Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on April 07, 2015, 10:13:47 AM
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/07/japan-us-relations-survey/25351323/
I would be interested to see the opinion polls of other nationalities as well, to see if the Japanese opinion is unique to Americans, or more widely shared.
-
First reactions: "That's nice"; "I'll be concerned when American mass emigration to Japan starts"; and, I like the idiot-friendly graph display style in the article.
More seriously, I expect a lot of Americans feel about many of our countrymen the way the Japanese do. And, given the perception of America by the international media the stereotypes aren't surprising.
-
I would be interested to see the opinion polls of other nationalities as well, to see if the Japanese opinion is unique to Americans, or more widely shared.
Given how xenophobic the Japanese culture can be, I'd be curious to see some more data as well.
-
More seriously, I expect a lot of Americans feel about many of our countrymen the way the Japanese do. And, given the perception of America by the international media the stereotypes aren't surprising.
A lot of that right there. I'm sure the "Obamaphone" type videos make the rounds in other countries, just as they do here. Otherwise, looking at it logically and from the psychological perspective, most people will only give credit for something like "industrious" if the other group is MUCH more industrious than they are. Hence, if we admit the Japanese are more industrious, it would only be natural (and logical) for the Japanese to view us as "less industrious".
The innovation part has me a bit discombobulated. I'm pretty sure we are still exponentially out-innovating the Japanese in everything but sex robots.
Another one of my "dad anecdotes": Immediately after WW2, he was working as a machinist in a German factory. They had invented some state of the art machines for I forget what kind of production. A Japanese delegation toured their plant, including his machine. They were taking notes and pictures like crazy. Around a year later, they had copied the machines and were producing the same stuff as the Germans at a cheaper rate.
The German view of the Japanese at the time was that they were 1) bastards, and 2) really good at taking something someone else had invented and efficiently making and mass producing copies. While the Germans would never admit the copies were better than any German engineering, I think we can look at our own automobile industry to see how the Japanese version of that, after the Japanese learned from our innovation, has put many of our American manufacturers to shame.
-
I'm reminded of the old joke:
Q. How to you terrify a Japanese engineer?
A. Give him a blank sheet of paper.
-
The first japanese train was an exact copy of a scaled down locomotive brought by commodore perry as a gift to the emporer
They have japanese only restaurants in japan
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Americans think the Japanese are honest?
Well, that fits perfectly with my opinion of American education.
-
Is there a country that Japanese do NOT have a low opinion of? Who do they like besides themselves?
-
My experience is that most Oriental nations have low opinions of everyone else.
-
From the article:
Americans overwhelmingly think of Japanese as hardworking, inventive and honest, with few negative personal traits.
Then explain all those "WTF Japan" videos.
-
From the article:
Then explain all those "WTF Japan" videos.
What, people don't consider them being the weirdest perverts in the world a negative?
-
The Japanese view of Americans is more flattering than this American's view of the current U.S. President.
As an employee of a large US multinational company, I worked with Japanese companies (vendors) for quite a number of years; I found that
1. They are NOT repeat NOT infallible.
2. Some are mulishly stubborn about their infallibility, even when presented with incontrovertible proof from multiple sources that they're wrong.
3. Once they see you know what, you're doing, there's a good chance they'll warm up to you. (The ones not included in #2, above.)
4. The Japanese are often - very often! - more racist than anything you commonly see in the USA today. (I would like to see a survey of Japanese attitudes about Koreans.)
-
When I was growing up in the early 90's, all the media uproar was about how the Japanese were going to take over the world and own all the real estate in the US. Then their economy fell flat.
I have never worked there, but have worked with people who have. One guy had to train their operators on how to run the process his company installed. He said they will memmorize the manual, but most Americans have more innovation in their little pinky than they have in their whole body.
-
. One guy had to train their operators on how to run the process his company installed. He said they will memmorize the manual, but most Americans have more innovation in their little pinky than they have in their whole body.
Besides the xeniphobia, ^^ in spades.
Both the Germans and Japanese in WWs I & II commented, usually disparaginngly, about the average American soldier's disrespect for the orders of their superior noncoms and officers - especially the outright insubordination displayed once the plan crossed the MLD and became the battle. Those two groups also complained mightily at having lost to soldiers who refused to obey their noncoms and officers.
Anybody remember the movie Gung Ho (no, not the Randolph Scott one) and the amount of effort it took the Japanese managerial overlords to realize that they were beaten before they began. How do you say "Ziss iss the vay ve vill do ziss!" with a Japanese accent?
The one improvement in the behavior of the Japanese that I have noticed over the years ( :old:) is that most of them no longer make faces when they talk like their undershorts have both ridden up and contain itching powder.
stay safe.
-
My experience is that most Oriental nations have low opinions of everyone else.
WINNER!!
But typically politely
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
It's funny too sometimes. My uncle sold milling machines and the like . He had a machine that arrived that had a threaded 3/4 inch hole to recover coolant from the tray that caught it as it came off tool head.
The fitting on the end of the hose was 1/2 inch. The factory rep took that fitting and tried to make it fit for an hour the whole time assuring uncle it was the correct piece before he finally reluctantly caved.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
WINNER!!
But typically politely
That's part of the honesty thing I was referring to.
Most Japanese will never tell you how they really feel. (Clearly our American of Japanese descent does not have that failing.)
(This, of course, makes me wonder about just how much this poll has misjudged their feelings.)
-
I am 1/2 Irish and what makes you so sure I am not holding back?....
If anything I think the poll sugar coats it.
I mean they have Japanese only places to eat.
I was a real problem for both sides of my family. Neither family was too happy about the marriage but then I was born. The Irish sued I was first born son and would carry on family name. Japanese side number one son is a big freaking deal also. I was better than the un for international relations. It's hard to hate the mother or sire of your grand child.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
the Japanese can read, and they read what is reported in the main stream media. That picture is not really pretty, if you stop and think about it. Murder, race relations, or the lack of them, unemployment, welfare, drugs..................
Of course, most of that is centered in certain sub sections of America, and is not indicative of the vast majority of Americans. Still, that is the picture that the media presents to the world.
Accident? Just something that happens? I think not. The liberal media is just doing what it can to assist the dhimmicrats in their quest to diminish America's standing in the world, and to do lasting damage to America.
I know a LOT Of Japanese, and have for many years. I visit there, Japanese friends visit here. Wife and I will be entertaining two eminent Japanese scientists the end of April. Looks like we will be flying back over later this year.
From being in their homes, and meeting their family and friends, I'd say that this USAToday report is, well bogus.
-
http://www.debito.org/misawaexclusions.html
http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g298184-i861-k7429009-Japanese_only_restaurants-Tokyo_Tokyo_Prefecture_Kanto.html
Lots more if needed
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I send them wire transfers. They send me product. The product is always as described, prompt, and complete. When there is damage (very rare) their insurance picks up the cost with no hassle. Promptly. I love doing business with the Japanese. They honor their obligations.
-
I am 1/2 Irish and what makes you so sure I am not holding back?....
If anything I think the poll sugar coats it.
I mean they have Japanese only places to eat.
I was a real problem for both sides of my family. Neither family was too happy about the marriage but then I was born. The Irish sued I was first born son and would carry on family name. Japanese side number one son is a big freaking deal also. I was better than the un for international relations. It's hard to hate the mother or sire of your grand child.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I thought it may be sugar coating it, too.
Incidentally, that not hating the mother of your grandchildren was a large part of the acceptance of the Irish into American society.
-
And i have seen folks come to the same result in black white relationships. Grandkids are glue that bring families/cultures together
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Jennifer Lind, an associate professor of government at Dartmouth College and a 2014 Sasakawa Peace Foundation Fellow in Tokyo, said she was surprised at some of the findings, including that nearly 1 in 4 Japanese don't think of Americans as inventive or hardworking.
