Are the Japanese the best soldiers of the war?

Top 16. Aug 28, 2002 5:57 PM

» Anastasiya03 - Thank you!

In response to message posted by linker:

Thanks so much -- at last I see a sane person here! I completely agree that the Russians took the worst of the war, and it shows a great lack of intelligence / historical knowledge that they were not even mentioned.

I will not argue against the bravery of any soldier -- we are all humans and we all deserve to live. Bombing, whether with nuclear weapons or shells, is a crime because it kills innocent civilians. I lived in Japan, and frankly after seeing the pictures of babies with their skin melted off, I cannot respect what was done by the American army.

By the way -- don't call the Japanese "Japs" -- it is highly disrespectful, and is the same as calling the Vietnamese "Charlie." It's a racist term that was invented by the Americans in WW2, and as decent human beings we must not use it!

And another thing -- calling each other idiots does not prove a point.

-- posted by Anastasiya03

Top 17. Aug 29, 2002 7:42 PM

» flamingmoe - to linkeer

Let's look at the crap you have written, linker.

First of all your statement that the Russians won the war singlehanded, total nonsense, below is are excellent points made by others, which address this issue (on this site).

Here's is an interesting question, could the Soviet Union have won the war against Germany alone? Could they survive without lend lease?
There are a few historians who believe so.
However I disagree for the following reasons described below:
1,
The Luftwaffe’s strength was destroyed by the
Anglo-American air forces. I believe without the
considerable air strength which the Anglo-American air offensives and front's diverted from the Russian front,the Germans would have continued to enjoy air supremacy.
History has shown that battles are very difficult to win when the enemy has air superiority. The Soviet air force record was poor compared to the army and Russian pilots had a low skill level( as evidenced by the very high kill totals of Luftwaffe aces on the front).
The correct analysis of history would show that it was Anglo-American air power that destroyed the Luftwaffe(the Mustang, the Spitfire, their excellent bomber forces and the high capability and training of their personnel).

2,
German war production was reduced by at least 10%
as a result of strategic bombing. What difference
would this extra 10-15% would have made when you
consider that in a lot of cases, that victory on the Eastern Front occurred by a narrow margin.

Plus, the Western Allies could hit Germany oil
refineries and wells( an ability that the Soviets did not have( due to distance and their poor strategic bombing capability).
Hitting their oil, was a decisive factor in many of Germany's defeats(in the latter period of the war).

The Allied air offensive tied down thousands of
guns(the 88 mm) for flak protection. These thousands of guns could have made a difference in the armour defensive battles that Germany faced on the Eastern Front.

3,
The 20% of resources (quoted by some) that the Allies tied down prior to D-day is deceptive. It does not take into account the synergistic benefits of a one front war. Synergistic concepts such as, that two front war leads to duplication of resources, poorer logistics and administration.
There are intangible factors such as intelligence(Enigma)which had a decisive effect on the war, which such crude measures( only 20% of resources) fail to take into consideration.
Additionally this (20%) could have made the difference since many of the decisive battles which occurred on the Eastern Front, the margin of victory (the factors that the determine victory) had been small.
For example according to Liddel Hart, a extra couple of German divisions could have make the difference at Stalingrad. Where were these extra divisions, on garrison duty in the west, in North Africa etc.
4,
Lend lease made Soviet victory possible, without it the best they could have achieved (in my opinion) was stalemate. It was lend lease that gave them the motorization and logistics that enabled them to penetrated deeply into Germany.
Lend lense allow the Soviet Union to recover from their terrible defeats in 1941 and 1942. It increased their strength in tanks and aircraft and munitions by a very substantial amount.
Without such supply it would have been very difficult for the Soviets to overwhelm their adversary.

Too much of Soviet Union's productive land have been overrun by the Germans. It was Allied aid in food stuffs that alleviated much of this shortage and also freed up considerable male resources( which could be used at the front).
5,
The manpower shortage, it is a fact that Russia was running out of manpower towards the end of the war. That without the help of the Western Allies, this manpower shortage would have hit them earlier( since the Germans would be stronger on the Eastern Front and inflicted even greater losses).

With these extra resources, the Eastern Front would probably have been far more static and the Soviets may very well have bled to death.

6,
The moral effect, while it seems to some Russians that the Western Allies did not provide much help, they did have the considerable moral boost of knowing that the Western Allies were on their side.
What would have been the effect on morale if the
Russian's were fighting alone( particularly during the darkest days of the war, 1941-1942) without having the moral tonic of knowing that the considerable forces of the USA and the British Empire where on their side.
There is a possibility that resistance may not have been so resolute.

