Military service

[OnTheBounce]

Well as far as I know, american bombers really didn't have enough range to fly from the U.S. to targets in airbases. Hmm, as far as I remember, aircraft carriers couldn't carry the heavier bombers america had including the stratofortress and the superfortress. So what would be the best way for our bombers to get to airbases in europe, oh yeah, a convenient resupply depot at Hawaii.

I'm going to give a break on your geographic confusion.

Pearl Harbor and various other military facilities in Hawaii are to this day the logistical hub of US' Pacific operations. There are also islands that the US occupied in order to further its control of the Pacific, e.g. Wake and Midway. You're correct that the Japanese mainland couldn't be reached by US bombers, but this holds true even when Hawaii, Midway and Wake Island are factored into the equation. The B-17 could reach Hawaii from the US mainland, but they were at the edge of their range, to the extent that when they were flown there they had to do so w/o any armament, to include machineguns, let alone a bomb load. (This was the case of the B-17s arriving on Dec. 7 just as Pearl was being attacked.) When the Japanese mainland was attacked for the first time in '42 in the Doolittle raid, it was a propaganda move that utilized the much lighter B-25 flown from aircraft carriers they couldn't return to, and the US basically burned these planes up just to stick it to the Japanese to help buoy sinking US morale.

However, all of this is really irrelevant. As I pointed out, the US annexed Hawaii in 1898, at which time there was no conflict w/the Japanese, and in the fact the Japanese were only starting to modernize in the wake of the Meiji Restoration. The Meiji Restoration is of historical significance to this idea of preemptive expansion, though. You see, the Japanese had been perfectly content to sit on their island, minding their own business, living pretty much like they had since the Battle of Sekigahara in 1603 paved the way for the country's unification under the Tokugawa Shogunate. Then, 1853, US ships under Commodore Perry steamed in and demanded that the Japanese give the US two coaling stations. The US then went and forced Japan into several unequal treaties during 1854, among which conditions were that US citizens were granted "extra-territoriality" (they couldn't be tried by Japanese courts) among other things.

The idea w/the US doing this had nothing to do w/halting Japanese aggression. The expansion on the part of the US was in order to secure its hold on foreign sources of trade good, most notably China, which every major power was in the process of sodomizing at that time. The Japanese took one look at what had happened to China, realized that they were next, swallowed their pride and signed the unequal treaties, then embarked on probably the most impressive feat of modernization from an essentially medieval tech-level and were by the early 1900's nearly on par w/the greater powers of Western Civilization. (This was also a huge social undertaking as the traditional Neo-Confussian class system had to reinvent itself, but that's another story.)

Basically, your idea that people have to do whatever it takes to protect their interest is a really flawed interpretation of what was actually happening. What was actually happening is that certain parties, in what amounted to an unbridled ride to further their economic interests ended up stirring up a hornet's nest by their uninformed meddling. While there is no absolute certainty in Human knowledge, it must be said that we can say w/reasonable certainty that had the US not gone meddling in the Pacific, trying to enrich itself, the world would have been spared at least one aspect of WWII, namely that in the Pacific.

...However, my point was that Hawaii is a key base of operations. Its strategic location is invaluable. If the United States had not annexed it, then either the Soviets or the Nazis would have.

The annexation of Hawaii had nothing to do w/Germany, the Soviet Union, nor the Japanese. It was indeed done for logistical purposes, but it was due to aggressive trading, not reasons of national security. Like I pointed out before, it was annexed in 1898, at which point the Japanese weren't a threat, the Soviet Union wasn't even around yet, and Nazi Germany had not yet come to be. I think you're confusing US imperialism w/national security. They are seperate and distinct issues.

OTB

 

[welsh]

OTB- I agree with almost everything you've said above. Impressive historical explanation.

Well, with two clarifications-

(1) Hawaii. Now on this history I am not sure of, by I vaguelly recall that Hawaii is annexed in part because Americans , primarily the sugar industry, working in Hawaii overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy. While this did serve US interests (like most countries of the time the US was engaged in imperialistic ventures- if a bit behind the other major powers) the overthrow came primarily at the hands of americans inside Hawaii, not through US conquest of the island. The US did eventually send troops in support of these american business interests when the monarchy tried to reassert itself.

interesting site for a cruise ship-
http://www.allhawaii-cruises.com/hawaii-history/sugar_industry.htm

http://www.allhawaii-cruises.com/hawaii-history/independence.htm

(2) The Pacific War. I think the Japanese goals in Asia would have led to war regardless.

While US meddling in Japan perhaps got the country on the road to modernization, it is probably that the Japanese mght have followed a similar path had they encountered other foreign visitors. Indeed many countries took part in the modernization of Japan, and the Japanese borrowed extensively from Europe. For example the Japanese legal code is borrowed from the Germans (as is the Korean).

