Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if: Western Allies vs Russia- 1945

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Goatboy
    replied
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    goatboy,

    the japanese-american relationship today has been the closest it's ever been. i doubt it will get much closer. shinzo abe's isn't quite as fixated on america as koizumu was- his first trip as PM was to south korea.
    Yup, as you say, the US-Japanese relationship hasn't ever been closer. Also, I agree, I don't necessarily see us "getting closer still" without something "big" happening in East Asia. Certainly military cooperation between the US and Japan is increasing still, with joint research on a viable missile defence system, and with Japan now considering Taiwan (or at the very very least the Japanese islands stretching from Okinawa to very near it) part of Japan's active security.


    Abe probably knows he's not going to be as buddy buddy with Bush as Koizumu (who's probably the hippest, coolest PM anywhere -- simply by being "the worlds biggest Elvis fan" lol).

    Nonetheless, I think it's clear that something as mundane as the " passage of time" has changed Japanese opinion, without any influence from the outside at all. It's always that way.


    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    the japanese public and bureaucratic elite are demanding that he fix relationships with the rest of east asia, so that's what he's going to do. in south korea, there's already an uneasy feeling that the japanese-american relationship is TOO close for their comfort.
    The Japanese public are correct in this regard I think. I hope the Chinese and South Korean public display as much wisdom -- I doubt it frankly. Of course public opinion doesn't necessarily dictate policy.

    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    now, i doubt abe will really come through and address the main difficulties in the SK-japan relationship, namely yasukuni and dokdo, so my guess is that he will either try to make weak moves towards bringing the SK's closer to japan or at least rhetorically distance himself somewhat from the americans.
    I don't see the SK-Japanese relationship improving all that much either. But they're not enemies at least -- more like glowering peers.
    Last edited by Goatboy; 21 Oct 06,, 19:01.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    goatboy,

    I agree, I wish Japan had gotten off its ass and took more initiative -- hopefully the new Japanese prime minister will move things in the right direction.
    the japanese-american relationship today has been the closest it's ever been. i doubt it will get much closer. shinzo abe's isn't quite as fixated on america as koizumu was- his first trip as PM was to south korea.

    the japanese public and bureaucratic elite are demanding that he fix relationships with the rest of east asia, so that's what he's going to do. in south korea, there's already an uneasy feeling that the japanese-american relationship is TOO close for their comfort.

    now, i doubt abe will really come through and address the main difficulties in the SK-japan relationship, namely yasukuni and dokdo, so my guess is that he will either try to make weak moves towards bringing the SK's closer to japan or at least rhetorically distance himself somewhat from the americans.

    Leave a comment:


  • leib10
    replied
    They're not going to budge for anybody except themselves. They've had their fill of militarism (as have the Germans, for the most part) and they're trying to live past that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    You've stated that Japan is among the US's most powerful and closest ally. I submit that they are nothing of the kind. A good trading partner but ally is the wrong word.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 21 Oct 06,, 09:28.

    Leave a comment:


  • Goatboy
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post


    Germany and Japan doesn't even come close to the ABCA (American, British, Canadian, Australian) friendship. Even when we said no, we said yes. You do know that Canada was the 4th largest force contributor to OIF despites Ottawa's choice of staying out. The Naval task groups providing flank protections were officially assigned to OEF but were operating under CENTCOM who used them as they pleased.

    It took severe arm twisting to get Japan to send in one construction battalion for one tour. British and Canadian troops are dying in the field.

    Close is relative but Japan isn't on par.
    Respectfully, I did say "East Asia", not England, Australia or Canada. Doesn't Japan provide something which Canada, Australia or England can't? strategic location at least? doesn't matter. I agree, I wish Japan had gotten off its ass and took more initiative -- hopefully the new Japanese prime minister will move things in the right direction.

    I don't think we can dismiss the importance of having the second largest economic power on the planet as our ally. Add Australia, Canada and the UK together and they'll approximately equal Japan's GDP. Yes I'm aware that the UK actually invests more the US than anyone else (including Japan or China), or that Canada is a larger trading partner than Japan, but still, are there other major countries in East Asia so determined to be our ally? I can't think of any. And with that, I bid goodnight lol, goat's gotta crash...

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
    Japan, and its various islands, represent the most important "unsinkable aircraft carrier" in the region does it not?
    And you do recalled what Andropov said about that, don't you?

    Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
    We should thank our lucky stars Japan and the United States see eye to eye far more often than literally ANY country in East Asia.
    You ever noticed that the US's 3 closest allies in the region, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan don't have a military alliance with each other? In fact, the US recently got Japan to agree to help out in case of a PRC attack on Taiwan. Taipei's answer was no. Not even a no, thank you. Just a no.

    Germany and Japan doesn't even come close to the ABCA (American, British, Canadian, Australian) friendship. Even when we said no, we said yes. You do know that Canada was the 4th largest force contributor to OIF despites Ottawa's choice of staying out. The Naval task groups providing flank protections were officially assigned to OEF but were operating under CENTCOM who used them as they pleased.

    It took severe arm twisting to get Japan to send in one construction battalion for one tour. British and Canadian troops are dying in the field.

    Close is relative but Japan isn't on par.

    Leave a comment:


  • Goatboy
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Well, the French did far more than the Germans. And what has Japan done?
    Well, to keep it simple, I'll talk about Japan.

    Japan and America have benefited ENORMOUSLY from trade with each other over the decades -- Japan and America are extremely close allies are they not? Japan is still Asia's economic giant in many/perhaps most respects, despite the rise of China (although that may change in the coming decades). Japan, and its various islands, represent the most important "unsinkable aircraft carrier" in the region does it not?

    I'm not one to criticize Japan's historic reluctance (since '45) to build up its military, even though America criticized the hell out of Japan for its "checkbook diplomacy" policy in 1991. I'd like Japan to do more, and I think it should, but that doesn't detract from how important Japan is. We should thank our lucky stars Japan and the United States see eye to eye far more often than literally ANY country in East Asia.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
    No they don't, and I'm glad they don't -- they're among our most powerful and closest allies.
    Well, the French did far more than the Germans. And what has Japan done?

    Leave a comment:


  • Goatboy
    replied
    Originally posted by M21Sniper View Post
    Just as the Japanese and Germans hate us with a burning passion today for our destruction of virtually ALL of their respective cities?

    I ask you, do the German people hate us for WWII? Do the Japanese people? Do the Italian people?
    .

    No they don't, and I'm glad they don't -- they're among our most powerful and closest allies. And I love both countries for that (among other reasons -- and yes I know you don't like Japanese) But a one-sided nuclear war, where many cities are obliterated in the USSR, but none in the US will DEFINITELY be a sore point for survivors in the USSR.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    I thought it was

    1) Do onto others as you would they onto you.
    2) Do it 1st.
    That works too i guess. ;)

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
    I agree. At that time, had we gotten into a nuclear confrontation with Russia, they would have fared much worse. Nonetheless, nobody wanted to get into a nuke fight. The concept of M.A.D. hadn't been conceived in it's irrefutable glory yet yes, but the "fear" of atomic warfare dominated political discussion.


    We had the bombers and the devices to destroy the Soviet Union as a viable functioning society then yes. We certainly would NOT have been thought of in Russia, and in other Warsaw Pact countries as "the guys who freed us from Tyranny" had we annhiliated Kiev, Moscow, Leningrad, Warsaw, Bucharest etc, in the interest of defeating the USSR however, -- especially had American cities been largely spared from nuclear destruction.

    Russians are well aware of the concept of tyranny, despite any acquiescence to it. I would guarantee a festering hatred of all things American had all of Russia's major cities been destroyed.
    Just as the Japanese and Germans hate us with a burning passion today for our destruction of virtually ALL of their respective cities?

    I ask you, do the German people hate us for WWII? Do the Japanese people? Do the Italian people?

    Hardly.

    As for China, one did not need to enter China to anhillate Chinese, there were huge quantities of them in Korea. We simply needed to kill everyone they sent until they sent no more of their own accord, or because there were none left to send.

    That would've been a total victory.

    Finally, wrt the difference between killing a prisoner or killing an innocent civvie from 30k feet with bombs, no, i dont really see a difference.

    Both are as morally reprehensible as they are effective.

    If you'd need to give them a little show-trial to make you feel better, eh, whatever. If you execute them with a trial it's the same thing anyway, cause they're just as dead.
    Last edited by Bill; 18 Oct 06,, 16:30.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by M21Sniper View Post
    THE FOLLOWING ARE THE RULES OF THE JUNGLE:




    ----------------
    I thought it was

    1) Do onto others as you would they onto you.
    2) Do it 1st.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ironduke
    replied
    I ask you, did Rome have any more problems from Carthage after they razed it to the ground and sewed the soil with salt?
    They didn't sew the soil with salt... at the time salt was worth its weight in gold :)

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
    I'm not ignoring history, I might have not been clear on my point however. When I said "BUT once German soldiers are captured, AND once German civilians are behind American lines, they're no longer part of the war, and hence are protected from being slaughtered." I meant theoretically, legally -- like I was reading from a military code of conduct book or something. And of course that was exactly America's official policy. If America exterminated POWs, and German civilians, I doubt many Germans would be rushing toward US lines.
    No, you're still ignoring the history. We were not the ones mistreating Germans behind our lines. The Soviets were ... and we didn't do a damn thing to stop them. Hell, we even encouraged them, allowing Stalin to goto Berlin while we sat back.

    Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
    I can see MacArthur's motivation for following up on the enormous success of Inchon (more brilliant perhaps than anything he did in WW2), and maintaining the inevitable rout of the retreating NK army past the 38th. Political considerations were ignored unfortunately. A greater understanding of Chinese "thinking" was sorely lacking by US command.

    In hindsight, he should have stopped at the 38th I guess, but if you had asked me that same question in 1950, I would have responded differently. Hindsight has 20/20 vision which is what makes historical "what if" scenarios so interesting I think.
    I meant, he should have taken on the Chinese instead of leading the longest retreat in USArmy history. Once that happenned, we were no longer interested in "go Catharging" Korea, we were thinking of "go Carthaging Europe." Korea had become a side show at that point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Goatboy
    replied
    Originally posted by M21Sniper View Post
    To be quite honest, i dont think what ive been saying has really sunk in at all.
    To be quite honest, I don't think what I've been saying has "sunk in" either :P

    Originally posted by M21Sniper View Post
    Our morality is the reason that the DPRK is in power today. They are the reason that Saddam was not toppled in 1991. They are the reason we have been so politically limited and inneffective in the GWoT.
    I think the fact that China borders North Korea might be another reason why we were reluctant to attack. There's an awful lot of history there.


    Originally posted by M21Sniper View Post
    PS: If we did not execute German civilians, what was Dresden? It was an abject lesson in the cost of resistance and collaboration for all the people of the world to see. Sure it was a legitimate target, but that in no way minimizes the psychological effect of firebombing a major first world city to the ground with incendiaries.
    What I'm commenting on is the fact that you've stated that you see no difference between killing civilians during strategic bombing campaigns, and slaughtering them after they're behind American lines. Here's a quote from you regarding this topic: "It's the same damned thing as far as im concerned."
    No it's not the same thing, it's not the same thing at all and never has been. I'm desperately trying to distinguish the difference here, between these two catastrophically different situations. Given a refusal to distinguish between these two COMPLETELY different topics, it's hard to make my point.
    Originally posted by M21Sniper View Post

    We "went Carthage" on Dresden. We should've went carthage during Korea- we DID go Carthage on Korea for a while, and no, that should not have prevented us from advancing in a disciplined fashion and preparing defenses to blunt(or highly minimize) the impending PRC attack that incessant intel reports warned of. Reports that MacArthur flatly ignored or denied. It was the entry of the Chinese into the war that seemed to break our will to endure on to total victory...an early test of the cold war that we failed quite convincingly.
    Total victory? An invasion of China and Vladivostok? What form does your version of "total war" consist of regarding the Korean War? What would have been your recommendation had you been in command?
    Originally posted by M21Sniper View Post
    North Korea was the perfect place to anhillate the Chinese, and we failed to ever seriously commit to the goal in any truly major way. Victory in Korea was really a national goal, as it should have been.
    To "annhiliate" the Chinese, you have to invade Manchuria, and most likely the rest of the Middle Kingdom as well. Actually, you'd have to annhiliate the Soviet "expeditionary" air force, along with quite a lot of Soviet Siberian military infrastructure.

    Originally posted by M21Sniper View Post
    And to be quite honest, in 1950, it would've been EXTREMELY unwise for the Soviets to get into a nuke trading contest with the US. Their delivery capabilities at that time WRT CONUS were quite(some would even say extremely) limited. Europe however...
    I agree. At that time, had we gotten into a nuclear confrontation with Russia, they would have fared much worse. Nonetheless, nobody wanted to get into a nuke fight. The concept of M.A.D. hadn't been conceived in it's irrefutable glory yet yes, but the "fear" of atomic warfare dominated political discussion.

    Originally posted by M21Sniper View Post
    Conversely, the US had the devices and the bombers to remove the Soviet Union from the map. In the end, 10s of millions would've been saved, and hundreds of millions freed from tyranny.
    We had the bombers and the devices to destroy the Soviet Union as a viable functioning society then yes. We certainly would NOT have been thought of in Russia, and in other Warsaw Pact countries as "the guys who freed us from Tyranny" had we annhiliated Kiev, Moscow, Leningrad, Warsaw, Bucharest etc, in the interest of defeating the USSR however, -- especially had American cities been largely spared from nuclear destruction.

    Russians are well aware of the concept of tyranny, despite any acquiescence to it. I would guarantee a festering hatred of all things American had all of Russia's major cities been destroyed.

    Originally posted by M21Sniper View Post
    I think had the US pushed the Issue the Reds would've wisely backed down as they did during the Cuban missile crisis. Because even that late into the Cold war they still could not possibly match the US ability to DELIVER massive quantities of reasonably accurate and reliable warheads. Which was sort of the whole point behind them basing them in Cuba to begin with.
    A "behind the scenes" agreement seemed like a reasonable course of action to solve that Crisis. I salute JFK for his conduct. He knew when to stand firm, and when to be diplomatic -- for the Cuban Missile Crisis hadn't yet boiled over into "Total War".
    Last edited by Goatboy; 18 Oct 06,, 10:09.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X