The Battle of Midway was the Turning Point of WWII

Discussion in 'History' started by Buffalo Roam, May 9, 2010.

  1. flakeyairportchunks Registered Senior Member

    I'm not saying that Germany did not want to defeat Britain, but it was of far less importance to Hitler than the elimination of Bolshevik Russia and his pursuit of lebensraum. Everything else was secondary to these goals.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    70% of the combat casualties were on the eastern front? why? because of Soviet Tactical and Strategic doctrine, their major doctrine was to feed men into the meat grinder until they were the only ones left on the battle field to claim a victory.

    As to your assertion that Japan was less dangerous then German because it's military doctrine was less effective than Germany's? The Japanese adopted German military doctrine, German advisors were rife in the Japanese Military, Japan modled their army on the German Army.

    Three German military advisors, were instrumental in the devotement and implementation of the doctrine and structure of the Dai-Nippon Teikoku Rikugun, Major Jakob Meckel, who was superceeded in 1888 by Major von Wildenbrück and Captain von Blankenbourg) for the training of the Japanese General Staff, the Imperial Army General Staff Office, was based on the Prussian Generalstab.

    The Japanese based their Army on the German...

    their Navy on the British.....

    their Air Force on the French.....

    all with the discipline of the Bushido.

    So they were in now way second rate as a military, they were some of the toughest soldiers ever fielded, and the Japanese army and navy beat the snot out of the Russians, in every war until the U.S. crushed Japans power.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Yes, but you see, your not claiming that there are other opinions so much as claiming that your own opinion is correct. The fact is that history is not defined by the major year long conflicts, but by the fundamental moments in which everything changes in a split second. The defining element that lost Japan the battle of Midway can be traced all the way down to a split second choice made by Admiral Nagumo. Just one choice changed the face of the war at the time.

    A single bit of trivia does not create you the picture, but knowing thousands of bits of trivia paints you a more complete represantation of the war that no textbook or war story can ever tell.

    You see, your eyes in the Pacific war have not been openned. The way you open your eyes is to look at the most insignicant detail and being able to gain information from it.

    That quote I told you. What did you learn from it?

    When I read about it I learned a lot. Those two lines communicated to me the incredible rivalry the marines felt against the navy and the army. They have always felt like the underdogs and this conflict right than and there was their time to shine and shine they did. That short quote that you think is insignifcant embodies the spirit of the corps. It says that when all else fails, and every man laid low, we will be there to carry our banner into the fray.

    You see, that right there, THAT is history, that is the ability to take in insignificant even idiotic quotes and tidbits of information and to paint a historical masterpiece.

    here's one I'd like to challenge you with. It's a pretty easy one that was the official motto of the empire of Japan throughout the early 20th century. "All the world under one roof".

    Ive figured out arguing logic with you won't work because you simply do not possess the knowledge necessary to make your argument, so I am going to show you what knowing the true story of the Pacific really means.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    The Japanese soldier had been at war since the German waffen's were in f*cking diapers.
  8. flakeyairportchunks Registered Senior Member

    It’s a myth that the Soviets won the war based entirely on numbers; Operation Bagration, Kursk and the Crimean offensive are fine examples of this. But provided that it were true that the Soviets were clumsy idiots with poorly thought out strategies defined by human wave attacks it would change the fact that the Eastern Front fielded more men and more battles than The Pacific of a much higher intensity.

    The Japanese did not adopt Germany military doctrine, they might have done on paper but they never utilized it in battle.

    The Japanese were big believers in the "Spiritual" aspects of warfare. Because of this they tended to disregard the fighting ability of Americans. This caused their General Officers to disregard any numerical advantage that U.S. Forces possessed. For example at Guadalcanal, they sent four different units of approx. 8,000 each to attack the 1st Marine Division of approx 12,000. Why not wait until all 32,000 were consolidated? Because of their belief that Americans could be easily beaten.

    The Japanese tendency to employ only frontal assaults (BIG lovers of bamboo spear tactics). Japanese leaders were not trained, and indeed never even thought of employing maneuver tactics. This caused ENORMOUS casualties in the assaulting units.

    I don’t doubt the Japanese soldier on the ground wasn’t tough, but the Japanese commanders weren’t capable of waging an effective war.

    The Japanese never fared well against the Soviets, the battles of Khalkhin Gol and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 45 are testaments to this.
  9. flakeyairportchunks Registered Senior Member

    The Waffen SS were never that impressive, minus their panzer units so poor example.

