@Pvt.Ryan:

@CWO:

In his book “War”, Gwynne Dyer discusses how the wartime alliance of the US and the USSR quickly feel apart once Germany and Japan had been defeated.  He argues that any experienced 18th century diplomat would have had no problem understanding why the US and the USSR ended up at each other’s throats after WWII, even though the concepts of democracy and communism would have been completely alien to him.  The reason why alliances in major wars tend to fall apart after victory is that the winners are the biggest pieces left on the chessboard after the losers have been eliminated, and thus are the biggest potential threats to each other.

An excellent point. It was all about competion not about communism or democracy. Those were just propaganda used by the countries to make them hate each other. It wasn’t necsarilly (i cant spell) the countries fighting eachother. It was the leaders disliking eachother.

I disagree I think its a lot more complicated than that, there were fundemental differences in the ways they governed their countries and their people’s lives. In the U.S it was largely a policy of non interference and letting people prosper through free market capitalism while in the USSR it was a policy of controlling every single aspect of their people’s daily lives in order to maintain order and obedience from their people.

@KurtGodel7:

The American Communist Party took its orders from Moscow. The Soviets realized that the United States was too strong to conquer from the outside, and so sought to promote revolution from the inside. But they also knew the United States was internally much stronger than czarist Russia had been. For the hoped-for revolution to take place, the existing social order first had to be destroyed or severely weakened. That meant the following:

• Destroying the American family by promoting divorce, radical feminism, and the end of traditional marriage.
• Destroying traditional morality
• Destroying religion
• Destroying race and the existence of race through immigration and through changing attitudes about miscegenation
• Destroying patriotism

The American Communist movement was particularly powerful in the '60s. Some of the ideas they attempted (with various success) to insert into the public consciousness included the following:

• Radical feminism and female hate of men
• The idea that criminals are heroes and social revolutionaries for opposing the existing (evil) social order
• The idea that the white race is bad; and that whites should hate their own race

To varying degrees these ideas influenced mainstream American culture and American law. For example, many in the mainstream adopted a watered-down version of the communists’ view of criminals. Criminals were now portrayed as victims (of poverty, racism, and social injustice) rather than victimizers and a source of social injustice. Anti-crime laws were weakened, the culture became far more tolerant of crime, and (expectedly) the crime rate became much higher in the '60s than it had been in the '50s. Those who were raped and murdered as a result of this crime spree were a distant echo of the hate, rape, and mass murder the Red Army had perpetrated as it moved westward into Germany.

There is only one appropriate response to the evil of Soviet communism. One must oppose it completely, totally, ruthlessly, and wholeheartedly. There is no moral distinction between the leaders of the communist movement and a man who has broken into your house for the sole purpose of raping and murdering your family. None. The attitudes you have toward that man must also be applied to the communist movement. Any other mindset is far too mild.

This is one of the most insightful things I have ever had the good fortune to read and it opens up a whole nother school of thought into the downfall/decline of Western civilization, I will be bothering my girlfriend about discussing the implications of these ideas for many weeks and months to come  :-D

@Kreuzfeld:

@Zooey72:

I think it is more of a societal thing.  One of the reasons I am proud to be an American is that we TOOK our freedom from England when England was (close to) at its strongest.  You look around the world and you see these third world countries bitching and moaning about “its not our fault, we were a colony”!  Boo frigg’n hoo.  So were we, and instead of being given our freedom (which India was, if you believe Ghandi did it I have a bridge to sell you), we took it.  Taking freedom is much different than having it given to you.  Look around the world at the old colonies, most of them are run now dictators and are poor.  Very few took their freedom, most got it because we pressured England to drop its colonies after the war (which they had to do, or no Marshall plan $).

We have a Constitution that allows us to have weapons.  That was not put in there so people could hunt or defend themselves against muggers.  It was put in there so that the government does not have a monopoly on force.

