Teach me history and compassion

[Raf1307]

It depends on what you mean “beat” and the associated context. If by beat you mean ultimately won, then clearly they did not win the 1940 French campaign, but ultimately fractured their country into an occupied and Vichy zone. If by beat, you meant won engagements, then there are plenty of battles where the Germans were forced to alter their main effort due to effective French resistance. The issue as to who ultimately won, returns back to the question of doctrine, and which side was able to exercise a faster decision cycle, or as in the case of the early German troops exercise local initiative to take advantage of fortuitous circumstances.

[Kriegerfaust007]

@Raf1307

then there are plenty of battles where the Germans were forced to alter their main effort due to effective French resistance

I don’t mean the war i mean a battle or engagement something bigger than a firefight

[Ron_McKracker]

They kept 38 IJA infantry divisions from being able to bolster defenses on their islands. This was done with a constant flow of support from Allied countries of course.

[Raf1307]

I’'d have to reach for some books on my 1940 campaign shelf, there were some battles that stand out, particularly the defence of the Dunkirk salient come to mind (how do you think the allies were able to evacuate around 200K British and 140K French soldiers?) , or perhaps the counter stroke at Arras. It’s a Saturday morning here in Oz so I’m feeling a bit lazy, but you could potentially do some internet research on the French 1940 campaign if you’re really interested.

[Knyaz_Iaroslav]

@Adamnpee

The French nation had a very brave resistance and partisans.

Yea, they brave fighting for fuhrer. (Resistance and partisans in France “overrated”. Amount of them was lower than this ones who fight on german side.)

[robihr]

@Ron_McKracker

They kept 38 IJA infantry divisions from being able to bolster defenses on their islands.

japanese lost not cause of lack of men on islands, but cause of insufficient supplies.

it is estimated that 80% out of 500 thousand japanese that died on philippines died cause of starvation or illnesses related to starvation.

@robihr

According to data from Japan’s Ministry of Health and Welfare, 3.1 million people were lost in the war, of which 2.3 million were military personnel. Many researchers point out that more than half of the military personnel deaths were due to starvation, or disease deaths mainly caused by malnutrition.

Especially after 1944, the combat situation of the Japanese army was characterized by the huge amount of incomplete starvation caused by the interruption of supply and the lack of locally available food. In addition to starvation deaths caused by complete starvation, malnutrition caused by incomplete starvation depleted physical strength and reduced resistance to disease, resulting in a large number of deaths from malaria, amoebic dysentery, dengue fever, and so on, which especially widespread in tropical regions.

On the Chinese mainland, there were 455,700 war dead since the start of the Sino-Japanese War. According to the study by Prof. Akira Fujiwara, at Hitotsubashi University, half of them died of diseases such like malaria, dysentery, and beriberi caused by malnutrition, or died of starvation. In the Philippines, by the way, the number is 500,000, and it is estimates that 80% of these deaths were due to starvation or diseases malnutrition-related. In the Philippines, the U.S. military also quickly fell into a state of starvation in the early stages of the war.

[Knyaz_Iaroslav]

Nazism is local case of Fascism. And both of them don’t have nothing common with soviets socialism.

[Ron_McKracker]

@robihr

japanese lost not cause of lack of men on islands, but cause of insufficient supplies.

I wasn’t talking about why they lost the war. I was saying that the Chinese kept 38 IJA Infantry Divisions locked in combat, meaning that there was less manpower to defend the islands. I was explaining how the Chinese contributed to winning the war in the Pacific.

[Raf1307]

Like I said, there are significant history sources available to us here in “the west” that will disagree with your assessment - Nazism and Fascism are completely different in their implementation of socialism, most significanly around the controversial inherent nationalism and its consequences within the Nazi ideology. This is quite clearly delineated by both primary and secondary sources. The key point remains this is not a discussion for this forum.
Equally this is not to equivocate that Communism was the same as Nazism, they were clearly different ideological interpretations of socialism as well.

[robihr]

@Knyaz_Iaroslav

And both of them don’t have nothing common with soviets socialism.

Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism

[Raf1307]

Wikipedia is a rubbish history source at best, and misleading in many cases where there are actual historical facts to be considered. Its good enough for some basic things, but discussing ideology differences is not one of them. The title is a case in point there was/is no such thing as Stalinism, its just some made up stuff by whoever wrote that article.

[Kriegerfaust007]

@Ron_McKracker

I wasn’t talking about why they lost the war. I was saying that the Chinese kept 38 IJA Infantry Divisions locked in combat, meaning that there was less manpower to defend the islands. I was explaining how the Chinese contributed to winning the war in the Pacific.

i never said they did not i a simply asking people to prove there contribution was equal to US UK USSR, no one has done so

WW2 had major allied powers UK US USSR
moderate power China, France, Finland
back when USSR was an axis power
how Allied with Germany invading Poland
and minor powers

[Ron_McKracker]

@Knyaz_Iaroslav

Nazism is local case of Fascism.

In National Socialism, the government is supposed to serve the citizen and make him equal to others in society. In Fascism, the citizen serves the government because, without the government, he is nothing.

They are not the same.

[Raf1307]

That’s not correct. I am happy to link you a good historical source on this subject in DMs but if we go down this route the mods will shut down the thread.

[robihr]

@Ron_McKracker

I was saying that the Chinese kept 38 IJA Infantry Divisions locked in combat, meaning that there was less manpower to defend the islands. I was explaining how the Chinese contributed to winning the war in the Pacific.

if anything more manpower on islands would just lead to faster collapse of the islands cause of lack of supplies. for manpower to matter they would have needed to have at least partial naval control and good logistical network. japan had problem even supplying “reduced” number of soldiers.

[Ron_McKracker]

@robihr

if anything more manpower on islands would just lead to faster collapse of the islands cause of lack of supplies.

So would it be easier for the Americans to take Iwo Jima, Peleliu, Saipan, and Okinawa with an extra 20,000 Japanese soldiers or not?

[Kriegerfaust007]

Okinawa
~76,000+ Japanese soldiers
~40,000+ Okinawan conscripts[5]
Peleliu
10,000
17 tanks[2]
Saipan
Army: 25,469
Navy: 6,160
Total: 31,629[2]
Iowa Jima

• 20,933[2]
• (13,586 Army, 7,347 Navy)

i call + 20,000 shenanigans on all but Okinawa
Iwo Jima 66% not likely
Peleliu 300% no
Saipan 100% far fetched
Okinawa 15% increase yep could happen

so do you mean 20k per island or total if total not much if per island increasingly unlikely

also could you please i would love to see WW2 pacific hunger games

[Ron_McKracker]

@Kriegerfaust007

so do you mean 20k per island or total if total not much if per island increasingly unlikely

500,000- 600,000 IJA soldiers were held up in China. If they weren’t held up in China, they would’ve been spread out into the islands to kill as many Americans as possible and force them to fight a War of Attrition.

[Kriegerfaust007]

of course, after you minus those killed by disease, famine and sent to the bottom by submarines. You then have a JP Navy unable to supple them, support them with air or naval cover. Japan could barley support the soldiers they had converting crucial warships into transports. So again the us navy would have sent tickets if they could have.

The inability to provide consistent friendly air cover around Guadalcanal meant Japanese forces had difficulty supplying ground troops on Guadalcanal, primarily because cargo and troop ships were too easily bombed and sunk by American aircraft based on the island.Jan 26, 2023

[

"Reduced to Starvation”: The Japanese Evacuation of …

[image]
dodlive.mil
https://usnhistory.navylive.dodlive.mil › Recent
](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjMp-Koit2GAxWwGFkFHddWCLwQFnoECBEQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fusnhistory.navylive.dodlive.mil%2FRecent%2FArticle-View%2FArticle%2F3278421%2Freduced-to-starvation-the-japanese-evacuation-of-guadalcanal-january-february-1%2F%23%3A~%3Atext%3DThe%2520inability%2520to%2520provide%2520consistent%2Caircraft%2520based%2520on%2520the%2520island.&usg=AOvVaw2EVoDi_7c5fJiCSfOURKqf&opi=89978449)

[robihr]

@Raf1307

The title is a case in point there was/is no such thing as Stalinism,

cause you dont like wikipedia:

Stalinism | Definition, Facts, & Legacy

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/stalinism

Definition of STALINISM

Stalinism

https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34342/chapter-abstract/328429449?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Stalinism, 1928–1940 (Chapter 7) - The Cambridge History of Russia

Stalinism: Russian and Western Views at the Turn of the Millenium