Translate this! A WWII Related Challenge

@gamerman01

Agreed.

@barney:

@StuckTojo:

I saw “WWII” and “bomb” in the heading and thought this was a thread about the Pearl Harbor movie with Ben Affleck.   :-D

Heh heh.  :lol: It was kinda cheesy but had some good spots.

When the movie came out it generated a lot of discussion, in various history-related forums, about its historical accuracy (or lack thereof).  One commentator sarcastically noted that he had carefully checked the roundels of the aircraft that were attacking Pearl Harbor and that he had been pleased by the accuracy of the fact that they were Japanese roundels rather than British ones.

@Private:

Here is a different take that resonates for me:

I have seen it argued that both Germany and Japan* were strategically weak. Both lacked natural resources and needed access to those from elsewhere to maintain their war machines.

In the case of Japan that required secure supply lines from the East Indies, which their naval losses and strategic myopia denied them.

Germany needed to conquer territories that would secure those resources.

By contrast the allies were resource rich. Command of the seas gave access to resources from across the globe. Japan challenged US command of the Pacific for only a very short time frame. German U Boats did cause the Allies difficulties in the Atlantic for a longer period of course, but denying global resources to the UK is not the same as denying them to the USA, let alone gaining them for Germany.

Axis supremacy needed victory after victory in the face superior Allied production and manpower. The Allies only needed to deny them a sufficient proportion of those victories.

Of course, those that faced the Axis onslaught did not perceive any such “inevitable” Allied victory. And for a time those victories did keep coming …

*I include Japan in this answer because one of the reasons why Germany lost WW2 is that Japan never diverted enough allied resources away from the European theatre.

I agree with this, but that may not even fully capture all the reasons Germany lost.  In terms of just pure industrial production capacity Germany could not compete against the US, especially with the latter protected by its isolation from bombing.  I recently read an interesting book, Death Ride, that made much of Germany’s failure to develop long-range bombers, and with much of the USSR’s industry moved well East of Moscow Germany could not bomb it.  Göring apparently preferred lots of little short-range bombers to fewer and larger long-range bombers.  It also made much of the Germans’ decision to divert part of its Eastern Front ground forces to Italy leaving them under-supplied and outnumbered in Operation Citadel.  The near-impossibility of maintaining distant supply lines, despite Göring’s assurances that he could make up for it, have been discussed to death.

All-in-all, I think the reasons are so many that in retrospect it would have taken a near-miraculous perfect storm of events for Gemany to have emerged victorious.

@ishotthesherrif @supportthebomb @sugarbush69 @iamcharlie Getting ready to ambush a secret ISIS nest here in Libya with my frogman buddies… WHORA! wish us luck #letgodsortemout #ilovethesmellofISISinthemoring

Cant you even put the Emperor of Japan’s name?

Sorry, I had a mental block and couldn’t remember. I figured everyone would know who I meant.

yea, logistics are the backbone of any military. and generals will tell you “amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics”, but all told, it only takes a general to manage logistics because of the specialized nature of the military. otherwise, anyone with those kind of planning and organizational skills could do it.

… also they did not have an affective way to kill russian supply lines…the soviets did…

I’m not sure of the ground war (though the Germans were heavily outnumbered at the time and barely trying to hold their own), but the German U-Boat fleet really crippled Russia-British shipping for awhile in the Archangel area.

Best of the 20th Century

Ronald Reagan - inspirational leader, made americans proud, killed the USSR and Warsaw Pact threat, brought America back from the economic misery of the late 1960’s and 1970’s Dwight D. Eisenhower - a brilliant man who got things done FDR (War Years) - a leader when leadership was needed Richard Nixon - resignation overshadows the fact he was a good president Teddy Roosevelt - conservationist, expanded US influence in the world

Worst of the 20th Century

LBJ - Corrupt, Stupid, and Foolish…many Americans died for no reason under his leadership, the ‘Great Society’ was a complete failure. JFK - Corrupted by the Mob, Bay of Pigs failure, all flash no substance FDR (Depression Era) - Depression dragged on because of his inept policies Jimmy Carter - Wimp, Apologist, and Poor leader Herbert Hoover - Couldn’t breech the floodgates of the Depression

Whoever the “Jimmy Carter” fan is, is a complete moron. I don’t even have to explain the reasons why he was perhaps the least effective leader this country has ever had.