"That's pretty shocking given that America leads the world in innovation, and also given data on how many working hours and how few vacations Americans log every year," Lind said, in emailed comments.
If she's surprised, it's only because she has been isolated in her Ivy League ivory tower of academia for too long. I would say the general opinion is pretty widely shared. And, IMHO, deservedly so.
Look around. Ignoring the membership of this motley crew, how many people do you know who actually WORK hard for 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week? (Or even 7/35). I'm talking about actually doing something productive, not sitting behind a desk on Wall Street and figuring ways to make money by causing other people to lose money. I'm not talking about belonging to a trade union that lets you show up on a construction site, take a breakfast break, "work" a couple of hours (by sneaking behind the gang box for a smoke), take a coffee break, "work" a couple more hours, take lunch break, "work" another hour, and then spend an hour cleaning up after fifteen minutes of productive work before clocking out for the day. How about auto mechanics, getting paid for 60 to 80 hours of "work" but only putting 40 (or 35) hours on the time clock?
It's not just Japan. I've encountered similar sentiments in Blimey, Ukraine, and a couple or three South American countries. I'm sad to say I think we have the reputation we have earned.
-
It's funny too sometimes. My uncle sold milling machines and the like . He had a machine that arrived that had a threaded 3/4 inch hole to recover coolant from the tray that caught it as it came off tool head.
The fitting on the end of the hose was 1/2 inch. The factory rep took that fitting and tried to make it fit for an hour the whole time assuring uncle it was the correct piece before he finally reluctantly caved.
Obstinacy knows no nationality.
A number of years ago a friend called me and asked if I would check out a used Jeep Cherokee at a car lot near where I worked. He was considering it for his wife -- it was advertised as a low mileage 6-cylinder.
So I went. I looked. It seemed clean, but something wasn't quite right. Sales drone brought keys and we fired it up. Went for a short drive. Drove "okay," but seemed awfully tired. Came back to the lot and popped the hood, where I discovered ... a 4-cylinder engine. The asking price was marginally in range for a 6-cylinder, but way more than what a 4-cylinder was worth. So I asked what they'd sell it for, considering it wasn't as advertised.
[Scout's honor, what follows is what transpired]
SD: We can't take less than the sticker price
Me: But the asking price is for a 6-cylinder, and this is a 4-cylinder.
[Get ready!]
SD: Well, it was a 6-cylinder when we bought it.
He then spent at least ten, maybe 15 minutes looking at the left side of an in-line 4-cylinder engine (which has the spark plugs on the right), trying to find those other two cylinders so he could show me that he was right and I was wrong.
-
If she's surprised, it's only because she has been isolated in her Ivy League ivory tower of academia for too long. I would say the general opinion is pretty widely shared. And, IMHO, deservedly so.
Look around. Ignoring the membership of this motley crew, how many people do you know who actually WORK hard for 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week? (Or even 7/35). I'm talking about actually doing something productive...<snip>
It's not just Japan. I've encountered similar sentiments in Blimey, Ukraine, and a couple or three South American countries. I'm sad to say I think we have the reputation we have earned.
I know plenty. Just looking at the folks I work with at my current job, it's a rare person who only puts in 40hrs. Not only do we work a full day, but we're involved in projects, customer calls, etc outside our normal work hours to support coworkers and customers in timezones well outside our own. The coworkers in APAC whine if we ask them to accommodate our schedules and not schedule meetings at 3am or 11pm. Most of us also make ourselves available while on vacation for emergencies. We're salary, we don't get to make extra money for extra hours.
I have a couple coworkers who were hourly a year ago. For multiple years, they made multiples of their salary working OT because we were short staffed. One guy with a base salary around 50k was pulling down 180k due to OT. He had to because our company wouldn't hire the additional bodies we needed to run a 24/7 shop. Well, he didn't *have* to, but he did because he knew that's the only way we could get things done, and he could make some coin to boot. The guy worked 6-7 12hr shifts per week, holidays, and worked doubles when coworkers were on vacation or sick. His counterparts in the UK? They bitch if they have to work more than 35hrs a week and are expected to be competent at the same time. France wasn't even an option, their laws PREVENT them from working more than 35hrs.
I also work with a lot of folks from other countries. Don't tell me those effers work harder than the average American. Folks in the UK and France have all sorts of regulations, unions, etc that keep them from working as much as we do. Spain and SA are even worse. Productivity in a Eurocentric multinational plummets during the Summer due to the various EU nations taking their month long holidays.
Sorry, but you're FOS with your "analysis".
Chris
-
While the Germans would never admit the copies were better than any German engineering, I think we can look at our own automobile industry to see how the Japanese version of that, after the Japanese learned from our innovation, has put many of our American manufacturers to shame.
Another 20th century example is cameras. Germany made the really good ones, America was too proud to copy and made odd overbuilt ones and finally gave up, Japan copied and improved on both. Plenty of innovation from the Japanese, but not the very first invention type of innovation.
-
If she's surprised, it's only because she has been isolated in her Ivy League ivory tower of academia for too long. I would say the general opinion is pretty widely shared. And, IMHO, deservedly so.
Look around. Ignoring the membership of this motley crew, how many people do you know who actually WORK hard for 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week? (Or even 7/35).
I know lots of non-working jackwagons who need a swift kick in the ass. They'd rather leach off of welfare or their significant other (or a combination of both) instead of getting a job when they are perfectly able of getting and holding a job, just lacking the will to work to support themselves.
And the worst part is instead of making it taboo to be a non-working lazy shithead we, as a society, excuse, enable, and encourage it.
-
I know lots of non-working jackwagons who need a swift kick in the ass. They'd rather leach off of welfare or their significant other (or a combination of both) instead of getting a job when they are perfectly able of getting and holding a job, just lacking the will to work to support themselves.
And the worst part is instead of making it taboo to be a non-working lazy shithead we, as a society, excuse, enable, and encourage it.
Me too.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Look around. Ignoring the membership of this motley crew, how many people do you know who actually WORK hard for 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week? (Or even 7/35). I'm talking about actually doing something productive, not sitting behind a desk on Wall Street and figuring ways to make money by causing other people to lose money. I'm not talking about belonging to a trade union that lets you show up on a construction site, take a breakfast break, "work" a couple of hours (by sneaking behind the gang box for a smoke), take a coffee break, "work" a couple more hours, take lunch break, "work" another hour, and then spend an hour cleaning up after fifteen minutes of productive work before clocking out for the day. How about auto mechanics, getting paid for 60 to 80 hours of "work" but only putting 40 (or 35) hours on the time clock?
I worked at two manufacturing plants. Helicopters and store fixtures.
So, direct knowledge..? I dunno, couple hundred?
I put in 50-90+ hour weeks from age 18 to this current job. My boss is a good man, realizes regular 60+ hour weeks are bad, and we generally try to put in no more than 45. I wish I had not worked as many hours when I was younger. Exactly zero folks thank me for the extra work I put in over those years. Putting in the extra hours during a major project is one thing, ditto the odd maintenance or out of hours thing. Hell, I still pull at least maintenance at least one Friday or Saturday night a month. I'm never doing a salary gig with regular and expected schedule of over 60 hours a week, unless it seriously pays enough to warrant that kind of aggravation.
I am a firm believer in hard work. I however do now add that one should work hard, but work intelligently for themselves. Killing yourself for a gig is stupid unless it pays enough to justify the sacrifice, and/or you believe in what you're doing. Pulling 90 hour workweeks in the Army while deployed, aye, you're making at or below minimum age, but part of the deal.
There's plenty of Americans with amazing work ethics. Plenty, including myself, with too much of one and occasionally not enough intelligence to say "Stuff your personnel shortages".
That said, yeah, there's plenty of lazy gits. Some that refuse to get jobs. Some that are just terrible human beings. We had to deal with union labor with doing some (unpaid) work for the 9/11 memorial. They were near exactly as you described.
-
3 of my first cousins are Jap/American. The middle one married a Japanese fellow and returned to live there. Not many years after, she came back without him. I'm guessing that a 5'11" American woman with a Vassar education and japanese features flew in the face of pretty much everything there.
-
Yea mom went there for cancer treatments and after 20 years here she was too americanized. It drove her crazy that the docs would not talk to her directly but would talk to her brother who was in the room with her. She said it was like they thought she was too stupid to understand.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
I also work with a lot of folks from other countries. Don't tell me those effers work harder than the average American. Folks in the UK and France have all sorts of regulations, unions, etc that keep them from working as much as we do. Spain and SA are even worse. Productivity in a Eurocentric multinational plummets during the Summer due to the various EU nations taking their month long holidays.
Sorry, but you're FOS with your "analysis".
Chris
Don't remember if it was brought up here while discussing the Jeremy Clarkson fracas, or if it was brought up in the comments section of one of the linked articles, but Top Gear got busted by the cops in Italy. Not for speeding, or for fighting.
They were working on a Sunday without a permit. :O
-
3 of my first cousins are Jap/American. The middle one married a Japanese fellow and returned to live there. Not many years after, she came back without him. I'm guessing that a 5'11" American woman with a Vassar education and japanese features flew in the face of pretty much everything there.
Sounds like my cousin who married a Spanish architect and went to live in Barcelona. But I don't think that was a question of Spain not being ready for her, I think it was a question of an intelligent, college-educated American woman being unwilling to put up with the inherent macho, male chauvinist attitude of most Latino men.
My late wife was one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen. That's not just me -- anyone who has seen photos of her from younger days agrees. After her first marriage failed (because of her husband's philandering), she could have had her pick of just about any male in her country. She married me because "You're not a macho Latino."
-
Americans think the Japanese are honest?
Well, that fits perfectly with my opinion of American education.
I suppose that depends on your definition of honest. I lived there from 1982-1986. I can tell you that I only saw precautions against shoplifting in stores around the military installations. The further you got away, the less of that you saw. A friend of mine took the train to Akihabara and bought an expensive new camera. Walked in to a public restroom, set it down, did his business, walked out without it. He was on the train home when he suddenly realized he didn't have the camera. Deciding to take a chance, he took the train back, got back to that restroom 3 hours later. Camera was still sitting exactly where he left it. That story is not unusual. I'll grant you, that was 30 years ago, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think that attitude has changed much.
-
In my experience, the Japanese will lie about absolutely meaningless things, but it's generally to save face, or what they think will enhance politeness, even if they think you're the scum of the Earth beneath it.
Working in the IT department of a large brewery for several years, one of my jobs was to support network connectivity between the breweries systems and the distributors. One was run by a Japanese family on the West Coast.
When we'd be working with them on the phone to resolve a multi-day issue, you'd work with "Yoshi". Except 3-4 different people would get on the phone and pretend to be "Yoshi" over the course of the issue. (headscratch)
I guess they thought we'd be offended? Or confused? That they could come on the phone and say: "Hello, Yoshi is busy today, this is Tetsuo, can we pick up where we left off?" just never occurred to them.
-
Try working with/for Italians.
-
I suppose that depends on your definition of honest. I lived there from 1982-1986. I can tell you that I only saw precautions against shoplifting in stores around the military installations. The further you got away, the less of that you saw. A friend of mine took the train to Akihabara and bought an expensive new camera. Walked in to a public restroom, set it down, did his business, walked out without it. He was on the train home when he suddenly realized he didn't have the camera. Deciding to take a chance, he took the train back, got back to that restroom 3 hours later. Camera was still sitting exactly where he left it. That story is not unusual. I'll grant you, that was 30 years ago, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think that attitude has changed much.
I've heard similar stories. A friend of mine, who is Japanese, went there to visit family. He said that there's many things that are more or less on the honor system that would never be here. For example, vegetable stands in the country with boxes for you to insert payment, and nobody there to collect.
A former client of mine worked for GE Medical. She was tall, with very large tomatoes. She had to go to Tokyo and, while she liked it for the most part, she hated riding the subway. They were crowded, and a lot of the Japanese guys were about breast height, and would stand there smiling with their faces practically stuffed between them.
-
I gotta wonder if some of the honesty stuff y'all describe between Japan and the US is that the US in not a single culture when it comes down to the family unit and individuals. I would have left the camera there or tried to give it to the store to hold. Others would have grabbed it. There are a number of things that can be considered "American Culture", but we are still an amalgamation of different people's with different backgrounds.
I have seen the honor system used a number of times. It often works just fine. Only takes one person to shut it down.
-
^ bingo
The single culture is the big stick. During a major earthquake a prison wall fell. No one left. Reason? Where would they go? Who would help/hide them?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
My late wife was one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen. That's not just me -- anyone who has seen photos of her from younger days agrees. After her first marriage failed (because of her husband's philandering), she could have had her pick of just about any male in her country. She married me because "You're not a macho Latino."
My dork-ass eggheaded uncle ended up with a very racy Bolivian wife in exactly the same fashion.
-
He said that there's many things that are more or less on the honor system that would never be here. For example, vegetable stands in the country with boxes for you to insert payment, and nobody there to collect.
Those are actually pretty common up in my neck of the woods. There's a farm not too far away from here that we sometimes get fresh corn from that uses that system.
They do occasionally get robbed, but its rare enough that even when it happens the family running it usually doesn't completely abandon the honor system, though they might install cameras.
-
I have absolutely zero respect for the Japanese and don't give a *expletive deleted*it what the duplicitous bastards think of us. It was the same attitude that made them think we were too lacking in resolve to have a stomach for a Pacific war.
Should have slagged the entire empire into green glowing glass.
-
Mike, eat a Snickers bar.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FaoyshyT.jpg&hash=077b1b98790d68260910cd37cfbaba1e65d6b0e7)
-
Mike, eat a Snickers bar.
You really, really, really don't want me fully functional and focused...
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FaoyshyT.jpg&hash=077b1b98790d68260910cd37cfbaba1e65d6b0e7)
I am so stealing that.
-
I didn't make that, I found it this morning, 100% by accident.
-
I have absolutely zero respect for the Japanese and don't give a *expletive deleted*it what the duplicitous bastards think of us. It was the same attitude that made them think we were too lacking in resolve to have a stomach for a Pacific war.
Should have slagged the entire empire into green glowing glass.
Had we invaded instead of dropping the bomb, that might have effectively happened. Hard to say.
-
Had we actually invaded Japan, that would have likely meant one of two things:
1. We didn't have the bomb, because it was a failure in testing,
2. The scientists won out in convincing the Government that it was too terrible to use and it was a political decision to hold it back.
As it was, the United States didn't have enough fissionable materail for a fourth bomb until 1946.
-
Had we actually invaded Japan, that would have likely meant one of two things:
1. We didn't have the bomb, because it was a failure in testing,
2. The scientists won out in convincing the Government that it was too terrible to use and it was a political decision to hold it back.
As it was, the United States didn't have enough fissionable materail for a fourth bomb until 1946.
Actually there is option 3. Japan still refused to surrender.
Imagine the blood bath if we actually would have had to invade. We might actually still be fighting if that had to have happened.
-
2. The scientists won out in convincing the Government that it was too terrible to use and it was a political decision to hold it back.
Can you imagine if we had the likes of Obama as president during WWII?
Roosevelt was a *expletive deleted*ing commie son of a bitch, but at least he had some guts instead of an urge to bow.
-
You know, I'm pretty sure the Japanese will have their revenge one day. I can't seem to believe that they are all OK with getting nuked and leaving it at that. Revenge is a dish best served shushi-cold?
-
Japanese are not the ones to worry about. Our descendants will be speaking chinese if the chinese get their way. The japanese know this so will ally with us to combat that.
I suspect the chinese will win anyway just take longer
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
I dunno. The Chinese Empire seems very unstable to me. First of all it depends heavily on western consumerism, Second it relies entirely on raw matter flowing in, Third it will only stand by keeping a billion+ humans under slavery.
-
I gave first child a chinese middle name
The chinese have more i don't give a damn that anyone else and can afford/sustain the casualties to back it up. Losing population is a good thing for them
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
I dunno. The Chinese Empire seems very unstable to me. First of all it depends heavily on western consumerism, Second it relies entirely on raw matter flowing in, Third it will only stand by keeping a billion+ humans under slavery.
4th: their population is very concentrated in the Eastern side of the country nearer the coast. Wouldn't take much infrastructure destruction to knock them down a bit.
-
You know, I'm pretty sure the Japanese will have their revenge one day. I can't seem to believe that they are all OK with getting nuked and leaving it at that. Revenge is a dish best served shushi-cold?
The nuking was OUR revenge - served pretty damn hot.
-
The nuking was OUR revenge - served pretty damn hot.
Truth.
-
The nuking was OUR revenge - served pretty damn hot.
MMMmmmmm.... Yes and no.
Truman did not, under any circumstances, want to sent American troops ashore. He knew what kind of bloodbath it would be.
In fact, planners were so worried what might happen that some plans called for heavy use of mustard and phosgene gas.
When he was offered a chance to end the war with one of the new "wonderweapons" he took it.
A lot of people have since claimed that Japan was about to surrender (or actually had, and we ignored it). No evidence for that exists at all. They put out some demands of their own, which the US rejected.
The Japanese also totally ignored the Potsdam Declaration.
And, even after two atomic bombs and the Emperor's decision to surrender, a cadre of military officers attempted to mutiny, overthrow the Emperor's guard, take him under their "protection" and issue orders to fight to the last person.
What a lot of revisionist historians won't ever admit is that the dual atomic bombings may well have saved Japanese lives.
-
Whether it was or was not revenge the japanese think it was. And they are ok with thst
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
I have heard continued blockade and bombing was an option also. We had a fairly effective blockade of Japan by that time. I doubt starvation would have been much better for the Japanese people.
-
Food was scarce. There were less than 100 breeding pairs of akitas left by wars end
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Whether it was or was not revenge the japanese think it was. And they are ok with thst
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
They've never had a particularly cogent view of their role in the Pacific War, and as a nation have steadfastly refused to accept responsibility for the atrocities committed during their period of empire building, so once again, a *expletive deleted*it I shall not give about what they think.
-
I have heard continued blockade and bombing was an option also. We had a fairly effective blockade of Japan by that time. I doubt starvation would have been much better for the Japanese people.
A continued blockade was an option, but that could have dragged on, literally, for years until it had its desired effects.
The US blockade of the home islands was, in large part, a stranglehold. By the end of the war virtually nothing was getting through to the home islands. The United States Navy had sunk virtually the entire Japanese merchant fleet.
The issue with continued bombing is that, by May 1945, the Army Air Force was literally out of targets. With the exception of, IIRC, 6 cities that had been unexplicably held off the bombing lists (unexplicable because they were potential atomic bomb targets), pretty much every other major population center and industrial area had been bombed and burned.
The only problem with waiting that long, though, is the fact that you've still got nearly 2 million Japanese soldiers on the mainland, which are fully capable of causing quite a bit of havoc.
Then you've also got the Soviet problem.
The US atomic bombings were as much about showing the Soviets the awesome new weapon we had (and they didn't) as they were about revenge for Pearl Harbor.
-
The US atomic bombings were as much about showing the Soviets the awesome new weapon we had (and they didn't) as they were about revenge for Pearl Harbor.
Makes you wonder if the Red Army would've been content with stopping at Berlin, if they didn't have to worry about getting nuked.
-
There probably would have been one Communist Korea today if we had waited.
-
Just as an aside, the US military is still issuing Purple Hearts from the first contract that were ordered for Operation Downfall. The second contract was cancelled after the surrender. That means that all the wounded from Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, DS/DS, OEF, OIF and other minor actions have been given Medals that were intended for their fathers and grandfathers. As of 2003 there were still approx. 120,000 still in stock from WWII.
http://www.stripes.com/blogs/the-rumor-doctor/the-rumor-doctor-1.104348/are-purple-hearts-from-1945-still-being-awarded-1.116756
-
Makes you wonder if the Red Army would've been content with stopping at Berlin, if they didn't have to worry about getting nuked.
Well, considering that the war in Europe ended several months before the dropping of the atomic bombs (yes, the Russians already knew about the bombs, but at that point no one knew if they would work or not), and the Russians generally kept their word on the territorial divisions....
-
Well, considering that the war in Europe ended several months before the dropping of the atomic bombs (yes, the Russians already knew about the bombs, but at that point no one knew if they would work or not), and the Russians generally kept their word on the territorial divisions....
Yeah, it wasn't the nukes that kept them in place.
I'm will to bet Patton's Third Army may have had something to do with it, though.
-
Russia was broke. They were happy for the war in Europe to end. We just didn't have the equipment to fight in Russia during winter or we might not have stopped at Berlin.
-
Russia was broke. They were happy for the war in Europe to end. We just didn't have the equipment to fight in Russia during winter or we might not have stopped at Berlin.
The whole purpose of the European theater was to save Russian communism. Not sold that way, but given the number of commies in FDR's administration who got riled up after Hitler invaded the USSR, the outcome they sought is the outcome they got.
We had plenty of equipment to turn Russia inside out from multiple directions:
1. Baltic
2. Mideast
3. Pacific
4. Oh, and from W Europe is we wanted to take the long land route.
-
I was thinking that at the end of WWII, we had already stopped or slowed down a lot of the war time economy. Many of the US front line soldiers had been in constant combat for some time. Our supply lines were strung out from the Atlantic across Europe. We would have had the same issues trying to beat Soviet Russia that Germany had. Most of Russia's war production was far away from Europe. It would have taken a great deal of effort and time and we would have done it with few if any allies.
Recall that most of the really bad stuff about the Soviet Union didn't come out until after WWII. We have communist sympathizer journalists in Russia and the Ukraine actively covering it up.
-
The whole purpose of the European theater was to save Russian communism. Not sold that way, but given the number of commies in FDR's administration who got riled up after Hitler invaded the USSR, the outcome they sought is the outcome they got.
We had plenty of equipment to turn Russia inside out from multiple directions:
1. Baltic
2. Mideast
3. Pacific
4. Oh, and from W Europe is we wanted to take the long land route.
Lol. No. We lacked the ability to project a sufficient amount of force to conquer, pacify, and hold the USSR.
-
I was thinking that at the end of WWII, we had already stopped or slowed down a lot of the war time economy. Many of the US front line soldiers had been in constant combat for some time. Our supply lines were strung out from the Atlantic across Europe. We would have had the same issues trying to beat Soviet Russia that Germany had. Most of Russia's war production was far away from Europe. It would have taken a great deal of effort and time and we would have done it with few if any allies.
Recall that most of the really bad stuff about the Soviet Union didn't come out until after WWII. We have communist sympathizer journalists in Russia and the Ukraine actively covering it up.
The draw-down was a result of the Mission Accomplished! We saved Uncle Joe! No reason it could not have gone on another couple years.
Germany could hit the USSR only from the west and from southwest via land routes. America had many more options: Baltic ports, Mideast (via Iran), as well as the far east from the Pacific. IIRC, most of Russian production would have been within bombing range of our B17/B29 bombers had we decided to base them in Iran.
Also, Russia grinds to a halt without American Lend-Lease material. As in, "Can't get the crops out of the fields or troops to the front" sort of thing. Mass starvation combined with immobile masses of troops does not make for a formidable fighting force.
The Poles, Ukranians, Finns, and many others in central & eastern Europe would be more than willing to kill Russians. And there was a large mass of trained German soldiers to draw from. Also, Churchill was in favor of more energetic opposition to the Russians.
The vile brutality of the communists was known before WWII. Recall the "Red Scare" in the 1920s.
And Patton was outside of Prague with the 3rd Army.
“I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them… …the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.”
----George S Patton
"“The American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these.”
----George S Patton
Lol. No. We lacked the ability to project a sufficient amount of force to conquer, pacify, and hold the USSR.
Who would want to hold the USSR? Destroying it is the objective. We had what was necessary to conquer and pacify. Both material and position. Look at a map.
Without the centralizing terror of the Russian communist party and Red Army, the USSR splits apart into separate nationalities. Conquer a section, set up locals to run the place and ferret out and kill all the Russians (commie or otherwise). Like many did after the USSR collapsed. Decades earlier and with a bit more forethought to separate Siberia & the other Asian bits from European Russia. After turning European Russia inside out, treat them like we treated Germany after WWII. They still might have ended up surly, but they would have only a fraction of the resources with which to act on it.
-
Oh, sorry I thought we were discussing the real world not Risk inspired fantasies. Carry on then.
-
While highly debatable, none of the military arguments matter since the American people were unwilling to continue into another all out war against the USSR on the heals of the one they just finished.
-
I like the theory that the US could have mopped up the Red Army and conquored Russia at the end of WW II.
The practical application I suspect would have been an unmitigated disaster.
For the United States. Unless we had used lots and lots of nukes. And even then it could have been a very iffy thing.
While hard numbers are still kind of hard to come by, it would appear that at the end of the war the Soviets had nearly 18 million men in the Red Army, and several million more in reserve, and there were still significant manpower reserves that hadn't been tapped.
At the end of the war the US military was about 12.5 million. But that was spread liberally around the globe. In Europe after the fall of Berlin it's likely that the Soviets enjoyed a 3 or even 4 to 1 advantage in combat troops.
Then there's the massive amounts of equipment that the Red Army could field, much of it on par with, or even better than, American equipment.
The Red Army of 1945 was a FAR different creature than it was in 1942 when American aid started to truly flow to the East. It was battle hardened, it was battle tested, and it was enormous.
The theory that the Soviet Union "grinds to a halt without US aid" may have been somewhat true in 1942 into 1943, but by 1945 the Soviet economy had recaptured areas seized by the Germans early in the war and was making use of it to their great advantage.
The Soviet Union became largely self-sufficient by 1944. The material that the United States was supplying was no longer critical to its war production or its survival.
"Can't get the crops out of the fields or troops to the front" sort of thing."
Really?
The United States shipped the Soviets around half a million trucks and vehicles of all types. Nice chunk of change. Until you consider that between the ZIS-5 and the GAZ-AA and one or two other trucks the Soviets, all by themselves, built almost 2 million trucks of roughly the same capability as the Studebaker 2 1/2 ton.
As far as tractors and farming equipment were concerned, the US shipped hardly any to the Soviets.
-
I think the best we might have accomplished was to keep some of the Eastern bloc countries out of Soviet hands after the war.
Remember also that the Roosevelt Administration was riddled with Soviet spies.
AND....the external enemy is the boogeyman that kept the Soviets in power.
-
I think the best we might have accomplished was to keep some of the Eastern bloc countries out of Soviet hands after the war.
Remember also that the Roosevelt Administration was riddled with Soviet spies.
AND....the external enemy is the boogeyman that kept the Soviets in power.
Given the preceding years of "The Russians are our allies and we <3 them so much!" immediately invading the USSR would probably have been a bit of a puzzlement to the folks back home.
-
If we were unwilling/unable to invade Japan what makes you think we would have been anymore so to do it to Russia/USSR?
-
If we were unwilling/unable to invade Japan what makes you think we would have been anymore so to do it to Russia/USSR?
Psychotic ideological chest thumping hindsight?
-
If we were unwilling/unable to invade Japan what makes you think we would have been anymore so to do it to Russia/USSR?
We were able and willing. It was unnecessary after nuking two of their cities.
The greatest challenge that would face the USA and allies in such a conflict would have been, "What do we do with the multitude of Red Army prisoners?"
The Big Problem with military operations in Russia is the same one as in America: Distance(1). The sheer distance that, historically, had to be covered by an invading force to get anywhere of use. In times past, this was surmounted by horse-mounted warriors who lived off the land who needed zero logistical tail. As a result, the Rus became the bitches of whatever Ural-Altaic folk frisky at that time: Hun, Avars, Mongols, etc. For centuries. As warfare become more reliant on materials, logistics became more important and the Rus better able to beat off attackers--especially as the size of armies increased.
That was demonstrated in Napoleon's invasion. The usual French plan for logistics was, "Bring gunpowder and similar war materials along with, but rely on foraging to feed the men and horses." Worked well in W Europe. Not so well when the Rus(sians) denied Napoleon any victuals from the land by destroying anything that could be eaten. The Germans had similar difficulties when they invaded. They could not sustain sizable enough forces across those distances, stretching back to Germany. Especially after the (already pitiable) road system went to mud.
Well, what works against the French and Germans also works against the Russians. IOW, do to the Russians what the Russians did to Napoleon and the Germans and you can expect similar results. The Red Army was deployed in 1945 as far from its logistical hubs in Russia as the German Army was deployed from its logistical hubs in 1941. Same flipping ground. Same logistical hurdles. Same awful road system. Same problem with moving across watersheds, rather than up/down watersheds. Again, maps help to see this.
Starving the Red Army of food and material would require:
1. Bombing of logistically significant targets between the Red Army and points east: road & rail hubs, bridges, logistical caches, etc. From forward bases in Germany and the mideast at first. Later from Sevastopol & the Baltic.
2. Staying engaged enough with the Red Army in central europe so it could not quickly retreat without being annihilated. This would require fewer troops than invading in the face of an Army as the Allies did in W Europe.
3. Letting Patton's 3rd Army run riot on the Red Army's flank and rear.
Like I wrote, the greatest challenge would be what to do with the countless POWs/refugees from the Red Army.
Destroying Russian Communism:
There were at least two options that bypassed all that distance and made destroying Russian Communism viable.
1. The southern route from the Black Sea. Sevastopol is a warm-weather port good for 365 days/year. Also, this route provides river/water transport into the heart of Russia all the way up to the Ural mountains. The Dnepr, Don, Volga (via Don-Volga canal) all provide river highways into the interior, making logistics much faster, easier, and cheaper from the Black Sea.
2. Via the Baltic. This lands one closer to Moscow, but is closed part of the year due to ice. Again, movement inwards goes up river basins, not across them. The Vistula, Nemunas, Daugava, Neva, Svir, & Volga-Baltic canal works.
Turing Moscow and cities east to the Urals inside out and rubbling the industry in the Urals would be enough. No nukes necessary.
We would be aided by not being horrific to the minority peoples in the Evil Empire. Some hill-folk would be best to bypass as they are hostile to all, but the Ukranians, Poles, Finns and many others have historically been very willing to kill Russians when the opportunity arises. Let them do so to the Russians and communist collaborators in their midst and let them rule themselves. The idea is to dismantle the evilest incarnation of the Russian Empire, not occupy the cursed place. Some of the ethnic minorities might have wanted to take a bite, though.
Pertinent Maps of Europe & Asia
Political
https://thestateofthecentury.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/eurasia-map1.jpg
Physical
http://ukrmap.su/program2009/g7/Maps/r_38_39.jpg
By Nationality
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/ussr_nat_82.jpg
(1) The straight-line distance is the major part, but tough terrain also plays a role, especially when moving across, rather than up watersheds.
Given the preceding years of "The Russians are our allies and we <3 them so much!" immediately invading the USSR would probably have been a bit of a puzzlement to the folks back home.