7,
Technology, Germany had a decisive lead in
technology, jet aircraft, nerve gas, missile technology etc.
The war was certainly shortened by the Western Allies participation by at least 2 years( if you believe the Soviet argument that they could have won on their own). These 2 years would have given the Germans time to fully develop such weapons( weapons which the Russians had no answer to).
Such weapons employed correctly and with force
would have devastated the Soviet Union. And the
Soviet Union had no nuclear bomb technology to
counter this threat( unlike the Americans). In many of these areas the soviets were years behind.

The only hope the soviet's would have had was Hitler’s stupidity, who's irrationality and ego did much to neutralize Germany's superior generalship and fighting capability on the Eastern Front.
Additionally his interference led to waste of much of Germany's productive and scientific potential during the war.

One of the rumours about WWII diplomacy I've never seen confirmed is that in 1943 Ribbentrop and Molotov met to discuss peace. The Soviets turned down the Nazi offer because Ribbentrop proposed the Dnepr as the border in the Ukraine.
It is very unlikely that Stalin would have turned down a German offer of peace unless he was absolutely certain that his allies, ie th US, wouls back up his war efort to the hilt.
In 1943, even after Kursk the Soviets were in no better shape to continue the fight alone with any realistic hope of victory than Britain in 1940.
In 1942 the Soviet Union produced 8.1 million tons of steel, German-controlle output was 33.5 million tons. Even after the massive reconstruction of industry in Western Siberia, the Soviet Union only produced 12.2 million tons of steel.
The question of Allied or Soviet victory has two facets: Lend-lease and the Second Front.
1. Lend-lease
What kept the Soviet Union in the war and what enbled the Red Army to defeat the Wehrmacht in the field was Lend-lease. Lend-lease enabled the Soviet Union to focus on the production of weapons and the maintenance of armed forces totalling 12.000.000 men. Their loss ratio in tanks, the most vital statistic of the East Front, was negative in the region of 6 Soviet to one German.
In the absence of Lend-lease the Soviets would have been unable to field more than 8 million men, supported by 40 pct of the planes. The total weight of explosives launched by this force would have been about two-thirds of what was actually fired off. It would have had to rely on horse transport to an even greater degree, and would not have been able to sustain its offensive gains by reparing the railroads as it advanced.

In the words of Jason Long at his Sinews of War site at http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/So...
"Soviet historians have typically denigrated the Allied efforts to supply the Soviet Union with war material as paltry in comparison with her own production and that it was not essential to the Soviet victory. In armored fighting vehicles this is somewhat true, in aircraft less true and in raw and semi-finished industrial materials this is a bold-faced lie".
Wars are not won by tanks alone. And even in 1944 the Red Army had not enough T-34s to go around. The Unkrainian Fronts that conquered the Balkans used mainly M-4 Shermans. Lend-lease deliveries of tanks amounted to roughly 12.000 against a Soviet production of ca 100.000. Neither are wars won by aircraft alone. Leand-lease deliveries amounted to ca 18.000 against a Soviet production of 137.000. But unlike the tank, all the lend-lease aircraft were at least equal to the German ones. The US kept both the P-39/P-63 and the later (1943) versions of the P-40 in production for lend-lease.
Trucks is one much quoted aspect of lend lease. Allied deliveries comprised approx. 60 pct of total deliveries to the Soevit Union during the war. The Studebaker 2,5 ton 6 by 6 was produced almost exclusively for the Soviet Union. The Soviet industry hardly produced any cross-country vehicles at all. And 30 pct of all Soviet tires were made in the U.S.A.
But the key to mobility in WWII Russia was the railroads, not the roads. Railroads need locomotives (railroad engines), cars and rails.
Peacetime (1940) Soviet locomotive production was
about 900, half the German peacetime production. During the war thee SU produced a total of 442 locos, against the 1966 delivered from the US. The proportion for cars and rails are roughly the same, 80 pct of Soviet receipts came from US sources. Without these deliveries the Soviets would have had to divert steel and heavy engineering capacity from tanks and artillery to railroad equipment if they wanted to get to Berlin. Reduce tank/artillery output by at least 20 pct.
Planes are made mainly from aluminium and need fuel and bombs. Over half the Soviet aluminium was lend-lease, No Lend-lease means 70.000, not 137.000 planes produced. 59 pct of Soviet aviation fuel, that is 59 pct of all sorties, came courtesy Lend-lease.
The numbers qouted in the sources vary, but Allied deliveries of explosives accounted for somewhere between 1/3 and half the Soviet consumption. Soviet gross production was around 600.000 tons against Allied deliveries in the region of 300.000 tons. But the U.S. also shipped 103.000 tons of the basic ingredient for making TNT, the filler for bombs and shells, against a Soviet domestic production of 116.000 tons. The allied also delivered 991.000.000 empty cartridges.
No Lend-lease means reducing Soviet overall firepower by at least one third.
But all of this would not have mattered in the absence of Lend-lease in any case. The U.S. deliverd rations for 12.000.000 men - it fed the Red Army for the last two and half years of the war.