    As I've already said, a significant portion of the Janjaweed in Sudan have decades of combat experience as many of them were raised as child soldiers. It doesn't mean that the Janjaweed could ever hope to beat a platoon of Rangers.
  10. flakeyairportchunks Registered Senior Member

    So are you trying to tell me in that order for me to say with confidence that the Pacific War involved less men, and fewer battles between combatants less equal than that of the Eastern Front I need to memorize some obscure esoteric quotes? Thats logic for you!
  11. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    No, any middle schooler with pathetic intelligence and an asinine way of approaching history like you can spew out pathetic numbers.

    It takes skill to make the numbers mean something. You do not understand any of the history. Your understanding is pathetic, your ability to read between the lines is infantile, and your knowledge of the Pacific could be written in full on a post it note.
  12. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    flakey, it's common knowledge that the soviets used human wave attacks as you described them. Sure there was an exception here or there, but those were rare.
  13. flakeyairportchunks Registered Senior Member

    What a meaningless statement.

    So ignoring troop numbers, the frequency of battles, their size, abundance and intensity and the comparable strength of the combatants (because clearly none of this is important) what makes the Pacific more deserving of attention that the Eastern Front? I eagerly anticipate your next volley of incomprehensible drivel.
  14. flakeyairportchunks Registered Senior Member

    It's a common misconception actually.
  15. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Well than explain the 2 million dead at Stalingrad? If those soldiers were as good as the British or even American soldiers they wouldnt have lost a third of the soldiers that they had.
  16. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    What qualifies you to make such statements? You do not know jack sh*t about the pacific and even if you did you are a miserable failure of a historian. You don't understand the fundamental ideas behind being a good historian.

    Ive studied this stuff for years, you come in here with the knowledge of a 5th grader with a pompous asinine attitude. You even admit you dont know nearly enough about the Pacific.

    Tell me, do you even know what side actually used magic to fight the war and what battles they used it in and what effect it had on the enemy?

    No you can't, because your understanding of the PAcific war is sad. You have no clue what you are talking about. Your pretending to know what the hell your talking about and you don't. That is the sad thing.

    Numbers involved in a battle doesn't make any difference, it's how you use what youve got. A division of marines could have gone up against three divisions of soviet troops that were used as cannon fodder at Stalingrad and mowed them down without breaking a sweat.
  17. flakeyairportchunks Registered Senior Member

    More like 1 million dead on both sides. And I still fail to see your point. The Soviets could have 3 million dead and it wouldn't mean they resorted to human wave attacks.

    For the record, I wouldn't go around claiming that the British were anything other than mediocre in WW2. They performed very poorly indeed.
  18. flakeyairportchunks Registered Senior Member

    You keep saying the same thing over and over and over again. I pressed you on what vital knowledge I was lacking to form a sufficient understanding of the Pacific theatre, you quoted me a hymn.

    A Heer division could do the same, and they did. They still lost the battle.
  19. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    The battle of Midway






    Jaan-Chinese conflicts

    Russo-Japan conflict

    Invasion of Korea

    Isolation of Japan for 200 years

    USS Enterprise CV(N)-6

    USS Archer Fish

    IJN Yamato

    IJN Musashi

    IJN Shinano



    Lunga Point

    Henderson Field




    Battle of the Philippines

    fortress Coregidor

    I could go on for hours but knowing you, you are just going to wikipedia all of them.

    Besides the fact that none of this has to do with the f*cking thread.

    So are you done trolling like an infant and ready to go back to the actual thread?!?
  20. flakeyairportchunks Registered Senior Member

    I'm not going to pretend I have a deep understanding of everything you've mentioned but I'm not so ignorant to not have a limited yet concise understanding of almost everything you've mentioned, a lot of what you have mentioned is irrelevant however and you persist in avoiding my question.

    Trivia doesn't impress me, especially when it's relating to a secondary theatre.

    And let me digress one last time as I get the hint, you've had enough. Stalingrad was not won by the Ruskies through burying the Germans in wave upon wave of hordes of mindless Russians, it was a fine piece of manoeuvre that did the deed. I speak of Operation Uranus, look it up.
  21. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Stop trolling and get back on the topic of the thread, which battle was the decisive battle of the Pacific war, Midway or Guadalcanal.

    Actually screw it, I dont give a damn what you think because your knowledge of it is pathetic.
  22. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    you dont have a basic understanding of jack sh*t. you dont know the basics of the Pacific war, many of those things I said were things an eigth grader knows. How old are you, 10?
  23. flakeyairportchunks Registered Senior Member

    I do know the basics, and as I've said many times I fail to see why not knowing every obscure piece of trivia in the book is of any relevance whatsoever.

    I think I've made my case very clear and I argued it with conviction, I'm not satisfied with your attempts at a rebuke and many of my questions to you remain unanswered. It was fun while it lasted

    Good day sir.

Share This Page