However the Japanese were primarily interested in China. They had two plans- a North plan (invadint the east of Russia to claim the lands there) or the South plan, meaning an invasion to the South. But it was the deployment of troops into French indochina that got the US to impose an oil embargo. French IndoChina had gone Vichy because of the German victory over France.

The oil embargo basically forced the Japanese into a corner. The American demand was not only that they pull out of French IndoChina but also China. Interestingly, the invasion of Indochina had come because the Japanese thought this an essential move to stop the flow of supplies to the Chinese resisters. Japan in 1940-41 was not doing well China.

For the Japanese this meant that they would always be second fiddle to the US in the Pacific if they caved in, or they could try to grab the oil found in Indonesia (then a colony of the Netherlands).

However to get there the Japanese would have to get past the US in the Philippines and the Brits in Malaya and Singapore, and then hit the Dutch colonies in Southeast Asia. Taking out the Brits in Malaya meant war with the Brits in Australia and New Zealand.

So the Japanese saw the war in Europe as the best time to strike. Indeed, Singapore and Malaya's fall came primarily because the Brits realize that they can't fight everywhere and have to focus on saving their colony in India and Australia as well as concentrate on the greater threat- Germany. For the Japanese, the war in Germany meant they would have longer to secure their land grab before the allies turn on them. Hit the US navy in Pearl Harbor and the american ability to respond is delayed. However, looking at the documents it seems clear that the Japanese are quite conscious that while they might hold temporary regional dominance, in the end they would lose if faced with concentrated US strength.

Even had the Japanese not had to deal with the Americans they would have had to fight the Brits. ALso their desire to dominate China came at the expense of every other nation with interests in China but which are currently being focused on events in Europe. While the two theatres of the war were fairly autonomous, both are deeply tied to each other in terms of the timing of the conflicts and the opportunities present at that moment in history.

 

[DarkCorp]

Wow I learned something there thanks On.

As Welsh pointed out, the whole basic groundwork for my post was that countries do what they need to do to maintain dominance. Sometimes wars are started because of this. Also, financial/military prosperity is directly linked. I do not have the paperwork to back it up but I do believe that U.S. leaders did indeed see Hawaii as stategicaly important, if not at the immediate time frame then out of prediction.

It is funny however that because of WW2 and the weakening of most of the european powers, primarily agrarian countries such as the U.S.S.R and China became dominant powers in east. Also it is no secret that there were predictions that the U.S. would come out of WW 2 as the dominant superpower.

 

[Wooz]

Dont want to bitch about this as well, but I doubt the USSR was agriculture-based at the time. It had a strong metallurgy industry, which was used to build tanks during the war.

Also, as far as I know, China wasn't anything close to a power back then. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Guess I'll just lay back and wait for Welsh or OTB to give a lecture about the key economic aspects of post WW2 countries

 

[DarkCorp]

The soviets didn't have such a great military at the time of Operation Barbarossa. Thats why the germans literally tore through everything the soviets had. Only when the winter came and bogged down the german advance, did the soviets managed to get "tankograd", into full scale production. Heck, I think the T-34 (was it), only began coming off factory lines towards the latter parts of the war.

As to China, the northern part was occupied while a combination of nationalist/communist forces were trying to keep the japanese at bay. They only started to become dominant when the war was over and the communists took charge. After that, Mao began his great leap forward, focusing all activites into farming and production.

What I mean by agrarian was that most of the country was not as well off and prosperous as the United States and other world powers at the time. That is why the chinese and the soviets never really had a chance until the allies took some of the burden off by opening a western front in europe and pacific operations to hinder the japanese advance.

 

[Brother None]

The soviets didn't have such a great military at the time of Operation Barbarossa. Thats why the germans literally tore through everything the soviets had. Only when the winter came and bogged down the german advance,

This is wrong and offensive. Please appreciate the tactic behind Torched Earth. It was a rough way of beating the Germans, but it worked, it wasn't just "the Russians couldn't do anything so they all died and retreated". That's an insult to their huge effort.

 

[DarkCorp]

I have perfect knowledge of the scorched earth policy.

However, Wooz believes the soviets were an advanced nation capable of fielding an immensely strong military, which was untrue untill after the war. The russians could do nothing to stop the wermacht during the initial german offensive. The germans had superior tanks, planes, weapons, and tacticians. The soviet union had none of that, plus most of the able military commanders were imprisoned during the purges.

PS: The Scorched Earth policy is very destructive and I am sure the soviets resorted to it only as a last ditch effort to hinder the germans and secure their retreat. This also proves that the soviets were not in a position to fight back the germans until a combination of allied help, winter, and lack of supplies, severely weakend the german military machine. Lastly the fact that Hitler would not allow his units to retreat also took its toll.

If the United States had indeed decided to stay neutral during WWII, I believe that both england, the soviet union, and china would be in very bad positions.

 

[Wooz]

First of all, mao's leap forward was in the sixties. It seems that you have a lot of years/facts mixed up...

Right, the soviets had inferior tank numbers, That's why they whooped all the offensive panzer divisions in Kursk.

I believe the URSS was a strong nation during the later phases of WW2. They had gas, good armoured divisions, fairly good commanders and above all, far superior numbers than anybody else. Of course, the US was in a better position, for a lot of reasons.
Besides, it was stalin who didn't allow the units to retreat, not hitler...

 

[DarkCorp]

First of all, mao's leap forward was in the sixties. It seems that you have a lot of years/facts mixed up...

Right, the soviets had inferior tank numbers, That's why they whooped all the offensive panzer divisions in Kursk.

I believe the URSS was a strong nation during the later phases of WW2. They had gas, good armoured divisions, fairly good commanders and above all, far superior numbers than anybody else. Of course, the US was in a better position, for a lot of reasons.
Besides, it was stalin who didn't allow the units to retreat, not hitler...

Hence I said the soviet union and chinese climbs to power were post-war, not during. I think there is a nice post about the condition of soviet military might in some of the other threads here. Yes the T-34 was kicking ass but the russians still had problems. Only after repeated attacks, did the german units succumb little by little. And of course, the reason why the germans were beaten was because of the pitiful state they were in. If german military power was unhindered by hitler's irrational decision, they might have weathered the storm.

PS: The communists never did allow their men to retreat, but it is fact that Hitler gave orders that german units on the easter front, were told to fight till the last man. Also I don't have the exact info on me but wasn't the King Tiger supposed to be better than the T-34. Due to incessant allied bombing and the loss of production, not many made it out of german factories.

I edited a bit due to not reading correctly through tons of info sorry.

 

[Loxley]

Hey PIP boy has gone santa?

Ehh the russians had 4 times as many tankses as the germans at the begining of opperation barabarossa, but they were inferior and wery badly trained, secondly they did not have a good cooperation between them and the rest of the army.

The russian army was hugely fucked at the beginning of operation barborossa, most of the good generals were in prison or dead, captains could be promoted to generals. Not to mention that Stalin who had ignored the proofs he were given that the germans were planning to invade, killed the generals who realised that he had made a mistake, at the begining of the operation.

The german army was also a huge tactical unit, witha good cooperation between all sides like artillery, tankses, infantry and airplanes.
While such a thought as a cooperation between the infantry and artillery was considered "politicaly wrong" (understand it you who can) by stalin and his goons before the war.
However the russian army managed to survive this, the stupidity of its leaders, and bleed out the germans so that the rest of the war was easy for the allies. The invasion in 1944 was made much more easy because several million of germans were lying dead on the russian steppes.

 

[Paladin Solo]

It's not that thier army was weak (USSR) before and during the early years of WW2, it's that they weren't well supplied and they were outdated as well as what Loxley said. There was a gun for every fourth man. Or was it fifth, I remember one of those two numbers from a history test. Anyhow, even with recieving aid from Great Britian and the United States, they still had trouble to a more efficient German army, not a stronger army, or larger even for that matter. Then when those tanks and guns and planes began to appear by the masses, Germany was on the run, not to mention the German forces that were diverted to the Western and African front due to Allied invasions. Sure the winter played an important role, but Germany was still fighting hard. Once the Russians got back on their feet, there was no hope for Germany, even if they got a few A-bombs, the Russians would've still marched blindly and quickly enough to take them down. Plus, they would still have the U.S. and Great Britian to worry about, or vica versa with the USSR. I mean, if you had given Poland enough supplies for an army, and held back either Russia or Germany, and left them fighting only one of the two, they could've won. But when they fought Germany, I remember that there was a battle that the Polish actually went at German Panzers head on with lancers on horseback. I also think OTB has a good point about why Japan began to expand its empire. What reason did they have? I still wonder though, why they commited some, or a lot, of war crimes. Well whether it was foreign intervention, or a sadistic sob like Hitler, what happened happened. I don't see why people are complaining we should've done this, or we should've known war was coming or some bull. The world turned out ok didn't it?

 

[Gruug]

Oh for fuck sake! Can't we have a single discussion about an army/country, without it turning out to be one big philosophical/political debate?

 

[Sander]

Can't we have a single discussion about an army/country, without it turning out to be one big philosophical/political debate?

No. What would be the point of that??

The world turned out ok didn't it?

Oh, please tell me you didn't just say that. Seriously. "Oh, the worldturned out ok, so why are you bitching?"
Because we can, because we can look back and say "This would havebeen better.

 

[Gruug]

No, don't look back, look forward!
Just a warning to the rest of you people, dutchies can be extremly arrogant, and the arrogant ones will most likely never see that they are wrong. Trust me, I lived in the country for two years.
P.S No real harm intended to you Sander, or to any other dutchie, as there are always special cases.