Russia mobilized in the order of 25.000.000 men and at least 10.000.000 horses for military purposes, almost all from agriculture. Along with the territorial losses this gave an agricultural output in 1942 and 1943 at 38 pct of the prewar level. Food rations were at subsistence level. (In the less exposed and less vital parts of the Soviet Union, ie the Siberian Maritimes, there was famine). There is no way that the Soviet Union could have fed a Red Army/Air Force/Navy of 12.000.000 men and 3-4.000.000 horses without lend-lease food. On its own the Soviet Union would have had to let a large number of men and horses serving in the military remain on the land to grow food for those fighting the Nazis. My guess is that Soviet military manpower would have been reduced by a third.
2. The Second Front.
U.S. war planning was based on the principle of Europe First from the summer of 1939 at the very latest. The Second Front came into existence as soon as the U.S. could mobilize and ship forces to Europe. But mobilization and shipping, as opposed to planning and rearmament, only began on Pearl Harbour Day
Moving militarily significant forces to Europe took a year and half, mainly because of strategic distractions in the Pacific. U.S. prewar planning did not account for the Fall of the Phillipines and Singapore.
In military terms a threat is as real as an act. The threat of the Second Front is reflected in the redeployment of the German Army between the winter of 1942 and the spring of 1944. Dec.24th, 1941 the Germans had 150 divisional equivalents in the East against 80 elsewhere. Apr. 4th 1944 150 div.equ. remained in the East, against 122 elsewhere. None of the 36 odd div.equ. raised had been sent to the East. In mechanized units the discrepancy is even grater, 19,33 vs 5,5 against 22 vs 18. None of the 12 new formations raised had gone East. Moreover, by that time the divisions in France were up to strength while those in the East were in various states of exhaustion.
The entire quantitative, and whatever qualitative, increase of the Wehrmacht between 1941 and 1944 had been consumed by the "Second Front", the war in Italy no less than the threat of invasion.
The 36 divisions worth of men and arms that the Red Army did not face made the "Second Front" real even three months before Overlord.
And while the air offensive did not significantly harm German war production before the summer of 1944, it did reduce output. In the last quarter of 1943 bomb damage and disruption lead to 79 Tiger tanks and 144 Panthers not being finshed. Actual Tiger production in that quarter was 173, that of Panthers 776. Bombing also reduced truck production by 20 pct and that prime movers (half-tracks) by one third.
To cope with the bombing heavy FLAK production was increased from Oct.1942 and the Luftwaffe had to devote ever greater resources to defence of the Reich. While the numerical strength of the Luftwaffe remained constant at approx. 2 million men, its fighting power had to be redeployed away from the East.
Judging by the amout of concrete poured by Organisation Todt, most of the investment of manpower and material in the Atlantic Wall was made in 1942 and 1943. Most of the guns were old or captured and the men defending it as old as the gunds. But it nevertheles consumed an inordinate amount of steel for obstacles and explosives for mines. Building it Hitler also broke the major maxim of his military hero Frederick the Great: "He who defends everywhere defends nowhere". But as Rommel well knew, he had no choice. When the invasion came Allied airpower would deny him the ability to concentrate his forces for a grand operational masterstroke. He had to defend everywhere.
Overlord was merely the "actualization of the idea of the Second Front". When it was launched, it succeeded. Its course conformed to the intent of its commander, even if the pace did not. (My only criticism is that Eisenhower stuck to the plan and sent the 1st US Army into Britanny instead of having it envelop the Germans of the Falaise pocket. He missed the chance to destroy the German army in the west completely, which meant that he had to do it again on the West Wall. It's what makes him less than a "Great Captain").
If the Normandy invasion had failed I don't think Stalin had launched his summer offensives of 1944. In that sense Overlord was the real "Icebreaker".
The Russian believe that they won the war by themselves during the year beginning with Kursk and ending with Bagration in Belorussia. It rests on more solid grounds than one factor explanations in general. But blood shed is not only cause of victory. It was during 1943 that Lend-lease became effective, due to the opening of the Persian Gulf route, and the Ostheer was not reinforced after Kursk because of urgent need to defend in the West. This is not to devalue the sacrfices of the Russians and associated Central Asian peoples. But all their sacrifices would have been in vain but for Lend-lease and the Second Front.

