Who was the worst dictator during World War 2? When answering this, consider the number of their own people they killed, their methods of imprisonment, 'racial cleansing', and, most importantly, how they led their country.
Please log in to post a reply.
Minus armour and air forces, key factors in both Manchuria and Khalkin Gol.Pablo22510 wrote:
Ruso-Japanese War. That was a serious war.
Dude, Bushido culture. Also, Khalkin was a Japanese offensive.Pablo22510 wrote:
The last two, the Japs didn't even try.
If Khalkin Gol had been an all-out offensive, the Japs would have won.Quasi-duck wrote:
Minus armour and air forces, key factors in both Manchuria and Khalkin Gol.Pablo22510 wrote:
Ruso-Japanese War. That was a serious war.Dude, Bushido culture. Also, Khalkin was a Japanese offensive.Pablo22510 wrote:
The last two, the Japs didn't even try.
P'shaw. Japanese armour was terrible and the attacks on Soviet airfields failed. I'm afraid you're wrong.Pablo22510 wrote:
If Khalkin Gol had been an all-out offensive, the Japs would have won.
Can't disagree with that. But if the Japs had disembarked in Eastern Russia in December '41, they would have met liuttle opposition. Most of the divisions stationed there were at Moscow.Quasi-duck wrote:
P'shaw. Japanese armour was terrible and the attacks on Soviet airfields failed. I'm afraid you're wrong.Pablo22510 wrote:
If Khalkin Gol had been an all-out offensive, the Japs would have won.
Soviet Strength:
61,860-73,961[nb 1]
498-550 tanks
385-450 armored cars[4][5]
900+ aircraft (participated)
4,000 trucks[8]
1,921 horses and camels (Mongol only)[9]
Japanese Strength:
73 tanks[5]
64 tankettes
400+ aircraft (participated)
1,000 trucks[13]
2,708 horses[14]
That's just proving me right. If the Japs had attacked with full strength, they might have won.Quasi-duck wrote:
Soviet Strength:61,860-73,961[nb 1]
498-550 tanks
385-450 armored cars[4][5]
900+ aircraft (participated)
500[7]-634[2] artillery pieces
- Peak strength: 580[6]
4,000 trucks[8]
1,921 horses and camels (Mongol only)[9]
Japanese Strength:
73 tanks[5]
64 tankettes
400+ aircraft (participated)
~300 artillery pieces[2]
- Peak strength: 200[6]
1,000 trucks[13]
2,708 horses[14]
That was delayed, that was Khakin Gol. Besides, at this time the Japanese were fighting China and were prepping for a war with the West.Pablo22510 wrote:
That's just proving me right. If the Japs had attacked with full strength, they might have won.
Yeah, one of the main factors that kept the Japs from winning the war was their culture. If they had combined that with good equipment and good strategy, I'm afraid nobody in the world might've been able to defeat them.
Precisely. If they'd concentrated on the Sovs, they would've won. But let's stop talking about this, I'm feeling tired.Quasi-duck wrote:
Besides, at this time the Japanese were fighting China and were prepping for a war with the West.
Push push push!Pablo22510 wrote:
But let's stop talking about this, I'm feeling tired.
See, this is the one big thing you miss. None of that matters because the Japanese were bogged down in China, even with superior tech (some of the best Chinese units purely used knives).Kehsct wrote:
If they had combined that with good equipment and good strategy, I'm afraid nobody in the world might've been able to defeat them.
What is missing for Japan is industrial power and resources.
I understand that. I'm talking about if Japan was able to, a few good tank brigades might've been able to secure important industrial provinces and more resources.Quasi-duck wrote:
See, this is the one big thing you miss. None of that matters because the Japanese were bogged down in China, even with superior tech (some of the best Chinese units purely used knives).What is missing for Japan is industrial power and resources.
Not really, in the Pacific they would be destroyed by ships and in China, well, it's China. They would either be ineffective or get destroyed.Kehsct wrote:
a few good tank brigades might've been able to secure important industrial provinces and more resources.
In China, the best anti-tank weapon they had was a bunch of grenades strapped onto the guy who ran the fastest. They had little to no artillery, no planes, no tanks, little to no heavy weapons and, often enough, the Chinese would attack the Chinese who were fighting the Japanese.
Umm Japanese Navy anybody? You're also just showing how incompetent the Chinese were, not why real tanks wouldn't work.Quasi-duck wrote:
Not really, in the Pacific they would be destroyed by ships and in China, well, it's China. They would either be ineffective or get destroyed.Kehsct wrote:
a few good tank brigades might've been able to secure important industrial provinces and more resources.In China, the best anti-tank weapon they had was a bunch of grenades strapped onto the guy who ran the fastest. They had little to no artillery, no planes, no tanks, little to no heavy weapons and, often enough, the Chinese would attack the Chinese who were fighting the Japanese.
Over funded and did not have industrial might to replace lost ships behind it. The Japanese thought ships and planes can hold islands, which they can't.Kehsct wrote:
Umm Japanese Navy anybody?
I know that. Can we get back on topic?Quasi-duck wrote:
Over funded and did not have industrial might to replace lost ships behind it. The Japanese thought ships and planes can hold islands, which they can't.Kehsct wrote:
Umm Japanese Navy anybody?
I think it's been talk over thoroughly, should a new topic be made?Kehsct wrote:
Can we get back on topic?
I can't vote, but I would say Josef Stalin. He was a nut.
Hardly, held the USSR together. At least knew he could not lead armies, unlike Hitler.Carl Wilson wrote:
I can't vote, but I would say Josef Stalin. He was a nut.
Yes, but he shot those who could. Hitler sent them into hopeless places where they put up a heck of a fight.
Hardly, just look at Zhukov and many others.Carl Wilson wrote:
Yes, but he shot those who could.
Like Rommel? He killed himself on Hitler's orders.Carl Wilson wrote:
Hitler sent them into hopeless places where they put up a heck of a fight.
Please log in to post a reply.
