Subject: General WW2 history
Posted by: mountaingoat
Date: Aug 26 13
I love WW2 history and know there are a few others on here too. I would like to have an ongoing post here.
I used to be really critical of Mark Clark getting bogged down at Anzio. (My father was there with the Brits.) I have since found he almost got kicked back into the sea at Salerno and was criticised by top brass because of it. I think it is the Top brasses problem for putting a leader in charge with a defensive frame of mind. They needed a Patton and they got a cautious Montgomery.
Why did the US nuke Japan when the Japanese were seeking peace through the Russians. Their main request was the Emperor not being prosecuted. This happened anyway so why the need for the bombs. I don't see the nukes as any great difference from area bombing. More died in the firestorms in Tokyo.
I thought that the British and US complemented each other well. In Sicily the experienced Brits took the tough road and Patton took the fast end run. In Normandy, the US built their Mulberry Harbour quickly and got material ashore fast. When the storm destroyed it the British, slower but thoroughly built keep supplying. Montgomery took the brunt of the german armour at the Eastern end of the line allowing Patton to break out and do his thing. The competition between Monty and Patton was a good thing except for Marketgarden which was always going to fail.
Posted by: mountaingoat
Date: Aug 26 13
I love WW2 history and know there are a few others on here too. I would like to have an ongoing post here.
I used to be really critical of Mark Clark getting bogged down at Anzio. (My father was there with the Brits.) I have since found he almost got kicked back into the sea at Salerno and was criticised by top brass because of it. I think it is the Top brasses problem for putting a leader in charge with a defensive frame of mind. They needed a Patton and they got a cautious Montgomery.
Why did the US nuke Japan when the Japanese were seeking peace through the Russians. Their main request was the Emperor not being prosecuted. This happened anyway so why the need for the bombs. I don't see the nukes as any great difference from area bombing. More died in the firestorms in Tokyo.
I thought that the British and US complemented each other well. In Sicily the experienced Brits took the tough road and Patton took the fast end run. In Normandy, the US built their Mulberry Harbour quickly and got material ashore fast. When the storm destroyed it the British, slower but thoroughly built keep supplying. Montgomery took the brunt of the german armour at the Eastern end of the line allowing Patton to break out and do his thing. The competition between Monty and Patton was a good thing except for Marketgarden which was always going to fail.
4 replies. On page 1 of 1 pages. 1
brm50diboll 
|
There was certainly not a lot of trust between the US and Russia even though they were allies. As a matter of fact, after the bombing, the Russians entered Hokkaido island. The US did not consider the negotiations between Russia and Japan to be anything but an attempt by Stalin to exploit the situation for maximal Soviet gain. And since the Americans had experienced firsthand the determination of the kamikazes in Iwo Jima and Okinawa, they certainly did not trust the Japanese either. I happen to think Truman was right. This debate will never end, but the war did, less than a month after the bombings. Reply #1. Dec 08 13, 1:23 PM |
mountaingoat
|
I do not have a judgement either way about the atomic bomb. War is a horrible nasty business and terrible things need to be done. I get a bit annoyed about judging from a distance when you have not got neighbours dying every other day. You are right about the Russians. They had allied prisoners they had released and basically held them hostage so they could force the allies to return Russians who fought for the Germans. Many committed suicide and the rest were executed on their return. Reply #2. Dec 11 13, 7:04 AM |
notsosmart49
|
mark clake didn't move from the beach head overnight as he wanted to have enough men on the beach head before moving on in land. So by the time he did move it was too late as the german had enough time to move in with the armour which therefore it was a slow long draw-out fighting to rome. Reply #3. Sep 21 15, 5:04 AM |
Govannon8
|
I have been a history buff for nearly 50 years. I say the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was definitely necessary given the way the Japanese(including the civilians) were ready to fight. A land battle would have cost ~ 300,000 casualties(an average number, from various sources). They were mulling things over, as it was their custom. They had to save face. Meanwhile, Americans and other allies were dying, in combat and in the camps, including Canadians. Don't forget Canada's contribution in many areas of Italy, including a hard won victory at Ortona. Reply #4. May 03 17, 11:00 AM |
4 replies. On page 1 of 1 pages. 1
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: