k30dxedle wrote:
Pre-Battle of the Bulge intelligence failure, for one.
But was the Battle of the Bulge such a bad thing? It did funnel lots of Germany's remaining armour in the west, and lots of men and material into a single area. Eisenhower (I think it was him) thought the event should be taken advantage of, for exactly this reason.
RedTwizzler wrote:
Although the events at the time probably wouldn't have allowed an alternate strategy, the mass Japanese civilian killings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the development of nuclear arms were not good things by any means. However, they were acceptable since it would have been virtually impossible to win a ground war in Japan.
Yes, most people (who know what they are talking about) would agree with it being impossible to win a ground war in Japan, however: events at the time did offer alternate strategies. There are historians that say Japan, like Britain in 1940-1, could have been strangled due to the destruction of their merchant shipping. The question though is how long would it take for the Japanese government to surrender?
And like ATG and I say below, that weapon may very well have prevented the Third World War happening several years later, maybe about the time of the Korean War. As horrible as it is, the nuclear arm might have saved many millions.
ATG wrote:
Given the fact that the atomic bomb ushered in 50 years free of major world wide conflict an ended the war I'd say it should have been used sooner.
I agree completely with this, except for it being used sooner, which is just my opinion, no real basis for it yet. I think it was used at the right time.
EDIT: and for any one interested in WWII history go to
http://forum.axishistory.com/It seems to be down right now, but that shouldn't last long.
Last edited by Reaper Hilarus (2007-03-26 19:57:00)