I disagree, the Japanese were arrogant and relied on the warrior code of bushido and made a hell of a lot of stupid and idiotic mistakes that lost them a crapload of men and the war. Take the zero, it was a great fighter that relied on speed and maneuvorability. After we had figured out tactics to overcome it, it became utter crap in a one on one fight. Samething with MAGIC, we had decoded by the Battle of Midway most of the IJN's high end radio traffic and we were consistantly at the right place at the right time to destroy enemy ships. Even though there was significant evidence to show this had happened the arrogant Japanese commanders believed their code to be invincible and only ever once had the thought entered their minds that they had been compromised.
becarefull the japs will send balloon bombs to your house, they might just reach, now that were in modern times ,)
Or they may be shot down by the first redneck with a shotgun Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Okay. Under that definition, we've had several World Wars since WWII, including some going on right now. So I don't think that's right. You are going to need major powers opposing one another in combat, if you want to exclude all the ones that nobody calls "World Wars." And you're also going to need the qualifier about hostilities on multiple continents simultaneously, in order to exclude the Korean War (to name one example). Again, pretty much any significant war involving world powers affects the economies of all continents. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 did crazy things to petroleum prices, which in turn affected economies the world over.
Well, that goes to the difficulty in pinning down what it is that we're talking about. Everyone seems to think that they know what is a World War and what isn't, but nobody seems to be able to articulate it. And that's problematic. I'm personally skeptical that a useful definition of "World War" can be formulated. The term is too bound up with the geopolitics of the early 20th century when multiple European empires pretty much ran the world and were in constant military competition in multiple different continents. Geopolitics is not structured that way anymore, and the advent of things like nuclear weapons have changed the dynamics of state competition in ways that make a repeat of that sort of conflict (or even, geopolitical structure) unlikely.
Obviously, you know I was joking. That said, I agree with your assessment. While I think that another world war is entirely possible (if, say, the USA, China, EU and India somehow ended up in a war), but the pretense of nuclear weapons practically prevents that and in the off chance they didn't, well . . . the keeping of history books on such things would be utterly pointless. ~String
a definition of world war is hard to say, but i am sure most people who speak of a world war today are referring to a war that involve multiple power-full countries, that with an end result will cause hundreds of millions of deaths, and possible severe environmental consequences, on a global scale.
That's another salient difference here - even if you can dream up some geopoligical configuration that would give rise to a conflict that deserved the name "World War," what you'd get wouldn't look much at all like the previous two. It's not going to be artillery battles in central Europe or massive amphibious invasions. And so, again, I'm left wondering what relevance the category of "World War" would have to analyzing such a scenario. It reminds me a lot of the types who insist on analyzing the United States as an empire - okay, you can push and pull the definitions to get whatever categories you want, but what analytical utility do they have once you've done that? The United States doesn't function like a colonial empire, or like the Roman empire, or like the Aztec empire, so calling it by the same name doesn't inform you of anything. Which I suppose is why those sorts of analyses always come off as shallow and politicized It's the same here: I get the impression that people are less interested in meaningful analysis than in a pretense to daydream about what a massive war would entail, preferably featuring their favorite polities/technologies/etc. and including lots of chances to show off knowledge of obscure WWII trivia.
You guys, this isnt a debate on what constitutes a world war. A world war is a massive war involving DIRECT confrontation of major powers head on head battles where the powers go all in 99%.
Sure it is - one can't even pose the question in the thread title without begging the question of what constitutes a World War. To put it another way: attempting to have such a conversation without establishing a definition just amounts to a thread full of people talking past eachother. So do you consider the Korean War to be a World War?
Indeed. Any war fought with the same national vigor as WWII with modern technology, and assuming no usage of WMD's, would be a slaughter massive proportions. The national stomach for 40k body bags in one battle is non-existent. Did you know that MacArthur was being considered for the amazing rank of "General of the Armies" (six stars) for the invasion of Japan so that he could take command of the "five stars"? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ~String
That would have been a terrible idea. Not just the invasion of Japan but the putting MacArthur in charge. He was a bad strategist.
ewwww MacArthur, was an egotisticall maniac all he cared about was that he looked good, he didn't give a shit how many Allie's he had to kill to do it.
No. It would have been a great idea. What you're assuming is that the "real" strategists, would not be involved. The actual invasion was planned by--what amounted to--the joint chiefs: Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz (perhaps the greatest naval strategist in US history), General of the Army Douglas MacArthur and the Joint Chiefs of Staff—Fleet Admirals Ernest King and William D. Leahy, and Generals of the Army George Marshall and Hap Arnold. Do you really think that the potentially largest invasion in US history would be left to one man? I hope not. In fact, Nimitz's prowess as a strategic planner nearly earned him the "six star" rank, but because of the land-based nature of the attack, it had to go to MacArthur--which is a fine choice. He would oversee the operation while the a four or five star did the actual invasion planning. ~String
Well, after the war ended, nobody worked harder to make sure the Japanese got a fair deal, and nobody worked harder at rebuilding their nation. These statements--and others like them--are supported by what, exactly? In my readings, he was like every other war time general in that he thought his shit didn't stink, but he was renown by his men for caring deeply about them and fighting hard for them. He was a brilliant logistician and a great politician (two of the three "legs" of the tripod that makes a great general: logistician, politician, strategist) ~String
If there were a world war 3 the US would win and I have zero doubt about that and I will explain why later when I have more time. But it will be for the same reason why kicked Germany's and Japan's ass in WW2 once we woke up and started rolling out new soldiers and military equipment. The Russian advantage was to turn out loads and loads of soldiers and equipment to overrwelm, the enemy, the German's used state of the art technology to out damage the enemy. The US made an amazingly unique blend of the two, turning out very many units at a pretty decent quality. ie, in WW2 we started the war with less than 10 aircraft carriers, by the time the war was over we had built more than 80. Lots of people say we produced tons of units to overrwelm the enemy, we didn't, we turned out lots of units that were better trained as far as trainees fresh from training camp than any other military in the world, maybe even tying the German.
