70 Anniversay - Invasion of the Low Countries & France

That video ask the wrong question. They ask if the Japanese CAN do it, we’re asking if the Japanese COULD do it.

@abworsham4

We’ll say that magic happens-the Japanese would have surrendered by regular bombing before the planned invasion, even without the atomic bomb. So I’ll say that five nuclear bombs would be ready for tactical use.

I think the Allies would have lost 1.5 million men, including naval losses, radiation poisoning after entering area attacked by atomic bombs, and regular land fighting. Countless more would have been wounded. This also includes Soviet losses from the planned Soviet invasion of Hokkaido.

The Japanese would have lost at least 12 million men killed, due to the enormous losses fighting, from the nuclear bomb, and the mass of Kamikaze attacks. This total includes PCFC losses. 1 million more might have died in guerrilla warfare after the war.

20 million would have been wounded, if not more.

I don’t get what’s meant…

-AW talks about the Battleship Howe.
-Then IL says Howe was a Battleship like Hood.
-Then CWO points out the hood was a battlecruiser.

No one is saying the Howe was a battlecruiser?  And everyone agrees it was a battleship.  So what’s the point of the whole conversation? lol

Germany wins this matchup.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17390290

19 March 2012

A British general kept Winston Churchill and Free French leader Charles De Gaulle in the dark about a top secret 1942 plan to arm Vichy France, recently discovered documents reveal.

I haven’t had the pleasure of playing Europe 1940 yet, but I have no contempt for the French during the conflict. I would say there were significant reasons to the Third Republic’s ultimate downfall, one of the which was overall poor Allied strategy, which including the misusing of tank divisions and worst of all, not mounting a meaningful offensive into Germany in the opening days of the war.

As for the Soviet Union, which like the French, I have no contempt for, there were many reasons for its initial failure, the purges are one, whilst devastating they alone were not the cause of Soviet ineffectiveness. The main cause was Stalin himself, who was planning an offensive war sometime in 1942, after he thought Hitler would crush England. He made no preparations for defense, thinking that the Germans would never again fight on two fronts as they did over twenty years ago. Obviously, he was wrong. The man went as far to dismiss intelligence reports, which while varied in dates of attacks, came in like a torrent, from multiple sources.

The second was the nature of Red Army’s training and discipline coupled with the strategical and logistical support were in shambles during the first opening weeks on the Eastern Front.

a few days after i saw this i saw an article in the news about how it was used to intimidate Russia from creating communist puppet governments in the region

@Dylan:

Okay say the German defense in Norway did go to fight Russia or something, do you think the Allies might then attack Norway?

Unlikely imo, although if Germany left Norway totally empty, I think Norway would be secured by some british forces (along with our very few Norwegian soldiers), but if we look at the map, choosing Norway instead of France would mean that the allied forces had to be shipped onboard the ships again and then sail to Denmark, or Northern Germany, or France for an invasion.
Stalin said no foreign soldiers on Russian soil, so the hypothetical invasion force (for Norway) could not move from northern Norway to Northern Russia, south to balticum, and then to Germany. It was definitely most practical to invade France and then move east to Germany.
It would even be better to just send all allied troops to Italy and moving upwards towards Germany instead of invading Norway.
And the Germans treated us “fairly” good, taking the war situation into consideration, I think less than 3000 Norwegians were killed during the war, and that is not so bad if you look at some other countries which were not so lucky, so there was no immediate need to liberate Norway for the intention of saving our civilian population.

My vote is that the VC is the most distinguished medal.  Very difficult to obtain, long history, not very tarnished by political considerations.  its still made from the metals taken from cannons used in the crimean war.

One of the criteria for awarding the VC is that the action in which it is earned must have a 90% or greater chance of resulting in death.