State of the Union Address '06

Originally posted by aspviper666
The USA was more focused on Japan .How much did the Russians help there?As far as Eurpoe is concerned the US supplied most of the weapony,and poured alot of funds and manpower into it.Sure the Russians did a major part of the fighting in the east but the Yanks with the English etc.did the damage in the west and forced Hitler to fight on 2 fronts.

Boy, you really need to read a military history of WW II.

1) Actual US policy was to concentrate most assets on defeating the Nazis first; Germany was considered a more dangerous enemy. This was particulary true after the Japanese offensive was broken at the Battle of Midway only 6 months after Pearl Harbor.

2) As pointed out above, the vast bulk of German forces were deployed against the Soviets until 2 1/2 years after the US entered the war. Even then the Soviets faced the majority of German troops. The Soviets received certain supplies from the US, but over 95% of their tanks, artillery, planes, infantry weapons, etc. were produced by Russian factories, many of them moved in trains to Siberia. The giant Russian complex nicknamed "TankoGrad" produced more and better tanks than the entire nation of Germany.

The US was extremely reluctant to invade Europe; both the Soviets and British proposed a major cross Channel invasion in 1942. The US preferred engaging on periphery fronts in North Africa and Italy. The wisdom of that strategy is endlessly debated by military historians; the campaign in Italy in particular tied up more Allied than German troops slogging through difficult defensive terrain. None of which to denigrate the fighting of US forces; but to claim that the US was THE (singular) nation that liberated Europe in WWII is historically inaccurate and arrogant as ATY says. SHAEF itself was composed of many nationalities; I'm trying to find a percentage of troops in the Allied Expeditionary Force (Western front) who were American; I believe it was only slightly above 50%. And this, of course, does not even consider the resistance forces who waged campaigns of sabotage and hit and run raids against the Germans plus provided the Allied forces with invaluable intelligence.

Originally posted by chancremechanic
What significance did the Chinese play in defeating Japan?

The Reds kept the Japanese occupied in Asia.They provided alot of intelligence(Imagine smart Asians?)
They also helped with Allied airbases etc.
like I said if the Allies had not bonded together......

Edit:This is all really off topic.
I think bush is fulla BS and hot air was the topic lmao

Originally posted by chancremechanic
What significance did the Chinese play in defeating Japan?

Does facing the majority of Japanese ground forces count?

EDIT: Please read this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Japanese_War_%281937-1945%29

It states that over 2,000,000 Japanese soldiers was the normal size of the Imperial Japanese Army in China and that from 1937-1945 the Japanese suffered 1.1 million killed, wounded and missing in fighting with Chinese forces.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Does facing the majority of Japanese ground forces count?

Not when you have a peasant army with hardly any weapons....Japan subdued China like a pedophile priest subdues a choirboy....at least from 1936 or 1938 until '42...sorry for the comparison....

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Not when you have a peasant army with hardly any weapons....Japan subdued China like a pedophile priest subdues a choirboy....at least from 1936 or 1938 until '42...sorry for the comparison....

I might have said like the Nazis took over Poland.But the Poles did their part,It was a success because of team work. There is no USA or China or English or Russian that single handedly won the war,Too bad Chuck Norris wasn't there.

Originally posted by aspviper666
I might have said like the Nazis took over Poland.But the Poles did their part,It was a success because of team work. There is no USA or China or English or Russian that single handedly won the war,Too bad Chuck Norris wasn't there.

Of course that is the point; the Allies were a combination of nations all of which contributed to the eventual victory. For one country to claim 60 years later that it was THE NATION that liberated Europe is, again, arrogant and historically inaccurate.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course that is the point; the Allies were a combination of nations all of which contributed to the eventual victory. For one country to claim 60 years later that it was THE NATION that liberated Europe is, again, arrogant and historically inaccurate.

Yeah, No1: the Allies were doing so well before the Giant clambered in. More of your US bashing. You're boring.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're stunningly ignorant; that's 1.1 million military casualties the Chinese inflicted. Idiot.

BTW, that "peasant army" smashed the US forces in Korea with their first counteroffensive in 1950 and eventually fought the US to a bloody stalemate.