You make it sound like the americans took it without help, from a british empire who had nothing else to do. The fact is that the american revolution would probably not have succeded if this was the case. The british war in india got most of the british resouces, and the french (the worlds strongest military power on land at the time), combined with the spansih and the dutch helped a great deal. In fact, there are very few wars of freedom (after 1500) that have won without help from an outside power helping, and usually they need to declare war to do enough. The nations you are belitteling is exactly the nations that would never get aid for their revolutionary and rebellious wars, and exactly the nations that got their freedom with the least help from an outside power. The indians did it by making sure that it would be too costly for the british to stay there.

When it comes to the second amendment, don’t be naive, the government does have monopoly on force, there is no way a rebellion would work, taliban militias is better armed than the american civilian population.

The one way to ensure (IMO) that the government cannot use their army against the civilan population is to have a conscripted army, if every person have served, then every member of the army thinks of himself as a member of the population and massive nonviolent protests will turn the army against the government. It is less violent, and has a greater chance of success. The moment the army is a professional army, thinking of themselves as outside the population, working for a salery, then you are in trouble as a democracy.

EDIT: forgive my harsh tone, it is not meant that way

Indeed the United States merely won a guerilla insurgency in the same manner as the Vietcong and the NVA defeated South Vietnam and the U.S.
Without the help of the French who were fighting the British across the globe at the same time the American revolution would of died in its infancy. The French contributed to the ultimate American triumph by diverting resources that could of been used against the revolutionaries and also by providing arms to the revolutionaries.

The American revolutionaries won a war of secession not a war of two powers, people tend to forget that in any time in the next 40 years the British empire could of thrown its full force against the United States and utterly crushed the fledgling nation had it had the will to do so.

The war was won for the U.S by the British public, as they could abide a long war in which they were fighting people they considered their countrymen. Had the British had their usual iron will as seen in more or less every conflict since the American revolutionary war things would of likely turned out differently.

While today the British backing away from the U.S and not simply just giving the colonists what they wanted seems foolish back then the United States wasn’t the prize it is today.

At the cessesation of hostilities Jamaica’s gross domestic product was 4 times that of the entire United States mainly due to its vast sugar plantations.

If the Allies attacked on VE day they would of likely had a very bad time of it being outnumbered quite badly and outgunned at least on the ground. However if the Allies waited until they could pull the majority of their forces out of the Pacific (3-4 months after VJ Day) then that is a whole nother kettle of fish.

With the number of Allied aircraft committed in the Pacific recomitted to the skies of Europe the Soviets would of been badly out numbered in the air. Add to that the likely air raids on the Soviet oil fields all of sudden its not such a pretty picture. I have no illusions that it wouldnt of been a hard slog to Moscow but it would of been possible with enough preparation. You add to Allied Forces the millions of German soldiers who wanted revenge for the notorius acts committed by Soviet forces and it begins to look a whole lot brighter for the Allies. With the likes of Von Manstein and Guederian working with Patton and Eisenhower with all the resources the free world had to offer it would likely turn out in the allies favour.

In my opinion it wouldnt of been long until E-Series German tanks were advancing on the great plains of the USSR backed up by Mustangs and Spitfire’s keeping the skies clear over head. Its hard to think of the Soviets beating that back. Also throw into the mix the oncoming jet age, German designed tanks being built in U.S factories and the atomic bomb the Soviets would of had their hands full.

After the evacuations of Allied troops at Dunkirk do you think it would of been possible for the French Armed forces to fight on and hold the line or perhaps even push the Germans back?

Personally my knowledge of this particular subject is somewhat limited and I would like to hear some opinions on the subject from those of you in the know.

What I do know is the British offered support what exactly I am unsure but it must of been something substantial as Churchill wouldnt of wanted to lose Britains only ally.

Another question would be could the RAF of gone on the offensive from airfields in Central France in order to push the Germans back, fight the Battle of Britain over the skies of France instead, this would also give crucial time for the remaining French factories to go into production overdrive of all war making materials.