Sadly, we first attacked and destroyed the wrong evil mass-murdering totalitarian regime. Both were worthy of destruction, but we should have crippled the internationally-minded evil bastards before destroying the nationally-minded evil bastards.
-
"Turing Moscow and cities east to the Urals inside out and rubbling the industry in the Urals would be enough. No nukes necessary."
ROFL! That's also known as "The Hitler Model," and it was unbelievably successful. Right?
Rub out the industry in the Urals exactly... how?
Carrier aircraft? Laughable. Weather conditions in the northern latitudes would make operating carriers there most of the year impossible. From the souther latitudes? Range. You'd need to increase it 10 fold for most carrier aircraft.
B-29s? Once again, take a look at the distances involved. The bulk of the Urals industrial zones are outside of the range of Allied aircraft until the introduction of the B-36 in mid-1950s.
And, even if they were in range, how do you propose that they would survive a trip of that length in, and then out. Soviet fighter aircraft of that period were pretty much as capable as US aircraft of the same period.
Then there's the inconvenient fact that, in 1945, the Soviet Air Force had roughly 4 times the number of aircraft of the US, with a much higher number of them being first line fighter aircraft capable of killing both B-29s and American fighters.
"Staying engaged enough with the Red Army so it could not retreat."
You're anticipating that it would need to retreat. The sheer numbers and parity of equipment in many areas (and the decided disparity not favoring the Americans in critical areas) makes it very unlikely that such a mass retreat would happen. You're anticipating that the Soviets would be forced to "retreat to the depths" as they did against Hitler and Napoleon, and once again you're ignoring crucial differences. The Red Army of 1945 had nothing in common with the Red Army of 1941 or 1812.
"Letting Patton's 3rd Army run riot on the Red Army's flank and rear."
While Patton worship is a trendy thing, had this imagined battle taken place, Patton's armies would have dashed themselves to pieces against the massive tank superiority - both quantatitively and qualitatively -- that the Red Army enjoyed.
The T-34/85 and its later variants still outclassed anything the US could field in quantity in 1945. And if you wait to give Patton better tanks, that means you're falling even farther behind because the United States wouldn't field anything capable of taking on a JS-2 with a remote hope of even odds of success until post Korean war.
The River Route to the central Urals is interesting... and also a complete failure for the same reasons listed above.
The Baltic Route? You mean the same one tried by the Germans AFTER they captured the Baltic states, and failed against a far weaker and far more poorly led Red Army than the US would face in 1945?
Regarding supply lines... As the Germans found out when they invaded the Soviet Union, as you push deeper into the enemy territory, your supply lines become longer, resupply becomes exponentially slower, and more and more vulnerable. Conversely, Soviet supply lines would become more compact and easier to protect.
"but the Ukranians, Poles, Finns and many others have historically been very willing to kill Russians when the opportunity arises."
Sure they have. And you think those who willingly allied with the Germans when the time came to fight a poorly led, poorly trained, and poorly supplied Red Army in 1941 would be even happier to do so in 1945? Think again.
Sorry, but while you present some intersting theories (that are largely recycled from already failed ideas), not one bit of it takes into account the actual capabilies and strength of the Soviet military in 1945.
Had the United States been foolish enough to follow Patton into a land war against the Soviets in 1945, it wouldn't be a case of what do do with all of the Soviet POWs.
It would be a case of what to do with all of the American dead and whether there would be enough land in which to bury them.
-
"Turing Moscow and cities east to the Urals inside out and rubbling the industry in the Urals would be enough. No nukes necessary."
ROFL! That's also known as "The Hitler Model," and it was unbelievably successful. Right?
Hitler himself didn't follow "The Hitler Model", if he had, even with the logistical difficulties of the Russian winter etc. and done what his generals wanted and encircled, cut-off, and bypassed hard points like Stalingrad and just starved them out, the Germans would possibly have had all of Eastern Russia, including Moscow up to the Urals. What kind of counter-push Stalin and the Soviets would have produced is definitely up for debate though, since they'd been consistently placing industrial capacity further and further East as fast as they could to get it out of Luftwaffe bomber range. But the Germans would have taken the dense Western populated and fertile half of Russia, and might have been able to hold it.
There's no denying the Eastern front was a meatgrinder, but had Hitler been able to put aside his desire to personally dominate/punish Stalin, and consistently supported the "smart thing" in regards to the Eastern Front, and kept playing to German military strengths... I'm not saying they'd have "held" Russia or the Ukraine etc. forever, but they would definitely have gotten further, and held onto it longer.
-
Plus the Poles, Ukrainians, Baltics, etc. Had he given them some sort of "self government" (going without the wholesale killing), they would have flocked to the cause and been pretty reliable allies for the Germans. However, Hitler was a Socialist and the untermenchen had to be exterminated. Therefore millions of potential allied troops either fled to swamps and woods to become partisans (against both sides).
And yes, had he listened to Gudarian, Hoth, von Leeb, von Kleist, von Reichenau, Model, and others they could have taken Moscow and probably kept most of European Russia for many years.
-
I like the theory that the US could have mopped up the Red Army and conquored Russia at the end of WW II.
The practical application I suspect would have been an unmitigated disaster.
For the United States. Unless we had used lots and lots of nukes. And even then it could have been a very iffy thing.
While hard numbers are still kind of hard to come by, it would appear that at the end of the war the Soviets had nearly 18 million men in the Red Army, and several million more in reserve, and there were still significant manpower reserves that hadn't been tapped.
At the end of the war the US military was about 12.5 million. But that was spread liberally around the globe. In Europe after the fall of Berlin it's likely that the Soviets enjoyed a 3 or even 4 to 1 advantage in combat troops.
Then there's the massive amounts of equipment that the Red Army could field, much of it on par with, or even better than, American equipment.
The Red Army of 1945 was a FAR different creature than it was in 1942 when American aid started to truly flow to the East. It was battle hardened, it was battle tested, and it was enormous.
The theory that the Soviet Union "grinds to a halt without US aid" may have been somewhat true in 1942 into 1943, but by 1945 the Soviet economy had recaptured areas seized by the Germans early in the war and was making use of it to their great advantage.
The Soviet Union became largely self-sufficient by 1944. The material that the United States was supplying was no longer critical to its war production or its survival.
"Can't get the crops out of the fields or troops to the front" sort of thing."
Really?
The United States shipped the Soviets around half a million trucks and vehicles of all types. Nice chunk of change. Until you consider that between the ZIS-5 and the GAZ-AA and one or two other trucks the Soviets, all by themselves, built almost 2 million trucks of roughly the same capability as the Studebaker 2 1/2 ton.
As far as tractors and farming equipment were concerned, the US shipped hardly any to the Soviets.
This was my point. I know the nukes didn't fly until after VE day, but at the end of the war we were allies, not pals with the Soviets. That's why I was speculating that the bombs may have kept them civil, before MAD came around.
But that's all it was, just idle musing.
-
What about the idea of just letting Patton shove the Russians out of eastern Europe; would that have been feasible?
-
I've already discussed why Patton wouldn't have done that.
-
What about the idea of just letting Patton shove the Russians out of eastern Europe; would that have been feasible?
I doubt it myself. It would have been a very tough fight that many of our other WWII allies might not have supported and given the spies the Soviets had in our Govt, I think the Soviet commanders would have known about it before Patton did.
-
"Hitler himself didn't follow "The Hitler Model", if he had, even with the logistical difficulties of the Russian winter etc. and done what his generals wanted and encircled, cut-off, and bypassed hard points like Stalingrad and just starved them out, the Germans would possibly have had all of Eastern Russia, including Moscow up to the Urals."
