Originally Posted by Zucchini

When we have fought, it is usually against a 3rd-rate power, or a power that has been bled out by another ally.

Oh, definitely, especially Imperial Japan, they were REALLY bled out by the time we got to them. Oh oh, and Nazi Germany, they were definitely on the way out the door when we went into Northern Africa. And the communist forces in Korea, yep, we just waited that one out. Oh wait, hold up, maybe your statement had about as much fact and thought put into it as the original subject.

It happens to be an opinion shared by my father, who fought the Japanese for 5 years, and my uncle, who fought the Nazis in France.

Originally Posted by Redneck

Oh, definitely, especially Imperial Japan, they were REALLY bled out by the time we got to them. Oh oh, and Nazi Germany, they were definitely on the way out the door when we went into Northern Africa. And the communist forces in Korea, yep, we just waited that one out. Oh wait, hold up, maybe your statement had about as much fact and thought put into it as the original subject.

Well, as far as Nazi Germany goes a case could be made for Zucchini's point, somewhat, though it's too simplistic to say that D-Day onwards was the major contribution made by the US. In fact, the greatest contribution made by the US was Lend-Lease, which without the Red Army would not have been able to defeat the Wehrmacht in the East, where the European Theatre of WW2 was decided.

As far as Imperial Japan goes the US had it all to do and it prevailed. It was a great achievement by the US as the Japanese Empire were no push-overs and certainly not "bled out by another power".

Korea was different again but the US certainly had it all to do there too.

The Japanese military was not as strong as military historians often portray it. Marines who occupied Japan expected to see a modern industrial power. What they found was a very backwards country. The modernization of Japan was superficial, and their military strength was superficial. The one word you will hear over and over at Marine reunions by actual occupiers is "backwards".

The best histories of the War in the Pacific are yet to be written as the war propaganda has yet to be rinsed out of the history. For instance, it has taken 60 years for a book debunking he strategic myths of Iwo Jima to be written. It will come out next year.

Hopefully before the Iwo Jima movie by Clint and Steve.

It wasn't the opinion of _my_ father who fought the Japanese from August 1942 until March 1945 or 2 years and 7 months.

5 years? What was your father doing? Shooting them in 1947?

Originally Posted by Redneck

I love it when I'm about to ban someone, that makes me laugh too.

Wow, you're a real funny guy. And what did I do this time. I don't see where I violated any rule. I just got sarcastic.


Sherman edit: You are not in a position to appeal for justice. You have broken forum rules so many times that I lost count. If you want to be treated nicely, you must respect the rules and staff.

Originally Posted by Zucchini

The Japanese military was not as strong as military historians often portray it. Marines who occupied Japan expected to see a modern industrial power. What they found was a very backwards country. The modernization of Japan was superficial, and their military strength was superficial. The one word you will hear over and over at Marine reunions by actual occupiers is "backwards".

The best histories of the War in the Pacific are yet to be written as the war propaganda has yet to be rinsed out of the history. For instance, it has taken 60 years for a book debunking he strategic myths of Iwo Jima to be written. It will come out next year.

Hopefully before the Iwo Jima movie by Clint and Steve.

I'm sure I can run down to the VFW and find Vet's to refute your statement from their personel expierances both in the PTO and ETO and at least one CBI. As far the Nazi and Japanese being 3rd rate. Other than that I find the Statement highly offensive to those veterans sacarifices and poorly thought out.

->"The Napoleonic Wars
-Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer." right but contrary to Hitler, Napoléon arrived at Moscow.

true, but the russians were not in moscow at that time. how many french soldiers returned to france?

While I personally am not a great fan of France, this post is just rude - and not terribly accurate either...

But I do have to say that there's nobody that can insult the French better than a Brit - must be all that history they share...

->"The Napoleonic Wars
-Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer." right but contrary to Hitler, Napoléon arrived at Moscow.

true, but the russians were not in moscow at that time. how many french soldiers returned to france?

yes the retreat was terrible. But how many german soldiers returned to Germany?

When we have fought, it is usually against a 3rd-rate power, or a power that has been bled out by another ally.

Concerning the Nazis it is true : there were about 600 000 soldiers in western Europe and North Africa, whereas for about 2,5 millions were on the Eastern front.
However this is not the case concerning the Japanese ! The US were alone (almost) to fight them !