| Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
 Posted: Fri, 26th Sep 2008 23:08 Post subject: WW2 era Japan versus 1970s Vietnam, who would win a war? |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Sep 2008 23:11 Post subject: |
|
|
Japan. They'd just depopulate the country and be done with it.
Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Sep 2008 23:48 Post subject: |
|
|
| tainted4ever wrote: | | Japan. They'd just depopulate the country and be done with it. |
Wrong. Japan in WW2 has no interest in killing civilians. That wasn't their style.
I would say the war would be the same outcome as it did in reality only I think Japan would pull out sooner.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 00:05 Post subject: |
|
|
| NuclearShadow wrote: |
Wrong. Japan in WW2 has no interest in killing civilians. That wasn't their style.
I would say the war would be the same outcome as it did in reality only I think Japan would pull out sooner. |
WTF!
Are you serious?
Never heard of a little place called Nanking? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 00:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| Jenni wrote: | | NuclearShadow wrote: |
Wrong. Japan in WW2 has no interest in killing civilians. That wasn't their style.
I would say the war would be the same outcome as it did in reality only I think Japan would pull out sooner. |
WTF!
Are you serious?
Never heard of a little place called Nanking? |
lol that's what I was thinking. Sorry Nuclear, but I think you're dead wrong.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 00:18 Post subject: |
|
|
No thinking about it tainted. They reckon it's between 6 and 10 million civilians killed by the Japanese.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 00:20 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mortibus wrote: | WW2
US Vs USSR
now that's more interesting  |
No contest. The Russians weren't worried about losing men. The war in the West was a sideshow compared to the East.
| tainted4ever wrote: | | We had nukes back then. Everyone else didn't |
You had 2 nukes and they were pretty low powered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 00:36 Post subject: |
|
|
Pfft! Excuses, excuses.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 00:43 Post subject: |
|
|
Do you want me to nuke you?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 00:49 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 01:46 Post subject: |
|
|
i d also say the japanese would win. And thats not taking godzilla into account 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 07:28 Post subject: |
|
|
Japan would win, easily. One of the best disciplined armies in the world at the time.
But fuck if I would want to be in one of their prisoner-camps.
I also think fisk should be unbanned.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 07:46 Post subject: |
|
|
Another misguided post. The Japanese army were not disciplined at all. They went on rampages even when it was against orders. As far as I'm concerned it got an innocent man hung because he was blamed for the conduct of his men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomoyuki_Yamashita
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 09:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| Jenni wrote: | Another misguided post. The Japanese army were not disciplined at all. They went on rampages even when it was against orders. As far as I'm concerned it got an innocent man hung because he was blamed for the conduct of his men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomoyuki_Yamashita |
Wasn't disciplined? The japanese army was considered more disciplined than the german army by german officers even. The only thing that outmatched it's discipline was it's fanaticism. Particularly early in the war when it was well-supplied it outperformed most things thrown at it, and it is shown by it's accomplishments: they controlled large territories that expanded to the border of India in the West and New Guinea in the South within six months.
Some even consider the japanese light infantrymen the best in the entire war because of their "incredible devotion to duty, high morale, absolute refusal to surrender and for all deadly enemies".
I've read plenty of books on the IJA, so I don't have many Internet-sources, but you're out of your water here again Jenni.
edit, here's one:
http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaIJAfront.htm
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 10:14 Post subject: |
|
|
Out of my water again lol I better stop that.
The Japanese military suffered from terrible discipline. High moral. LOL! another misnomer. Refusal to surrender diminished as the war progressed. Although because of the Bushido code surrenders were unexpected.
Yeah sure they took land and vast quantities of it. But they went for a lightening war, take large tracts and don't protect or even think about supply lines. Ultimately that will be your weakness. Whereas the Allies planned for a slow war, taking what they could manage whilst attacking enemy supply and logistics.
If you want a book on the real japanese military then read "A Soldier Must Hang" It goes into great detail about the failings of the men under Yamashita's command.
I mean it's even shown in the more modern films on the subject. Letters from Iwo Jima shows the Officers were overly brutal and could only maintain the ranks from the barrel of a gun.
A fact that was real.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 10:52 Post subject: |
|
|
| Jenni wrote: | | Out of my water again lol I better stop that. |
Yes, please do.
| Quote: |
The Japanese military suffered from terrible discipline. High moral. LOL! another misnomer. |
Just saying this doesn't make it so, you have nothing to backup your claims.
| Quote: |
Refusal to surrender diminished as the war progressed. Although because of the Bushido code surrenders were unexpected. |
Well by the end of '44 they were losing. The allies successfully eliminated all supplies to their army, which was when their government was in discussions with Russia to capitulate, Hirohito had said: "I want peace" to them, but could not do so without proper justification in late '44 (fearing losing his face).
source: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0870114220/?tag=annals
| Quote: |
Yeah sure they took land and vast quantities of it. But they went for a lightening war, take large tracts and don't protect or even think about supply lines. Ultimately that will be your weakness. Whereas the Allies planned for a slow war, taking what they could manage whilst attacking enemy supply and logistics. |
Yes, there is no doubt that the Japanese army did not think long-term, their tactics were very aggressive and the strategy was to overwhelm rather than support. It is however no small feat done, and your attempt at denying it falls short because of historical evidence supporting the contrary. Japanese leadership expected the allies to be busy in the west, but German strategy failed as well, which is good for us. No way would we have been able to free up resources to fight in the Pacific had the Germans not decided to fight a war on two fronts (without oil).
| Quote: |
If you want a book on the real japanese military then read "A Soldier Must Hang" It goes into great detail about the failings of the men under Yamashita's command. |
There are plenty of books on the subject, which one is "real" and which is not is doubtfully an argument we will persist on disagreeing about.
| Quote: |
I mean it's even shown in the more modern films on the subject. Letters from Iwo Jima shows the Officers were overly brutal and could only maintain the ranks from the barrel of a gun.
A fact that was real. |
You use Hollywood to support your view on history, that in and of itself is enough to show the weakness in your argument. But lets entertain the story that these movies are true, they still depict the later stages in the war. After the Japanese themselves knew their logistics were cut, and they were fighting on their own soil. This was February 1945, and long after the firebombings (that did more damage than the atomic bombs). Of course you would expect the army to be demoralized at a stage like this.
But when we say the IJA of WW2, do we mean the army at the brink of defeat, or the army at the verge of victory? Or perhaps somewhere in-between? How about 1942? Look at the battles fought, the incredible victories of Japanese aerial assaults against eg. British naval targets (the Prince of Wales for example). This wasn't an undisciplined army, and hardly was it of low morale.
I suppose you would say the German army was of low discipline and morale too, judging by the latter stages of the war when it had 15-year olds fighting at the "front-lines".
'Tis clear that history is written by the victors. But it is folly to take such stories to heart.
ps. Have you seen the japanese movie: Yamato?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 11:03 Post subject: |
|
|
Well I'm not using Hollywood to support my argument. I'm merely point out that shock horror they do sometimes make actually correct films from time to time.
But if you want cold hard facts then all you have to do is ask:
This is a good one, makes interesting reading if you're into this stuff. This is a declassified document on the subject I'm trying to educate you in.
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA438134
Anyway I'm away out. It's a beautiful day today and I've got better things to do than argue with amateur historians.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 11:34 Post subject: |
|
|
| Jenni wrote: | | Well I'm not using Hollywood to support my argument. I'm merely point out that shock horror they do sometimes make actually correct films from time to time. |
"I mean it's even shown in the more modern films on the subject. Letters from Iwo Jima shows the Officers were overly brutal and could only maintain the ranks from the barrel of a gun. A fact that was real."
Your own words. Come now - revising your own "arguments" is fine, but come on. I agree that Eastwood's movie aren't nearly as skewed as Band of GO USA or Saving America Won World War 2 Ryan. But they are still dramatized versions made to entertain.
Oh, you did a google for "Japanese Military Discipline" too? Excellent. Do you always use the allies reports to define your view of history? A bit one-sided maybe? Anyways; here's a quote from the report you specified (bare in mind Japanese Army at this time consisted of about 1,7 million men).
"In the entire army during the period from January to the-end,.of July
1942, crimes against superior officers known to or handled by the
military police (insubordination, violence against a superior officer,
killing, wounding, and insults) numbered 126, involving 152 persons."
126 incidents involving 152 out of 1,7 million men in the entire Army. During a 7 month period. And you draw (like the U.S. Army at the time) the conclusion that the entire army is undisciplined?
Look at the graph on page 4.
"Crimes Against Superior Officers in the Entire Army*"
The highest number of such actions in the entire army was in 1938 (prior to WW2), just after the Nanking-incident, and at that time the number of assaults on superior officers was 317.
But wait, there's more. On page 5, in the entire scope of 1937-1942 there were 2 cases of insubordination and you have the audacity to call it an undisciplined army?
Graphs continue on several pages, about group crimes conducted, and never does it rise above 151 men involved in an entire year throughout the report (1937-1942).
On page 20 you have a complete list of offenses, and their cause. The biggest reason a subordinate was reported (35 people out of 1,7 million in the entire army) listed "Anger at being cautioned or reprimanded".
In the 7 month period, there were a total of 85 cases of soldiers being reprimanded for being under the influence of alcohol. In the entire army.
Continued on page 33, in the entire course of 1937-1942, 99 people were reported to have changed allegiance. Turning communists.
How you can, based on this draw such preposterous conclusions is beyond me. Perhaps you have to be a professional Historian to accomplish such feats.
But I really doubt you even bothered reading the document you linked, and only bothered reading the summary.
Quite an accomplishment Jenni, no doubt would I have been banned for calling you out under other circumstances.
| Quote: |
Anyway I'm away out. It's a beautiful day today and I've got better things to do than argue with amateur historians. |
Agreed, I am an amateur. But since you have such quality of pedagogy, perhaps you could further educate me in how incidents in the hundreds compared to the total population which is in the millions can make you draw the conclusions you professional historians do.
Enjoy the sun, clearly you devote far much more time to it than you do reading.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 11:52 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 12:08 Post subject: |
|
|
I guess discipline would have happened pretty much organically from what I know of their culture at the time...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 12:16 Post subject: |
|
|
Well like you most of my material is in reference form. Thats why I used a simple google search.
But I left out one very important fact. Something I knew you'd fall into.
Those are crimes against fellow officers. I've not mentioned crimes against civilians.
You'll see that those are a lot higher.
As I said, read a soldier must hang.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 12:26 Post subject: |
|
|
I thought you were getting out?
You are one funny individual, Jenni.
I also think fisk should be unbanned.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 12:34 Post subject: |
|
|
I was. My friend wasn't in. I'm waiting for him to come to over.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Sep 2008 14:55 Post subject: |
|
|
it seems that dominae did his homework, and on top of everything that was just argued, there's only one thing I would like to add in order to conclude something that dominae forgot to mention.
The IJA was in fact and without a doubt one of the most disciplined armies that ever existed, even until today, his only weakness was something very simple, the Japanese population had (and some still have) a strong conviction that they are a race of superior intelligence and they were the nation choose by Amaterasu (Sun God) to rule the world, on top of that, every single member of the IJA, and even every single civilian didn't knew the meaning of forfeiture, it's obvious there were exceptions as mentioned above, but the truth is the great percentage of the population had this perspective, they were an almost perfect army, their only weakness was their arrogance of superiority (much like the Germans).
And what I liked to add is this, the IJA fought for several years and had a great number of victories, when the allied army destroyed Japans supplies and started closing in on Japan's mainland, and the IJA started to suffer heavy loses, they still wouldn't stop fighting, and by the end of July 1945, even tough they have almost lost the war, it took 2 nuclear attacks (and the very real possibility of a third) for the Emperor to surrender, and this surrender was against the will of most of IJA commanders, some of them even continued fighting after the surrender.
Despite the moral debate about the necessity of the bombs, the truth is that if they weren't used WW2 wouldn't end in 1945, probably not even close to it.
this was the kind of army Japan had, one can argue about the atrocities the Japanese army inflicted during WW2, but to question the organization and skill and discipline of their army is not a matter of diiscussion.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 3 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
