BF2S Forums How responsible is the US for winning WWII?

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

France has one of the highest records for successful military campaigns.

Which is exactly why I don't understand the reasoning behind theire, "Oh we are French, we surrender" angle attributed to them.

More or less because of WWII. But I'd say that's more the fault of the government than the military or people.

Shahter wrote:

ROGUEDD wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Which is exactly why I don't understand the reasoning behind theire, "Oh we are French, we surrender" angle attributed to them.

More or less because of WWII. But I'd say that's more the fault of the government than the military or people.

and the government falls out of the sky and has nothing to do with people. got it.

Governments are made by the political parties that best managed to draw their votes. Doesn't dictate what they do afterwards.
If your politicians turn out to be crap in a bad moment, stupid things can happen.

The French were prepared, they just weren't prepared well. The Maginot Line and their refusal to attack beyond their defences meant they were doomed to lose. You can't rely on static defences while your enemy are masters of manoeuvre warfare. The French actually had more men, artillery and armoured vehicles than the Germans did, they just could never manage to use them effectively.

If the French had launched a proper offensive into Germany while they were invading Poland, that story could've gone very differently.

globefish23 wrote:

Shahter wrote:

ROGUEDD wrote:

More or less because of WWII. But I'd say that's more the fault of the government than the military or people.

and the government falls out of the sky and has nothing to do with people. got it.

Governments are made by the political parties that best managed to draw their votes. Doesn't dictate what they do afterwards.
If your politicians turn out to be crap in a bad moment, stupid things can happen.

thank you, captain obvious.

now, what was that about french people having nothing to do with their government again?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

The French were prepared, they just weren't prepared well.

The were prepared for war along the lines wars were fought pre-WWI, not even that well in fact.
Thats unprepared.

Not really considering the Germans pretty much were the first people to use maneuver warfare properly and nobody expected them to go through the ardenes forest.

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

The French were prepared, they just weren't prepared well.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The were prepared for war along the lines wars were fought pre-WWI, not even that well in fact.
Thats unprepared.

Problem with military procurement is that the old crusty bureaucrats & generals tend to equip their military for the last war, rather than the next war.

cybargs wrote:

Not really considering the Germans pretty much were the first people to use maneuver warfare properly and nobody expected them to go through the ardenes forest.

They were most definitely not the first to use maneuver warfare.
The modern use of maneuver warfare was implemented by Napoleon, so the French really have no excuse for forgetting.
The Prussians used maneuver warfare against the French in 1870, to good effect.
The Germans attempted to use maneuver warfare at the beginning of WW-I, and failed.

No, the French let their Ego get in the way of honest military planning.

rdx-fx wrote:

And it took TWO nukes to get the Japanese to understand that concept.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Not according to the recorded history it didn't.

• 11 May 45 - Germany surrenders
• 11 Jul 45 - Potsdam Conference, call for Japan's unconditional surrender or "the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction". 
• Japan rejects the "conditions", apparently being completely unclear on the concept of unconditional surrender.
• 6 Aug 45 - Hiroshima nuked
• 9 Aug 45 - Nagasaki nuked
• 14 Aug 45 - Emperor Hirohito broadcasts surrender speech
• 2 Sep 45 - Japan formally surrenders, treaty signed on the deck of the USS Missouri

So.. which "recorded history" are you using, Dilbert?




If we had really wanted to be merciless bastards, we could've nuked the Imperial Palace first.
Or Tokyo.

The targets selected were key industrial and military locations, since the US still had Operation Downfall in mind.
They were located in large city areas, untouched by the conventional air raids, so that the weapon effects could be fully recognized.

Operation Trinity obviously didn't yield much info about weapon effects on (city) buildings, military installations, etc.
So much for not being merciless bastards...

Cybargs wrote:

globefish23 wrote:

The targets selected were key industrial and military locations, since the US still had Operation Downfall in mind.
They were located in large city areas, untouched by the conventional air raids, so that the weapon effects could be fully recognized.

Operation Trinity obviously didn't yield much info about weapon effects on (city) buildings, military installations, etc.
So much for not being merciless bastards...

Hiroshima was hardly a military target

Hiroshima was equal to San Fran of that time.
Large base's and manufacture center mixed with a large civil population.
Just where do you think the Pearl Harbour was planned?

Meh only reason USA wasn't involved was because we hadn't founded it in time.

rdx-fx wrote:

unnamednewbie wrote:

Japan was seeing what it could get out of a conditional surrender. The US wanted unconditional surrender, which it didn't want to sacrifice manpower to achieve. It took a second nuke before the emperor finally threw his hands up. Even afterwards, there were still Japanese fighting on islands around the Pacific and some who suicided rather than surrender.

Lesson: don't bomb Hawaii.

Emperor Hirohito would've probably surrendered, if his military leaders actually obeyed their Emperor honorably...

Whatever the case may be, the US was eager to keep the Soviet Union out of Japan.

rdx-fx wrote:

And it took TWO nukes to get the Japanese to understand that concept.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Not according to the recorded history it didn't.

• 11 May 45 - Germany surrenders
• 11 Jul 45 - Potsdam Conference, call for Japan's unconditional surrender or "the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction". 
• Japan rejects the "conditions", apparently being completely unclear on the concept of unconditional surrender.
• 6 Aug 45 - Hiroshima nuked
• 9 Aug 45 - Nagasaki nuked
• 14 Aug 45 - Emperor Hirohito broadcasts surrender speech
• 2 Sep 45 - Japan formally surrenders, treaty signed on the deck of the USS Missouri

So.. which "recorded history" are you using, Dilbert?

Correlation =/= Causation

I'm using the recorded history of the people who were there, and the analysts who weren't Truman apologists.

USA ended the East Asia portion of WW-II with two very large exclamation marks

The Pacific war would have occurred whether or not the war in Europe happened. Two belligerent resource hungry nations had been squaring up over the resources owned by third parties since before Hitler gained power. To blame the war with Japan on Europe is fanciful, just as it is to blame the current conflict in the ME on Islamic extremism.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-05-15 05:35:25)

afaik japan was in peace negotiations with the USSR before they got nuked?