Ask miajag81 a question about World War II - Page 10

Phil153 · #91 03-24-2006, 11:20 PM

The Japanese were essentially a bunch of cowards whipped into a homicidal frenzy by the promise of empire. They had an almost fanatical belief in divine providence favoring the Japanese race. The nuking of two of their cities shattered this belief, and they meekly surrendered like the cowards they are. The Russians are very different. They were an incredibly strong, iron willed people who weren't suffering from delusions of grandeur.

There are also logistical concerns with taking a place as large as Russia that didn't exist with Japan. Apart from nuking their cities into oblivion (essentially leaving nothing left to conquer), you'd have to send a massive force in to take the rest of it by convential warfare. This is where it'd get nasty, as the Germans found out.

HtotheNootch · #92 03-24-2006, 11:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which was the best overall tank in ww2?

[/ QUOTE ]

As for tanks which were widely used, probably the T-34. Would be the Panther if it had been more reliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, if reliability and numbers are ommitted, the Tiger Royal would have to be considered the best.

Overall it's easily the T-34.

posnera · #93 03-24-2006, 11:31 PM

Also, Russia was hardly a unified nation the way Japan was. It took a serious campaign of terror and repression to keep the people in line. Controlling all of Russia may have been a logistical impossibility for any invading power. Could nukes have gotten a surrender? Possibly. Could the Allies have maintained a military presence in Russia the way they did in W.Germany and Japan after the war? No way. I don't think you can fairly compare getting Japan to surrender with the Russian situation.

shemp · #94 03-25-2006, 12:34 AM

Did we quit when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

OrigamiSensei · #95 03-25-2006, 12:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who was the best general in World War II?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question.

Obviously a judgment call but I would have to go with Rommel. The Germans had a lot of badass generals but Rommel was just brilliant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Rommel was weak in his handling of logistics and failed to get the job done in the battle that really mattered (Overlord). The German who gets little play in the popular imagination was Kesselring, who orchestrated a masterful defense of the Italian theatre, made the advance slow and costly for the Allies and demonstrated that the "soft underbelly" of Europe wasn't quite so soft after all.

How about some credit for Zhukov, who orchestrated the Soviet successes? And Marshall, who demonstrated that great generalship does not necessarily have to occur on the battlefield; who wedded industrialization, mechanization, transportation and technology and helped usher in a truly modern era of warfare?

b33nz · #96 03-25-2006, 01:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Did we quit when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

[/ QUOTE ]

lame.

Rev. Good Will · #97 03-25-2006, 01:06 AM

what are your thoughts on hitler escaping towards argentina, and the corpse found in his bunker was his dopplerganger?

HtotheNootch · #98 03-25-2006, 01:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Russia was hardly a unified nation the way Japan was. It took a serious campaign of terror and repression to keep the people in line. Controlling all of Russia may have been a logistical impossibility for any invading power. Could nukes have gotten a surrender? Possibly. Could the Allies have maintained a military presence in Russia the way they did in W.Germany and Japan after the war? No way. I don't think you can fairly compare getting Japan to surrender with the Russian situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for stealing my thunder.

The Soviet Union was hardly a unified nation. If the US had continued, the Baltics would have immediately revolted. My college roommate was Lithuanian, and he used to brag about his grandfather meeting with Patton to plan said invasion.

Think about it this way...

If the US had attacked the Soviet Union,Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania would have immediately sided with the US. In most likelihoods, the Ukraine would have done the same.

In other words, the Soviets would have faced both the US and the fury of its own conquests.

Arrion · #99 03-25-2006, 02:36 AM

It's a moot question really. Neither the Allies nor the Soviet Union had any will to fight each other right after such a long, bloody conflict. Better to talk about what actually happened.

Arrion · #**100** 03-25-2006, 02:40 AM

Rommel is somewhat overrated. He was a brilliant tactician but not a great army commander. The best German general is probably von Manstein. He was the mastermind behind the plan used to invade France in 1940, and behind some of the victories in Russia in 1942-1943. His "backhand blow" that stabilized the front after Stalingrad is considered particularly brilliant.

And to mention an Allied general who gets overlooked a lot, William Slim is arguably the best British general of the war. He retook Burma from a Japanese force that outnumbered his own using some very creative tactics.