-2006, 10:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Which side had the best firearms?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Germans, by far.

The M1 is called the "rifle that won the war" because it was reliable and produced in massive numbers, not because it was a particularly outstanding weapon in and of itself.

Luzion · #86 03-24-2006, 10:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which side had the best firearms?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Germans, by far.

The M1 is called the "rifle that won the war" because it was reliable and produced in massive numbers, not because it was a particularly outstanding weapon in and of itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? The Germans by far? I thought the best thing going for them was having the fastest shooting machine gun... Could you elaborate why?

b33nz · #87 03-24-2006, 10:59 PM

have you ever read any plans/theories on what hitler would have done if he would have controlled all of Europe? (basically successful in winning the war)

what would it be like (past and present) if Hitler did win WW2?

god, just think that one man would control the whole world... how [censored] mind boggling would this be... bleh

Yahtzee · #88 03-24-2006, 11:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You would see that in the Russian population there is an enormous national pride connected to WWII. ... Do you really think it would all disappear due to some nukes falling on Moscow when years of enormous suffering did not kill it?

[/ QUOTE ]

They said that the Japanese would have fought to the last man, then had enormous national pride, they would rather die than surrender, etc. Two nukes and they surrendered.

Maybe Russian national pride was more intense but you're not really making a convincing case for why they wouldn't surrender to a heavy nuclear campaign even though the similarly proud Japanese did.

Arnfinn Madsen · #89 03-24-2006, 11:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]

They said that the Japanese would have fought to the last man, then had enormous national pride, they would rather die than surrender, etc. Two nukes and they surrendered.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know too little about the Japanese situation to comment on it and its relevance to the European theatre.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe Russian national pride was more intense but you're not really making a convincing case for why they wouldn't surrender to a heavy nuclear campaign even though the similarly proud Japanese did.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was that a nuclear campaign big enough to achieve a surrender was not available.

Card08 · #90 03-24-2006, 11:14 PM

A few posters have oversimplified the situation in Japan in the months prior to surrender. Yes, the atomic bombs were a fantastic display of force and American determination to finish the war, but no one has pointed out that the firebombing of Tokyo alone killed more Japanese than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Truman Administration was pushing for unconditional surrender, yet no one in his cabinet really knew what Roosevelt's plans for the endgame had been. The Japanese emperor wanted to surrender well before we dropped the atomic bombs; however, powerful military elements in his War Cabinet as well as the Prime Minister wanted to carry the fight to its bitter end. Many of them wanted to do so after both bombs. It was really a combination of the bombs, Soviet entry into the war, and a change in political capital for the emperor (given the still deteriorating state of Japan's industrial/military capacity in Aug 1945) that led to a Japansese surrender.

If the United States had agreed to a conditional surrender that allowed Japan to maintain the imperial dynasty(which is what happened anyway), the bombs may have been completely unnecessary. Anyone wanting to read up on possible ulterior motive for the U.S. should read Gar Alperovitz's Atomic Diplomacy, which posits the bombs were more a U.S. for position for the coming Cold War.