Japan in WW2

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,860
Republika Srpska
#41
Already then the French in particular were requesting the US to stick around to sort out the European post-war order.
Eh, post-WW1 situation in Europe was quite a mess, in fact I would argue it was much more messy than in 1945. I don't think the US could really help much.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,417
#42
This doesn't really compute well for my American brain.

What exactly was the American Expeditionary Force supposed to do in Europe in the post WW1 period?

What units needed to stay? What bases would they be located at? What local forces would they ally with? Which civilian govt of the French, Belgian, Dutch, or British was going to be fully onboard with a full time American garrison force inside their nation, permanently? How are US presidents supposed to sell it to Congress and the American people? Keep the draft going indef, like during the Cold War?
You might as well ask how the US did things after WWII?

The US was seen particularly as an asset in relation to the Germans. US forces would be less provocative than British, and a bit more so French. (And most of all the French African troops. Those REALLY brought out the worst in the occupied German civilians.) Primarily here:
1550431067672.png

But certainly problems could be found, and so were found, in 1919, and so the US retreated into its inter-war isolationism.
 
Jul 2016
9,323
USA
#43
You might as well ask how the US did things after WWII?

The US was seen particularly as an asset in relation to the Germans. US forces would be less provocative than British, and a bit more so French. (And most of all the French African troops. Those REALLY brought out the worst in the occupied German civilians.) Primarily here:
View attachment 15641

But certainly problems could be found, and so were found, in 1919, and so the US retreated into its inter-war isolationism.
You seriously can't find a difference between what happened after WW1 and WW2? How about this little simple fact.

What allowed the US inside Germany to occupy it after WW1? Nothing. What about WW2? They were utterly and completely defeated, subject to unconditional surrender, forced disarmament, and indefinite occupation. Why were Europeans okay with the US inside Europe in 1946? What could they do to stop it?

Can't think of any more differences of 1919 to 1946? Who were the remaining great European powers in 1919 allied with the US? They were all still there, a bit weakened but undefeated, unbroken. Even Germany, defeated, was not broken and could have continued the war if necessary, at least for a while, to prevent the invasion of Germany itself. The Versailles Treaty guaranteed their sovereighty. Was that the case in 1946? No, not in the least. The least broken Western European power was Great Britain, who were extremely weakened by the conflict to the point that within a decade their great empire was nearly gone. France was a broken husk, trying to rebuild basic infrastructure, in great need of US assistance, not only military but also financial. Most of the other liberated European nations were in no better position, some much worse, and all in need of US help for basic survival. All Reich territory was to be occupied by the various Allied parties, mostly by the US since it had the biggest force and was the most powerful western ally in 1945-6.

A vacuum was created, a void, when the balance of power shifted, where Europe was essentially done with as a world power, the United States, stepped in and took a more active role in Europe. Especially to stop the aggressive and murderous spread of communism.

So times were quite a bit different, expecting 1946 in 1919 is simply not in the equation. That's about as simple as I can state it.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,417
#44
You seriously can't find a difference between what happened after WW1 and WW2? How about this little simple fact.

What allowed the US inside Germany to occupy it after WW1? Nothing. What about WW2? They were utterly and completely defeated, subject to unconditional surrender, forced disarmament, and indefinite occupation. Why were Europeans okay with the US inside Europe in 1946? What could they do to stop it?
Except the French and British occupied that bit on the map in 1919.

You really have no idea what the US did in 1945, do you?
 
Dec 2018
89
Cheyenne
#45
Since you are pretty familiar with Japan, how much of the population there feels "nostalgia" with the militarist period? How aware is the Japanese public as a all that in that period Japan made terrible mistakes with their foreign policy and should not try going on that road again?
My wife is Japanese. Most Japanese renounce war and any kind of military. However, Japanese believe that your average citizen is powerless compared to the government. So they fall in line quite well.
 
Jul 2016
9,323
USA
#47
Except the French and British occupied that bit on the map in 1919.

You really have no idea what the US did in 1945, do you?
French and British occupied a part of the Rhineland, with zero resistance. Was Western Europe seriously so weak that they couldn't do mundane guard duty themselves? Yeah totally, the future of Europe hinged on US Army privates standing around a useless checkpoint, smoking cigarettes while day dreaming of time off with the local frauleins, while their officers try to act like what they do actually matters. ROFL

Know what happened in 1945? Yeah, kind of. That's the one that ended with Europe destroyed and the US the undisputed leader of the free world, with Europe so in need of our help that American goodwill literally kept Europe from freezing and starving to death? Yep, I'm pretty sure that's the one!
 
Feb 2019
345
California
#48
Wrong.
There is no clause in Versailles that forbids either Germany or Britain from signing a treaty.

Germany signed the Versailles treaty, and later an agreement with Britain.
They were legally bound to abide by both of them



Betrayed?
How is Britain obligated to defend France, if the French are incapable of doing so?



No, they expected France to take responsibility for their own defence.


France made and agreement with the British and then violated it.
Britain was not obligated to trust a former ally that had just betrayed it
the

Fine except regarding your first point---the V Treaty to which all parties were signatories set strict limits on German naval construction which the UK effectively unilaterally decided Germany could ignore. Understandably, this did not sit too well with countries such as France.....
 
Oct 2016
1,088
Merryland
#49
Courage? Japan is a sham based culture rather than a guilt based culture, such as ours.. Surrender was a great shame . One was simply expected to die rather than surrender.
and all too many of them did. very sad they were just doing their duty. if Tokyo had had any heart they would have surrendered earlier and saved a lot of their people.

Have always admired the courage of the Kamikaze pilots .However, they were also given drugs to help overcome their terror.
disagree. occasional self-sacrifice can be noble but I find organized group-level suicide abominable.
someone compared to suicide bombers today. I grant that the Kamikazes targeted military objectives.

Amphetamines were issued to German soldiers on an industrial level. They were seen as a a wonder drug, and freely available over the counter for civilians too. That whole area makes fascinating reading.
interesting topic. how many guys have gone into battle high or wasted or whatever? was this done at a mass level?
IIRC some of the IJA on some islands (Guadalcanal?) would get drunk before suicidal charges against the USA.
 
Likes: robto
Jul 2016
9,323
USA
#50
interesting topic. how many guys have gone into battle high or wasted or whatever? was this done at a mass level?
IIRC some of the IJA on some islands (Guadalcanal?) would get drunk before suicidal charges against the USA.
Getting drunk, while lowering inhibitions (including fear) has detrimental affects on judgement, reflexes, fine motor skills, and other issues. Use of amphetamines is used to counteract sleep deprivation, whose problems are often similar to excessive alcohol consumption. It also raises natural aggression levels, which can have positive benefits for combat forces, as well as the ability to keep someone awake and functional for multiple days at a time before needing to crash.

For Banzai charges taking a shot of available booze, Sake or something else, before would have positive effects, and was also done for ritual reason too. If they had enough alcohol, I doubt officers would prevent men from imbibing, its not like a bayonet charge to the death is an event that requires sober individuals.
 
Likes: sailorsam