Printable View
Joe wasn't nearly as concerned about China as he was the US. He sacrificed millions of his own comrades in WWII to defeat the Axis; by the time of the Korean War, he'd have thought nothing about exacting the same price on China to have a kill shot at the US.
My "nuclear winter" scenario had to do more with the effect after the war, when he'd have been President and had his finger on the "launch" button.
JMHO....;-)
kg
So why in the world do you have a Democrat Governor?Quote:
Originally Posted by DSemple
History says the Soviets had little resources (men & equipment) left with which to fight IMMEDIATELY after WWII ending in Europe. Therefore a senario of pressing the Soviets from the east at that time would certainly have been more realistic than waiting until both the Soviets & China (& their proxies) had rebuilt/build formidable ground forces just prior to the Korean conflict. Unfortunately the failure to effectively confront both the Soviets & China during the intervening years until Reagan became president left much of Asia & eastern Europe to those marxist regimes to control & derive wealth for their purposes. When Trumann said no to pressing on in Korea he took the threat of military action to achieve military victory off the table and began a doctrine of using military action only to achieve limited political purposes that has continued to exist up to the present.
David,
I was under the impression that at the end of WWII the Soviet Union had retooled and had a large, experienced, and modern army and air force. The USSR had also rebuilt and modernized its industrial capability.
The US at the end of WWII was tired of war. When you suggest attacking the USSR from the East, are you suggesting that we should have gone through China?
It is my understanding that Reagan didn't bring the USSR to its knees, but rather it was the USSR attempting to keep up with our military spending for approximately four decades.
BobQuote:
Originally Posted by Bob Gutermuth
you have a seriously different take on history. McArthur was anything but a military genius. He was hopelessly out of touch with the pacific theatre particularily the new guniea campaign.Dougs comunicaes were a laughing stock around the world in 1942. Strong rumor has it he ran away from the germans in 1918 and he definitely ran away from the japs in 1941. He may have had a great presence but he was a massive ego manic greatly disliked in Washington and a poor commander because of his penchance to blame other people for his failings.Patton likewise is over rated. It was his lack of strategic thinking that allowed Hans Hube to successfully withdraw most of his panzers and almost all of his german and italian troops from Sicily in 1943. IT WAS BECAUSE OF PATTONS INCOMPETANCE that he was passed over for Bradley , much Pattons junior, to head the US forces for the liberation of Europe. Almost everyone universally agrees that the Germans had the best Generals and they collectively after the war rated Troy Middleton and Lightening Joe Collins as the 2 best US generals of WW2
Pattons shining moment came during the battle of the bulge. His superior staff work allowed him to be the only US general to foresee the attack and respond effectively. Pattons disregard for casualities and his "blood and guts bravedo" doesnt allow him to be ranked in the same catogry as a true professional like Monty(another ego manic)
Another patton debacle happened on 28th march 1945. In what Bradley described as the "brashest; decision of WW2. Patton sent sent a task force 50 miles behind german lines to liberate a POW camp. they liberated the camp but took 2/3 casualities and ended up surrendering the next day.
Patton was in essence a small version of Zhokov.Both commnders cultivated an image of a swashbuckling military hero, but to my mind a far greater but much less publicized American hero was Vinegar Joe who did extradinary things in Indo China, Burma and mainland china
To suggest that we should have taken on the commies in 1945 is an absurd idea. Their army was about 3 times our size and much more battle hardened. We might of lost!!! Arent we lucky Patton never got his way!!! and that a deranged Mc Arthur got the hook in Korea
As for your baseball i dont think you need worry about having to sing the Horst Wessel song , the Germans much like the rest of the world have no interest in baseball and wouldnt be bothered
My dad was a US Army captain in the Philipines and General MacArthur was very well loved there, he was my dad's hero. We used to go to Fort MacArthur when it was in existence in San Pedro Ca. on a regular basis, just so my dad could pay tribute to the General's statue..you dont even want to know how many times my dad played the movie with Gregory Peck over and over again. we even had a full military funeral at his request at Fort Sam Houston, complete with gun salute and trumpeter playing taps...very moving.
Soviets lost approx 25 million during WWII. Those men & women could not be replaced IMMEDIATELY. As for equipment, Soviets began to modernize their equipment from their initial battle defeats by the Nazis. That said they did not have the atom bomb IMMEDIATELY after ending WWII nor the modern equipment, particularly airpower of the western allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoggMoore
My point above was not to advocate continuing a war against the Soviets immediately after WWII but rather to point out it appears to have been a more reasonable option as opposed to a full scale confrontation by the time of the Korean conflict. I.e, Soviets were less prepared in 1946 than in 1950. Also in 1946, Nationalist China would have supported & welcomed that option. Of course, like now, civilized people don't like war and a decision to continue a war against the Soviet Union even as WWII was ending would not have had the commitment politically necessary. Also as we would have been seen by much of the world as the aggressors in such a move.
I will make this point however, if we continue to transfer our wealth to China & the middle east, we will not have the ability to sustain a credible threat to their designs for global dominance in the future. In addition, Russia with its natural resource exportation is also regaining financial wealth to again impose its will upon the world. Conflict & confrontation are coming, it's just a matter of when. Ironically, we are making all this possible by our exportation of technology & applied knowledge.
Notwithstanding their losses by the time that the Soviets had captured Berlin, they hadQuote:
Originally Posted by Granddaddy
- More tanks than the Allies
- Better tanks than the Allies (the T34 was the best tank of the war)
- More men/women in their armed forces than the allies
- The largest artillery forces ever seen in modern combat
They did not have the atom bomb (but we shot our wad of bombs in the Pacific)
And the quality of their air force was not up to the standard of the allies
However, they had crushed the Nazi Armies (teen agers and grandparents defended Berlin with Mausers and Panzerfausts)
Conflict with the Russians was hardly the walk in the park that Patton suggested
Again, my point was Soviets were less prepared in 1946 than 1950 - when MacArthur suggested he take the fight to China by the opportunity provided by the Korean conflict.
The Soviet capabilities are well documented at WWII's ending, also in 1950. Same info available for Rep of China (known as red China) at 1946 & 1950. And both were better prepared in 1950 when MacArthur would have sustained the conflict through Korea.
tedQuote:
Originally Posted by Ted Shih
you are correct on all but one point
the best tank in WW2 was undoubtedly the king tiger. Michael Whitman killed 27 shermans in one day alone during the normandy campaign.however the King Tiger was never produced in large enough numbers to make a difference and you are absolutely right the T34 was the best mass produced tank of WW2