Further points

The West is weak, right, let’s look at WW1, here the West took on the lion’s share of the effort, 66% of the German forces, fought horrendous battles at Somme and Verdun, and in the end prevailed.

The Russians in contrast suffered one horrendous defeat after the other at the hands of the Germans. And they only faced one third of Germany’s military strength. There was no decapitation of their General Staff by Stalin here, their generals were simply hopeless.

And don’t mention Austria/Hungry, fundamentally a weak nation in economic and Military strength.

In the end Russia was defeated ( it seeded a huge amount of territory to Germany to gain peace and there was a political collapse), if this is not a defeat then the treaty of Versaille is not either.

The Russians had to be saved from German domination by the West, who in that war showed far greater cohesion in their defence and were largely responsible for Germany’s defeat (with the help of the USA).

Russian performance in Afghanistan was poor, compare this to the quick victory won by the USA. And let’s not forget the dismal performance of the Russian soldier in Finland in 1940, where the Finns were vastly superior, man for man.

And if the Russians are so smart, why did they lose the cold war, and why is their economy a mere fraction of that of the US.

-- posted by flamingmoe

Top 18. Sep 5, 2002 6:06 PM

» bossel - Re: Re: Anastasiya03

In response to message posted by Anastasiya03:

You should take more time to read the posts you're reacting on.

I never assumed you were a communist, anyone who visited your topic sees that you have a certain favour for the Tsar. I have some problems with that either, but that's another topic.

The "legal" government was that of Afghanistan, communist, probably not bolshevist. & this was a real coup d'etat.

I didn't say the Germans took Moscow. I said, they didn't win the war by taking Moscow (IE "conquering Russia") but by other means (IE "helping Lenin to overthrow the revolutionary Kerensky government").

When your high-ranking historians told you that the Allies in WWI conquered Germany, then they are very probably not so high-ranking as you think. Almost all battles in WWI were fought outside Germany (except for some Russian intrusions into Eastern Prussia in the beginning of the war). When Germany signed the capitulation, still all fronts were outside of its territory.

"the Germans threw all of their weight against Russia after they couldn't take Belgium"
Where did you get that from?
During the whole war most German troops were concentrated in the West, while on the Eastern front the Germans (more or less) only tried to keep the Russians out.
The focus of the German High Command was to finish off (militarily) the allies in the West before concentrating on Russia.

Regarding the losses you may take a look here:
http://www.home.zonnet.nl/rene.brouwer/
Russia & Germany had roughly the same amount of deaths (Germany a bit more).

Maybe this one is better, here you also find some percentages (which says more than actual figures):
http://www.worldwar1.com/tlcrates.htm

-- posted by bossel

Top 19. Sep 8, 2002 4:15 PM

» bossel - Anastasiya03

In response to message posted by Anastasiya03:

You wrote: "I also agree that I may need to read into other people's posts more carefully"
You should not only agree, you should do it.

May I ask where I said that the Russian revolution was in 1978?

Just to make sure you understand me now, I'll make it easy for you.

You wrote in no. 20:
About Afghanistan [...] Russia was trying to uphold a legal govt while the Americans were arming a terrorist group, which ended up killing thousands of innocent American citizens a year ago

Whereupon I wrote in no. 23:
AFAIK, the communist regime came to power in 1978 by a coup d'etat (actually, there were 2 more [1 only attempted] coups in 1979, communist vs communist). Legal?

Your reply in no. 27 then was this:
What I ment by legal was legitimate, i.e. a govt of some sorts at least. The bolsheviks did have some sort of structure set up

Since I thought that the Afghan communists were very probably no bolsheviks (& assumed that you misread me somehow), I tried to clear things up by answering in no. 29:
The "legal" government was that of Afghanistan, communist, probably not bolshevist. & this was a real coup d'etat.

I hope, you see clearer now.