There you go again, calling me names like a kid who had his Tonka Truck stolen from him. How many deaths did the Japanese cause with the rape of Nanking, and I stated that from 1936-41, Japan ruled China unhindered. After the U.S. entered the war, of course the Chinese were able to strike back and that's where your point makes sense. I know about Korea; my Dad was there digging foxholes out of the frozen ground and seeing bodies stacked like cordwood. The only reason the Chinese "smashed" U.S forces was because the U.S. over-extended themselves and didn't expext the Chines to intervene; until then, we kicked the North Koreans back to the Yellow River....which borders China, which brought them in in the first place; ultimately, we regained lost ground. I'm done debating this topic with you...peace

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Yeah, No1: the Allies were doing so well before the Giant clambered in. More of your US bashing. You're boring.

Historical facts rather than right wing fantasy is not "US bashing".

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course that is the point; the Allies were a combination of nations all of which contributed to the eventual victory. For one country to claim 60 years later that it was THE NATION that liberated Europe is, again, arrogant and historically inaccurate.

I do think that financially ,manpower wise intelligence wise etc etc
The US did the lions share of the Allies contribution.Deaths wise the Russians I think were the hardest hit.
Somehow or some way i want to debate Bush is fulla BS
any pro Bushers there??

Originally posted by chancremechanic
There you go again, calling me names like a kid who had his Tonka Truck stolen from them. How many deaths did the Japanese cause with the rape of Nanking, and I stated that from 1936-41, Japan ruled China unhindered. After the U.S. entered the war, of course the Chinese were able to strike back and that's where your point makes sense. I know about ...[text shortened]... t place; ultimately, we regained lost ground. I'm done debating this topic with you...peace

The US had over-extended itself in Korea due to our "military genius" McArthur. But the Chinese had clearly informed the West that they would enter the war if UN forces crossed the 38th parallel. There had been some significant fighting in early November between the UN forces and the Chinese when contact was suddenly broken. McArthur at the Wake Island meeting with Truman told the President that if the Chinese entered in force without air cover "there would be the greatest slaughter". He was, of course correct, but not in the way he intended.

Again this is not to denigrate the fighting prowess of the US forces, many of which particulary the Marines at the Chosin Reservoir fought with great distinction and bravery against heavy odds. It is, however, a simple historical fact that the Chinese Army when led by skilled leaders and reasonably well-equipped was capable of fighting with distinction also.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course that is the point; the Allies were a combination of nations all of which contributed to the eventual victory.

Interestingly enough, Chiang Kai-Shek's "elite forces" at the Battle of Shanghai, which he fought specifically to convince the USA that he could fight the Japanese, were German-trained.

As for the Chinese contribution, "The IJA had 2,000,000 regulars. More Japanese troops were quagmired in China than deployed anywhere else in the Pacific Theater, during the war." That's two million less Japanese the Allies had to face.

By the way, could somebody please define "US-bashing" for me so I know when I'm doing it? Does this post constitute US-bashing? I'm sure people would find it easier to be grateful for the USA's incontestable military achievements in WW2 if they weren't used as weapons whenever someone dares criticise what the current US administration is up to in the world today.

Originally posted by aspviper666
The Chinese had no nuclear arms back then.
Ultimately 2 nukes won the war.

The war was over for Japan whether or not the nukes were used. The Japanese wanted to surrender - as long as they could retain the emperor as sovereign head of their country. The Americans refused, dropped the nukes (arguably to show the Russians what they were capable of), forced the Japanese to surrender ... and ultimately kept the Japanese emperor on as a figurehead.

In terms of winning the war against the Japanese, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary.

Originally posted by treetalk
The war was over for Japan whether or not the nukes were used. The Japanese wanted to surrender - as long as they could retain the emperor as sovereign head of their country. The Americans refused, dropped the nukes (arguably to show the Russians what they were capable of), forced the Japanese to surrender ... and ultimately kept the Japanese emperor on as ...[text shortened]... d.

In terms of winning the war against the Japanese, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary.

The US was planning an invasion of Japan and estemated about
one million casualties.This is what prompted the nuking of Japan.
God damned whippersnappers all think they know every God damn thing.