@ABWorsham:

I have always found it strange that in World War Two the Japanese code of not surrendering and retaining one’s honor in battle seemed to have left the minds of the IJN high command in some key battles. There seems to be no IJN  Banzai charge.

In the Battle of Savo Island Japan had the Allied Invasion fleet at he mercy of the IJN guns but lost the nerve and retired.

In the Battle of Komandorski Island, the Japanese, who had the larger force, left a US cruiser dead in the water, and retired.

Leyte Gulf, The Battle off Samar, Japan had a chance to inflict huge damage to the Japanese but lost the nerve.

What’s your thoughts?

I never really thought about it that way, it really is an interesting perspective. Like Gargantua and Clyde said the IJN was always so afraid of loosing that they wouldnt finish the fight even when Victory was very likely.

I don’t think that the IJN needed the fanaticism of the Bushido code in order to win victories, in their place a good British or American Admiral/Commander like Andrew Cunningham or Raymond Spruance would of pressed the advantage and destroyed the enemy. This is very much reflected at the Battle of Samar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar), a small ill prepared US Navy force of 6 escort carriers, 3 destoyers and 4 destroyer escorts held off and defeated a massive Japanese fleet of 4 Battleships (one of those being the Yamato), 6 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers and 11 destroyers. Had the Japanese easily defeated the U.S Navy force and pressed the advantage they could of potentially gone on to attack the invasion fleet at Leyte Gulf, this attack could of potentially sunk the troopships and transports that made the invasion possible. This action alone would of at least bought the Japanese valuable time in the war and possibly even scuttled McArthur’s plans for an invasion of the Phillipines, the U.S may of instead of gone with Nimitz’s plan to attack Taiwan (Formosa) and by pass the Phillipines and “let it wither on the vine”.

Also I think you can add Pearl Harbor to that list of unpressed victories AB. Had Nagumo actually attacked the oil storage and dry docks at Pearl Harbor the U.S would not be able to make any serious operations in the Pacific for more than a year according to military historians. If the war turned out the way it did in South East Asia then yes it would of massively hampered American efforts. However if the Allies managed to hold Singapore which would of been a necessity after the destruction of the facilities at Pearl Harbour then it is likely that the war would of been fought from Singapore for at least the first year of the war in the Pacific.

Never the less it would of greatly changed the dynamic of the war in the Pacific instead of having a base so far away in Hawaii, they would be right on the Japanese door step with a base at Singapore. Had that been the case it is likely that the Japanese would of got the “decisive battle” that their naval doctorine to vigorously demanded.

@Cromwell_Dude:

Feel absolutely free to disagree, but I say Eisenhower.

To me it really depends on how you view Eisenhower, if you view him as a tactician and as a field commander then yes he is over rated. However Eisenhower’s strength was in his ability to make war while keeping the peace amongst those under his command and his allies. It was Eisenhower who it fell to, to defuse the explosive rivalry between Patton and Montgomery.

Eisenhower seemed to leave it to his generals to make the day to day decisions of the war while Eisenhower was more of a war room type figure. Never the less under Eisenhowers command the allies succesfully invaded France and went on to win the war on the Western front.

I think purely by his World War 2 reputation McArthur was a bit overrated, not the most but definetly at least a little. He made good on his rep in Korea when UN forces amphibiously attacked Inchon arguably saving the remaining UN forces in Korea from a crushing defeat.

Charles De Gaulle was also an overrated figure in my opinion, but I suppose that had its purpose to keep up the morale of the French under Nazi occupation and know that a Frenchman would be their liberator.

@poloplayer15:

What if Germany won the battle of Kursk? A win constitutes the entire encirclement of the Kursk bulge and destruction/surrender of the Red Army trapped inside?

I think that depends a great deal on the cost the Germans would have to pay for this victory. However if they were to win the battle without the massive loss of men and machinery it would of likely put the Nazi’s in the box seat to win the war on the Eastern front.

At Kursk the Soviets threw everything they had at the Germans, had they lost an army that large and that well equipped its difficult to see the Soviets recovering from such a defeat.

