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.
5 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 |
F6FHellcat
|
Let me ask you a few questions. First, how many purple hearts have been awarded since the end of WWII? Second, when was the last purple heart made? Third, what do you know about Operation Downfall? Nothing to do with you questions, right? Except they all pertain to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Operation Downfall was the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands, with the initial efforts to be carried out in Operations Olympic and Coronet. U.S. planners expected that allied losses in Downfall were going to be exceedingly high, in fact in the first part of the operation they were expecting over a quarter of million dead and wounded among the allied forces alone. And during the planning there were warnings that American dead alone could be anywhere from a half a million to one million men. Possibly higher. Keep in mind that Downfall was expected to ended as early as sometime in 1947 if all things went as planned and would have begun either in late 1945 (November 1945 most likely) or early 1946. So what does that have to do with the purple heart? During WWII as many as 1.506 million medals were minted, 500,000 of which were intended for Downfall. Had Downfall occured the total number of purple hearts minted during the war would have gone up as even more Americans would have been wounded than had been initially anticipated. Now of that half a million 120,000 were still unawarded as of 2000. And the U.S. hasn't suffered 120,000 wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though both wars have most certainly seen men and women wounded in them, so there are still purple hearts minted for Downfall waiting to be awarded But what of the Japanese? Estimates put Japanese Army dead during Downfall at upwards of at least 6 million. That doesn't include civilians. And the Japanese government were expecting civilians to fight the invasion too as a part of Operation Ketsug?, pamphlets were being distributed telling people how to use everyday items to fight back with. Japanese propaganda called it "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" Get the picture? Even if they didn't fight many civilians were as likely to commit suicide based on what had already been experienced at places like Okinawa. The total number of Japanese dead would have been much higher than the estimated 6 million. It's a sad fact that the atomic bombings occured. But the casualties on both sides were going to be far higher. And even with the bombings there was actually an attempted Japanese Army coup to prevent the Emperor from announcing that Japan would surrender. They wanted to keep on fighting. I'd have to go through all my back issues of Air & Space magazine to find the article on the last B-29 raid, the raid that would have been yet another fire bombing but was aborted before the bombers could reach their targets due to Hirohito's radio announcement, to get the details on how the coup was stopped. Yes, the fire bombings were more deadly than the two atomic bombs combined. Yet not a SINGLE incendiary bomb was as deadly or as devastating as either Little Boy or Fat Man. Note I emphasized that word, single. That's because the fire bombings dropped hundreds of bombs per raid, not just one. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both hit by just one bomb. And even then the potential devastation was not completely felt by either city. That was something I was recently shocked to learn. I'd known that the hills and valleys around Nagasaki had played a role in somewhat protecting the city from much of Fat Man's devastation, but a few months back I learned that had both bombs been lower when they detonated the destruction would have been even greater. Oh, and don't take seriously Soviet negotiations with Japan over a Japanese peace in the war. Even before the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Soviets were already planning to invade Hokkaido beginning in August 1945, something that had Downfall occured would have forced it's timetable to be pushed up to a much earlier date. Reply #5. Mar 16 25, 12:29 AM |
5 replies. On page 1 of 1 pages. 1
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: