the defeats in Manchuria in 1938 already stopped that.
There were 2 directions of military thought for the Japanese in hte 1930’s - the “Strike North” camp was mostly army, the “Strike South” camp mostly navy.
The Strike north camp was discredited by defeat, and so the Navy got to decide how Japan would proceed, and they had no interest in a continental land war with the USSR.
the rest, as they say, is history.
Indeed.
I would like to counter this by saying that the delegation that Stalin sent to Chongqing( capital of China during ww2) has the mission of tying Japan up. Again, we should welcome different opinions, so …. Thanks for agreeing with me there
That’s a gross oversimplification. Whilst Rommel had some success in Africa, he also like any other military leader had both luck and extremely competent sub-commanders who could carry his “intent” to a successful outcome. The British on the other hand had a completely different set of problems to wrestle with amongst which fighting Rommel was only a part of the problem.
The reason the French and Italians were “less effective” under certain conditions that perhaps the German and British armies is that they were doctrinally backward. Their leadership across all levels applied this doctrine which effectively made for an inferior decision cycle and in many cases resulted in troops being either unsupported with the right capability mix at the time of an engagement or equally logistically dislocated and similarly unable exert effective combat effects in a given encounter. Whilst both the Germans and British suffered from the same issues, since both sides lost battles against the French and Italians respectively, their doctrines were able to overcome local setbacks against the backdrop of broader campaigns.
That’s a nice summary.
Essentially both China and the Soviet union ultimately traded space for time. In both cases the course of the war more broadly allowed each to effectively absorb the blows against them, re-org/re-group all be it with support of the other powers that played the enemy of my enemy is my friend card, and executed various supporting effects all be it with attached agendas that ultimately culminated in WWII ending as it did.
when did the French beat anyone in WW2 and the French being part of any allied or axis army does not count unless
they were the majority of the force, had a leadership role, or proportional contributed greater to the victory
Point of note, the Germans were not Fascists, the Italians were. The Germans were Nazis, and the Soviet propaganda purposely mislabelled them because it was easier to lump the Germans and Italians into that bucket, since the Italians were also present on the Eastern Front. Ironically many aspects of Nazism were not that far removed from the Soviet implementation of Communism, which is why the various sources tend to oscilate between the descriptions of what the Soviet propaganda ultimately labelled the Germans as - eg: Fascists, Hiterites etc, but much less frequently as actual Nazis as that definition for the more educated in the Soviet ranks cut rather close to the bone. This is why both Hitler and Stalin went to great lengths to differentiate their brands of socialism as somehow being different and “better” to their respective populations, but that’s a discussion for a different forum.
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.
I don’t mean the war i mean a battle or engagement something bigger than a firefight
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Nazism is local case of Fascism. And both of them don’t have nothing common with soviets socialism.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.