Anyway there is another misconception of yours in no. 20, which I didn't mention back then. Those Afghans who fought against the Soviet invasion (& were partially funded by the US) are not the later Taliban or Al Qaeda members. They were the mujahedin, most of them islamic fundamentalists but not as extreme as the Taliban.

The Taliban didn't even exist when the country was occupied. They were founded only after the Soviets were driven out, because the victors after the Soviet defeat were fighting a civil war for power.
The Taliban militia was founded in Pakistan in religious schools (hence 'Taliban') of refugee camps to end the civil war.
They were even welcomed by great parts of the population for promising the end of the war. As later turned out: a great mistake.

The terrorist group is Al Qaeda & they for my knowledge never received nor needed (Bin Laden is a millionaire & knows other multi-millionaires) US money. Contrary to the Taliban, who allegedly (!) received CIA support.

PS: I didn't say, I know history. That was you. (I do know those little things in History. in no. 27) But I'm afforded to know something (only something!) about it, for I study it.

-- posted by bossel

Top 20. Sep 9, 2002 3:08 PM

» bossel - Re: Re: Anastasiya03

In response to message posted by Anastasiya03:

I never meant to insult you. When I talked about misconceptions, I was more or less quoting you, you used it first. But, anyway, I don't see misconceptions as an insult. Nobody is free of them (sadly not even myself).

I agree that some here who argued against you were doing so in inappropriate ways. But on the other hand the way you are arguing sometimes, is probably a bit provoking to some characters, for it sounds a bit arrogant in times. (i was provoked a little myself, else i wouldn't have posted, I usually don't).

Afghanistan:
Bin Laden was one of those who fought the Soviets. I don't know, if he ever was in a group funded by the US. AFAIK, he always had enough money to support his own fighting group.
Many war lords, who fought the Soviets, were later subjugated by the Taliban & followed their orders. But most of them never really joined the Taliban, they just tried to get along & when they finally saw the opportunity to get rid of them, they revolted. This is one of the reasons why the Taliban were defeated rather easily & quickly.
They were never really liked, only feared.

As I said, I am not (!) a professional, just a student. But anyway, could you be a bit more specific about the points that prove this. I usually try to stick to the facts & want to know my mistakes. So, please tell me.

PS: Editing your messages is only possible for a certain time. Don't know how long, maybe until you shut down your browser or until somebody else posted.

-- posted by bossel

Top 21. Sep 9, 2002 3:12 PM

» bossel - editing

definitely possible after you shut down & start again your browser.

-- posted by bossel

Top 22. Nov 26, 2002 8:57 AM

» Anastasiya03 - Looking back...

I just looked back at this discussion, for old times' sake. And to tell you all the truth, we have all embarrassed ourselves here.

Why were we arguing this topic in the first place???? As I said in my first post, we are all human and we all deserve equal treatment for bravery...

Plus, why did we get onto the topic of other wars, or whether or not someone would have won without someone else?? That was COMPLETELY off topic. We were trying to discuss the bravery of individual soldiers. And I think that, brainwashed or no, soldiers must be considered as brave individually just because they didn't chicken out and fought for their country -- yes, some countries' policies were terrible, and still are to this day, but that is no reason to offend the common man that lives in those countries! No matter what, it's their home land and there's a thin line between accusing the govt and accusing the citizen, which we must not cross.

I do maintain that the poorer condition a country's in, the more honorable the fact that it wasn't defeated. So I do think Russian soldiers deserve A LOT of respect, and it's rather sad that no one mentioned them, as INDIVIDUALS, in a positive way. Except for linker, and that is why I agreed with him -- there really was no reason to go and start a war of our own over whether or not we are correct...

Ok, well I hope this last message gives everyone food for thought. Before you reply, just read back on what everyone was saying. And please, PLEASE don't go hanging on to every sentence I said that you consider presumptious, incorrect or just plainly annoying. Of course I was mean, just like everyone else here -- hey, gotta defend what my country stands for.

Well, peace be with you all. I hope none of us are in politics, coz if we are, we'll soon be facing World War III smile

-- posted by Anastasiya03

Top 23. Dec 8, 2002 8:58 PM

» Anastasiya03 - Re: American Defeats

Ouch, well this kinda defeated the purpose of my last post! Forget world peace... *SOB*

-- posted by Anastasiya03

Top 24. Apr 3, 2005 5:23 PM

» Maverick97 - Re: Re: American Defeats

In response to Re: American Defeats posted by tommy:

You did an excellent job of disabusing that idiot of his delusions......I was about to post almost the exact same post, then I read yours......Good work.

-- posted by Maverick97