In theory, that's a great idea. Practical application is a lot more difficult. Each hard-point enemy defensive position you leave in your rear becomes a serious security issue. The drain on combat manpower and resources to adequately defend against a breakout from the forces in the cordoned off area can be dramatic, far outstripping the normal defensive requirements for what would otherwise be a rear area. A breakout into a rear area of a large, relatively cohesive force could have devastating consequences.
To cordon off even a relatively small city like Bryansk, had it become a hard point instead of being captured outright, could have taken the better part of four or more divisions. Each hard point that has to be contained becomes a exponentially greater drain on resources and requires significant amounts of time. And, as the history of the war in Russia shows, the few times that the Germans did try that were unmitigated disasters because of the Red Army's absolute refusal to meekly die.
Had Hitler listened to his generals early on in the invasion, they would have ultimately had dozens of hard points to contend with, which would have dramatically sapped the strength of the invading army.
Granted, in some cases it would have benefitte the Germans to do so, and Hitler went full-bore opposite with his adamant refusal to attempt to surround Stalingrad. Had he done so early in the battle it might have made at least a short-term difference in combat operations in the East, but by pushing an ever increasing number of resources into Stalingrad by robbing the fronts to either side, it made the Soviet counteroffensive all that more successful.
-
What about the idea of just letting Patton shove the Russians out of eastern Europe; would that have been feasible?
I've already discussed why Patton wouldn't have done that.
Judging from what I've read, Patton atleast thought he could have. He would have enlisted the German Army to assist with the effort .... I myself have the suspicion the Germans might have been willing to do this.
I doubt it myself. It would have been a very tough fight that many of our other WWII allies might not have supported and given the spies the Soviets had in our Govt, I think the Soviet commanders would have known about it before Patton did.
Yeah.....
that spy stuff has always been a sore point to me. It was a ... "secret" that really wasn't so ..."secret."
But did anyone actually DO anything about it? ---- I mean, aside from J. Edgar Hoover .... who stuck it in a file. :facepalm:
-
Of course Patton THOUGHT he could. The man thought he could do anything, up to and including invading hell and overthrowing Satan.
As for enlisting the German army to continue the fight against the Soviets, it's highly unlikely that that would have ever happened once the full measure of German atrocities became known. Remember what happened to Patton as military governor of Bavaria when it became known that he was keeping known Nazis in governmental positions. Engaging the Germany army against the Soviets would have defacto required allying with thousands of Nazis in positions of command, and that was never going to happen.
The more I learn about Patton, though, the more I come to the conclusion that he really didn't care if the United States won or lost a war against the Soviets -- he just wanted a continuation of war at all costs. It's what defined him as a person and a man, and without it he was lost.
That might be the kind of person you want when you're waging war, but that's not the kind of person you want when you're trying to establish peace.
-
Of course Patton THOUGHT he could. The man thought he could do anything, up to and including invading hell and overthrowing Satan.
As for enlisting the German army to continue the fight against the Soviets, it's highly unlikely that that would have ever happened once the full measure of German atrocities became known. Remember what happened to Patton as military governor of Bavaria when it became known that he was keeping known Nazis in governmental positions. Engaging the Germany army against the Soviets would have defacto required allying with thousands of Nazis in positions of command, and that was never going to happen.
The more I learn about Patton, though, the more I come to the conclusion that he really didn't care if the United States won or lost a war against the Soviets -- he just wanted a continuation of war at all costs. It's what defined him as a person and a man, and without it he was lost.
That might be the kind of person you want when you're waging war, but that's not the kind of person you want when you're trying to establish peace.
Yeah......you're likely right about that.
Patton was right (IMHO) to keep those low-level nazis in office, as the place would have collapsed if a full on pogrom had entailed .... but it sure caused a lot of political asshatteryrevenge to erupt from the government woodwork.
In the end I guess it is really pointless to speculate, as that &&*^%% auto accident took Patton out of the situation anyway .... *SIGH!*
-
Patton was a general, not a politician. He did not filter his words like we are used to hearing politicians do. Just because he said it does not necessarily mean that is what he would do if he were dictator. IMO, we are accustomed to nitpicking everything leaders say these days since they say so little that is useful information.
-
....... they say so little that is useful information.
Quoted for truth!!!!! :laugh:
-
No one said anything about Patton being a politician, but Generals are responsible for their actions and their utterances. Patton had been censured a number of times both for his actions and his utterances, yet he learned nothing from it. Patton seemed to delight in throwing bombs at both the British and Russian allies and not caring in the least what the fallout was. He had the same disease that McArthur had -- a sense that only he knew the truth and the best way to move forward.
It cost both of them dearly.
-
"Turing Moscow and cities east to the Urals inside out and rubbling the industry in the Urals would be enough. No nukes necessary."
ROFL! That's also known as "The Hitler Model," and it was unbelievably successful. Right?
Rub out the industry in the Urals exactly... how?
Carrier aircraft? Laughable. Weather conditions in the northern latitudes would make operating carriers there most of the year impossible. From the souther latitudes? Range. You'd need to increase it 10 fold for most carrier aircraft.
B-29s? Once again, take a look at the distances involved. The bulk of the Urals industrial zones are outside of the range of Allied aircraft until the introduction of the B-36 in mid-1950s.
And, even if they were in range, how do you propose that they would survive a trip of that length in, and then out. Soviet fighter aircraft of that period were pretty much as capable as US aircraft of the same period.
Then there's the inconvenient fact that, in 1945, the Soviet Air Force had roughly 4 times the number of aircraft of the US, with a much higher number of them being first line fighter aircraft capable of killing both B-29s and American fighters.
I am aware of the distances involved. I made that abundantly clear in my previous post. Overland distance over that very terrain is what screwed Napoleon and Hitler and is what would have destroyed the Red Army.
Carrier aircraft would be handy taking Sevastopol. Once that is taken, airfields around Sevastopol would host AAF fighters and bombers. Move them forward along with the advance. Similarly in the Baltic for whatever port makes the most sense. There are several to chose from. The Baltic makes a nice entry because it places Red Army logistics in immediate and dire peril. Probably a Baltic port first and Sevastopol later (with the bulk of our men & materiel from the Pacific).
Not overly impressed with Soviet numbers, especially when the numbers are not where they need them. The Germans held them at bay for years despite a huge disparity in numbers. And the Soviets had next to zero experience dealing with high altitude bombing raids. Besides, those numbers don't help much once their logistics are in the crapper.
The vast bulk of the Red Army was in W & Central Europe, not the Crimea or the Baltic. When the Germans fought through the Baltic, that was in the face of the Red Army, not an unguarded coastline.
"Staying engaged enough with the Red Army so it could not retreat."
You're anticipating that it would need to retreat. The sheer numbers and parity of equipment in many areas (and the decided disparity not favoring the Americans in critical areas) makes it very unlikely that such a mass retreat would happen. You're anticipating that the Soviets would be forced to "retreat to the depths" as they did against Hitler and Napoleon, and once again you're ignoring crucial differences. The Red Army of 1945 had nothing in common with the Red Army of 1941 or 1812.
The Red Army would never make it that far.
Yes, once their logistics were cut, they would need to retreat or starve. They were too numerous to live off the land. At that point, their numbers are a disadvantage. And I am less impressed than you with the Red Army's fighting ability, proved with multiples of the numbers against a German army that ran to old men, beardless youths, and little petrol toward the end.
"Letting Patton's 3rd Army run riot on the Red Army's flank and rear."
While Patton worship is a trendy thing, had this imagined battle taken place, Patton's armies would have dashed themselves to pieces against the massive tank superiority - both quantatitively and qualitatively -- that the Red Army enjoyed.
The T-34/85 and its later variants still outclassed anything the US could field in quantity in 1945. And if you wait to give Patton better tanks, that means you're falling even farther behind because the United States wouldn't field anything capable of taking on a JS-2 with a remote hope of even odds of success until post Korean war.