Going by wikipedia the Soviets committed over 1.9 million men to the battle, which would of likely been the best the Red Army had to offer. Add to that the likely losses in Tanks, aircraft and artillery it would of been difficult for the Soviets to once again turn the tide.

Any large scale victory for the Germans at Kursk would of likely meant the oil fields of the Caucasus would of likely fell into the hands of the Nazi’s. That in itself could of potentially cost the Soviets the war. Also Moscow was still only roughly 200km from the front, with some creative tactics the Nazi’s could of forced the Soviets into a situation where they were forced to choose between the Caucasus oil fields and protecting Moscow, either way if that Nazi attack succeded it could of been the death knell for the Soviet Union.

Perhaps it would be good if we could have a list of the candidates for best Heavy Cruiser and a rough list of specifications for each. For example Armament, Armour, Speed and Radar maybe?

@KurtGodel7:

Acting on orders from Moscow, communist parties in Western nations promoted the following agenda:

• Attacks on “traditional morality,” on “dead white males,” and on “Eurocentric cultures.”
• Attacks on the concept of Western civilization itself
• Radical feminism, attacks on males, and attacks on mothers and the role of motherhood
• High levels of immigration into Western nations from non-Western nations
• Attacks on patriotism
• Attacks on religion in general and Christianity in particular
• Attacks on the traditional family
• Promotion of the common criminal, who was supposedly a hero for resisting the evil of the existing social order.

The following may be off topic.

I have heard and read the following many times from a myriad of different sources. It really does make one wonder how much of our “social progress” was originally begun as efforts to undermine Western civilization.

The communists theories are sound and they have had the desired effect on the Western world it has just taken longer than they originally envisioned, had the USSR institued the same reforms as the PRC in the late 1980’s instead of going for both economic and political reform we could very well have a scenario on our hands in which the communists win the Cold war.

The Vietnam war embodies the weapon that social change was for the communists, if they could make a war bloody enough and endless enough eventually the United States would capitulate, no longer were the Americans the people who fought until the bitter end at battles like Bastogne and Guadalcanal. It didnt matter if the armed forces were ready to fight on, the tide of public opinion was more important.

I can imagine the Soviet leadership watching the coverage of those brave American Vietnam vets getting spit on as they come home from the war often badly wounded and thinking how could they lose this Cold war.

Many B-29’s and P-51’s were forced to make emergency landings at airfields on Okinawa as the aircraft could not fly any further due to loss of fuel or battle damage. This in itself likely saved hundreds of lives in the long run especially if the war had of continued into 1946.

As others have said a staging area was required and Okinawa was the best for the purposes of an invasion of the Japanese home islands. Also had the emperor not got involved in making the Japanese surrender possible, its likely that the war would of continued until the Japanese military was completely destroyed by the means of an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

@CWO:

@Octospire:

I was contrasting the peroid attitudes towards different races, if the United States army did not even let its own citizens serve in combat roles, how could the average American of the era regard the Phillipines as capable of self government.

Prior to the Japanese invasion, the U.S. government was already planning to grant independence to the Philippines in 1946.  And as it turns out, the war ended soon enough for the U.S. to carry out that plan on schedule: the U.S. declared the Philippines to be an independent self-governing nation on (I believe) July 4, 1946, a date picked to coincide with America’s own July 4th national birthday.

I’m aware of that, but none the less it was still U.S territory at the time in question. Also thousands of Americans lost their lives defending the Phillipines and thousands more were in POW camps, that motivates a people to retake what they once had, what they still believed to be theirs.

The Phillipines were given independence because Americans did not believe in overseas empire, thus the people of the Phillipines were left to their own devices in 1946. Also its not like the Americans didn’t maintain naval bases and a presence in the Phillipines into the late 1980’s.

Also it wouldnt of looked very good for Truman talking up decolinisation in Africa and Asia when the United States was still holding on to its colonial posessions. To be fair the United States still controls Guam which it took at the same time as the Phillipines.