@Gamer:
I think one thing it proves is the Soviets (and Stalin in particular) were more flexible in their methods to reach their military ends. I read somewhere that by 1943, Stalin was actually listening to his generals (including Zhukov in particular) and basically trusting and following their advice (for the most part) whereas Hitler was still micro-managing, ignoring his generals’ advice (for example, refusing to allow tactical retreats) and generally doing a poor job. So the more flexible authoritarian system prevailed (it sounds funny, I know, but there it is).
Yeah, definitely an interesting thing to note. I know Hitler was trying to dictate everything even up until his suicide. Meanwhile, Stalin was encouraging competition between his Generals for defeating the Nazis, which can be seen in The Last Stand by Cornelius Ryan. That book is just as exciting, if not more so, than A Bridge Too Far and The Longest Day, the other books of his (IMO).
@dezrtfish:
@Jermofoot:
What’s interesting is that the Japanese had utterly defeated the Russians three decades earlier, particularly at Tsushima where bold, new tactics won the day.
It makes me wonder if Japan had tried to strike a deal with China (or one of its factions) in unifying against Russia, what the world would be like today.
This boils down to not only the same thing as mentioned before, racial superiority, but to the long-standing animosity between Japan and any and all mainland nationalities. I have a hard time believing that The Japanese will ever be on good enough terms with China to cooperate militarily.
Maybe so, but the Japanese did A LOT of anti-imperial/anti-Europe/anti-whitey propaganda on the areas it conquered to breed support. It may not have been an option with China, but who knows…
The enemy of my enemy is my friend sorta thing…for the time being anyway.