 

[Brother None]

Just a warning to the rest of you people, dutchies can be extremly arrogant, and will most likely never see that they are wrong. Trust me, I know.

This is true, it's in our nature to be arrogant on political matters, because our neutral position during most of history allowed us to end up saying, after the war, "well, we didn't get involved in that one, aren't we smart?". Of course, most Dutchies conveniently forget the artocities commited against our colonies, not to mention the pointless wars we've fought with England.

That said, some would argue that's a European movement. Most Americans would. "Euros are always so arrogant". True for a large part. A lot of the European countries have spent a lot of time being the dominant powers of the world a long time ago (France, Belgium, the UK, Holland, Spain, Portugal and Italy). Our culture is laced with the feeling that somehow, somewhere we're better than everyone else. This is not true for all of Europe, or all Europeans, but it is a very dominant intellectual movements.

Other European countries are different. Poland has a time when it was Poland-Lithuania to look back to; a time when it was the country in Europe with the biggest Jewish population, a thriving, kind country who didn't bother its neighbours or its own ethnic minorities. Poland's behaviour throughout WW 2 pretty much shook that thought from its foundation, and being a USSR sattelite didn't do it good, meaning Poland is now trying to find back its old position of a dominant European power (hence the trouble with the EU)

Russia has a short history from the late 15th century to look back to, and a century spent being a dominant power under a tyranical fist. Russia has always been on the mind of expanding, and the collapse of the USSR was probably one of the first setbacks they've ever went through. Shocking, to say the least, hence Russia isn't very quick to assert itself as a dominant European or world-wide power.

Greece has an arrogant population to the max. "They" hate the Turks, and are proud especially of the days of the old Attic and Hellenic Greeks, and proud also of the Byzantine empire. The Ottomans shut them up, though, and also caused the long-snarling hatred between the two. Greece would probably assert itself more if it could, but it can't

Germany is the most interesting case-study. In the early to mid-18th century the German middle-class was struggling to assert its position against the German nobility. The French and English middle-class were pretty smoothly integrated in the nobility, which in France turned out to be a mistake (French revolution), but the German middle-class was barred completely from the movements of nobility. Hence the idea of German Kultur and Bildung, as in true honour and knowledge, as opposed to Civilization, which was considered the French idea of "acting nice" whilst not being nice, the noble-man's behaviour. The thoughts of the middle-class spread throughout the country after the French revolution, and became the dominant mode of thinking, making the ideas Kultur and Bildung into parts of the German culture. This and their lack of colonies means Germany doesn't like the idea of forcing "civilization" on other less powerful countries. Coupled with their post-WW2 pacifism means Germany is against pretty much all wars.
This makes Germany such a fascinating exception of normal west-European arrogance. Most west-European countries are arrogant because they consider themselves more "civilized" than other countries, an arrogance also partially carried by the former colonies that belong to "the West" (Canada, the USA and Australia especially), whereas Germany, as a puzzling exception, considers itself "superior" because of its Kultur, its Bildung. I wish more countries would share this perception, it would balance out everything more nicely. The Western fakeness of Civilization against the German raw truth of Kultur.

Whew. That was fun to type out.

That said, though, your remark was insulting. Please show a little respect for other nationalities and people. Your remark was very clearly picked to insult Sander (and it was a good pick, I must say, because the remark is both insulting ánd true, it becomes double as insulting). Please; show a little respect

 

[Paladin Solo]

Please; show a little respect

Riiight. Except when an American is insulted right? The Order doesn't count, of course. But even out of The Order, there was some harsh things said which I found offensive and disrespectful. A little off topic agreed, but if trying to stay on topic, and not posting for a few weeks doesn't remove my spammer title, I don't know what will.

 

[Gruug]

*looks down scraping his feet on the floor*
Yes, I know, and I am sorry. I'll edit. Hang on.

 

[Brother None]

Riiight. Except when an American is insulted right? The Order doesn't count, of course. But even out of The Order, there was some harsh things said which I found offensive and disrespectful. A little off topic agreed, but if trying to stay on topic, and not posting for a few weeks doesn't remove my spammer title, I don't know what will.

Generally, yes, it's hard to stop people from insulting Americans

But Gruug's post was directly provocative and aimed at one person. There's a difference between this and saying "I think America is being too agressive".

Plus I might've missed the posts you're referring to.

Heh, and I'll remove your spammer title.

*looks down scraping his feet on the floor*
Yes, I know, and I am sorry. I'll edit. Hang on.

No need, but if you feel you have to, go ahead

 

[Mohrg]

Sissy...

Mohrg

 

[Gruug]

*Imitates the worms voices from the first worms* Fuk you mate.