Patton makes do with the M4 and the few M26s in theater. They served him against technologically superior German armor, they'd serve him against technologically superior Soviet Armor. Besides, the rest of the new-manufacture M26s, and their 90mm guns get to tear up the Russian heartland, along with M36TDs in support of the M4s. When the bulk of the Red Army is in W and Central Europe, and the invasion is from the Baltic and the Black Sea, the M4 is sufficient to the task because adequate armor where you need it beats great armor where you don't.
Patton's utility lies not in lining up against masses of Soviet hardware and slugging it out, but in going Nathan Bedford Forrest/William Tecumseh Sherman/Heinz Guderian (take your pick). Lining up in the face of the enemy to let them stomp a mudhole in your fourth point of contact was Eisenhower's and Bradley's style. Patton was pretty good at third gen warfare and demonstrated his ability many times.
The River Route to the central Urals is interesting... and also a complete failure for the same reasons listed above.
The Baltic Route? You mean the same one tried by the Germans AFTER they captured the Baltic states, and failed against a far weaker and far more poorly led Red Army than the US would face in 1945?
Regarding supply lines... As the Germans found out when they invaded the Soviet Union, as you push deeper into the enemy territory, your supply lines become longer, resupply becomes exponentially slower, and more and more vulnerable. Conversely, Soviet supply lines would become more compact and easier to protect.
You misunderstand the terrain, logistical situation, and the aims of going in via the Baltic & Crimea.
The rivers are how the Russians transported most their good for centuries. West to the Baltic and South the Black Sea. The system was and is well developed west of the Urals. And the USA just happened to have a multitude of shallow-draft vessels handy both in Europe and the Pacific.
The Baltic coast was more vulnerable to American invasion in 1945 than was the French coastline in 1944. The Red Army was clustered farther south. When the Germans fought through there, that was where the Red Army was concentrated.
The Russians would be retreating East in the face of many river valleys, river crossings, and marshes. Tough going, especially if the bridges are being pulverized by B29 and B17 bombers and similar treatment was being given to rail stock. The Americans would be advancing up rivers and able to use the rivers to float the bulk of their log tail. The Americans have the much easier task and would likely cut the Red Army off if the Red Army did not starve and surrender first.
"but the Ukranians, Poles, Finns and many others have historically been very willing to kill Russians when the opportunity arises."
Sure they have. And you think those who willingly allied with the Germans when the time came to fight a poorly led, poorly trained, and poorly supplied Red Army in 1941 would be even happier to do so in 1945? Think again.
Sorry, but while you present some intersting theories (that are largely recycled from already failed ideas), not one bit of it takes into account the actual capabilies and strength of the Soviet military in 1945.
Had the United States been foolish enough to follow Patton into a land war against the Soviets in 1945, it wouldn't be a case of what do do with all of the Soviet POWs.
It would be a case of what to do with all of the American dead and whether there would be enough land in which to bury them.
Now just who is worshiping whom?
The Red Army made its great advances after the German army was almost broken and after the invasion of Normandy. The latter half of 1944 and the first half of 1945. Up until then, the Red Army bled and bled and bled for every inch, making s l o w gains. Only after pressure was applied from the west and Germany could fight them with only one hand across an hideous logistical trail did the Red Army move quickly.
In my opinion, late WWII Red Army fetishism is as mistaken as Israeli Army fetishism after 1967. Both were competent, but not supermen, and with some rather marked limitations. And their performance was magnified because they fought either craptastic Arab armies, or an horrifically stressed European Army on the brink of collapse at the end of a supply line that stretched 1000 miles as the crow flies across mud roads, rivers, valleys, and marshlands.
On the other hand, the US Army, Navy, and USMC were still hale & whole and supported by the mother-loving Arsenal of Democracy. The US military had no marked limitations, but was a full-spectrum fighting force. The US military had just fought a world-spanning war against opponents spanning Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. The task of that force was not to march into the face of the Red Army in Germany and over those rivers and marshes, but to (in the immortal words of Wee Willie Keeler), "Hit them where they ain't."
-
Whether it was or was not revenge the japanese think it was. And they are ok with thst
They're ok with that, or they understand it?
-
A lil of both. If the roles were reversed they woulda done the same. Or worse.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
"Overland distance over that very terrain is what screwed Napoleon and Hitler and is what would have destroyed the Red Army."
???
So, you're saying that the overland distances that did NOT destroy the Russian Army in 1812 or a SEVERELY mauled Red Army in 1941-42 somehow would have destroyed a reconstituted, capably led, battle hardened, well-supplied Red Army in 1945?
You've really got to explain how that works.
"Carrier aircraft would be handy taking Sevastopol."
Have you looked at a map?
First off, Sevatsopol is essentially 2/3rds surrounded by Soviet occupied territory. A surgical insertion into Sevastopol by US forces supported by carriers would be pincered out of existence in very short order, with the liklihood of the Soviets invading not only Turkey through Georgia and Azerbajan but pushing right on through into the oil-rich areas of the Middle East.
On the other side the Soviets would push out of Hungary and Romania right through into Greece and very possibly Italy.
You'd lose not only the Eastern Mediterrean Sea, you'd lose access to the Suez Canal.
So, insert carriers into the Black Sea. Once again, surrounded by Soviet held territory and virtually ZERO room to maneuver. It would be shocking if they could even make it through the Dardenelles. Ask Winston Churchill about naval operations in that area (and he was attempting it in a time before the rise of the aircraft as an offensive weapon).
So, stay out in the Eastern Med and send carrier aircraft in from there.
From Izmir to Sevastopol it's nearly 600 miles as the crow flies. You can get carrier aircraft of the day there, with moderate loads, but you can't get them back. If you want to get them back, *and just barely* you can't give them a resonable arms package.
Not even Patton would have proposed trying to take Sevastopol from the Black Sea side supported by carriers.
Even if you do manage to, as you propose, "[take] airfields around Sevastopol would host AAF fighters and bombers. Move them forward along with the advance." once again they would be facing a technologically comparable and numerically significantly superior foe. Given the capabilities of the Red Airforce in 1945, it's simply not a viable, actionable plan.
"Not overly impressed with Soviet numbers, especially when the numbers are not where they need them. The Germans held them at bay for years despite a huge disparity in numbers."
And, as previously explained, the Red Army in 1941-42 and the Red Army in 1945 have virtually nothing in common. It wasn't the Germans holding the Red Army at bay, either. You have that backwards. The Soviets held the Germans at bay -- Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad -- and that was a Russian Army that had been badly mauled repeatedly by the advancing Germans.
Once the Germans lost the offensive advantage in 1942-1943, they were never able to hold the Soviets at bay for more than a week or two here or there for the rest of the war. By 1944 the Soviets were pretty much able to advance at will.
Regarding Soviet numbers... Hitler thought that way, too. Figured that the Soviets couldn't move men and material around the interior in time to made a bit of difference.
Until Zhukov moved 20 divisions from the Far East that had been holding the line against Japan over 3,000 miles in less than 2 months and used them to force the Germans from an offensive to defensive footing, denying them Moscow.
Sorry, Roo, but the scenarios you're proposing simply aren't based in the reality of the situation as it was in 1945.
I know it's easy to hoist the flag and say "'Cuse we're Mhuricans!" as an "explanation" as to why the United States supposedly could defeat the Soviet Union in 1945.
That "explanation" simply doesn't cover a multitude of inconvenient facts and truths and the scenarios that spring from them.
Here's a few other likely scenarios that would have developed had the US foolishly gone to war with the Soviet s in 1945.
They would have done so without Allies. Neither the French nor the British would have gone in on such an adventure, literally neither was capable.
With both the French and British tapped out, their ports and territories become out of bounds as staging grounds for military operations. Without forward bases, you're forced into conducting a war that is staged from the United States, which in a pre-jet, largely pre-nuclear age is a flat out impossibility.