Hypothetical WWII Question-- Japan/ Germany

[GwinnettNole]

Yes, Japan and Germany were part of the primary pieces to the axis of evil. The Japanese were gunning for the Pacific/ Far East and Germany the West. Suppose they won what their initiatives were-- were they really going to coincide or be happy with their half of the world? Probably not.

Who attacks who first-- Japan or Germany-- if they had conquered what they wanted to do?

Or do you believe that they never would have attacked each other?

 

[FSUTribe76]

Yes, Japan and Germany were part of the primary pieces to the axis of evil. The Japanese were gunning for the Pacific/ Far East and Germany the West. Suppose they won what their initiatives were-- were they really going to coincide or be happy with their half of the world? Probably not.

Who attacks who first-- Japan or Germany-- if they had conquered what they wanted to do?

Or do you believe that they never would have attacked each other?

Assuming they both won....yeah they would have gone after each other over time. I don't think there's more racist people on the planet than Germans and Japanese and they would have no love for one another.

 

[GwinnettNole]

Assuming they both won....yeah they would have gone after each other over time. I don't think there's more racist people on the planet than Germans and Japanese and they would have no love for one another.

Yeah I tend to agree. Did Japan and Germany really "team up" perse? Or was it more of both wanting their side of the world at about the same time? I mean did they exchange emails or anything that said "Hey Hitler you do your thing and we will do ours and then we will rule the world together"...

Been wondering about this lately....

 

[NDallasRuss]

Yeah I tend to agree. Did Japan and Germany really "team up" perse? Or was it more of both wanting their side of the world at about the same time? I mean did they exchange emails or anything that said "Hey Hitler you do your thing and we will do ours and then we will rule the world together"...

Been wondering about this lately....

Watched a show last night about the first 24 hours following the attack on Pearl Harbor. Regarding the initial news reports linking Germany to Japan's attack, the show said that in actuality, Hitler was as surprised about the attack as anyone else - that there was no collusion or coordination at all between the two countries in planning and executing the attack.

Not sure about the rest of the war - I'd have to research further - or watch another documentary.

 

[TexSkills]

Assuming they both won....yeah they would have gone after each other over time. I don't think there's more racist people on the planet than Germans and Japanese and they would have no love for one another.

Not sure I would classify Germans and Japanese as "racist" but both cultures do seem to have some sort of superiority complex, which I think extends beyond the scope of race.

 

[NDallasRuss]

There's a whole page on Wiki about Germany - Japan relations, which were mostly diplomatic. They signed a treaty, along with Italy, to become the "Axis powers".

"The treaty stated that the three countries would respect each other's "leadership" in their respective spheres of influence, and would assist each other if attacked by an outside party. However, already-ongoing conflicts, as of the signing of the Pact, were explicitly excluded."

Germany really wanted Japan to help them fight Russia, but Japan kept putting them off.

"In case Germany demands that we participate in the war against the Soviet Union, we will respond that we do not intend to join the war for the time being. If this should lead to a situation whereby Germany will delay her entry into the war against the United States, it cannot be helped. — Japanese communiqué to Berlin (December 1941)"

As for who would have attacked whom first, my guess is that Germany would have attacked first. From what I've been reading (in the last 15 minutes), it doesn't seem like Germany was overly impressed with their military skills (although they were impressed with the Japanese honor and courage). I'm guessing Hitler would have felt the Germans were superior and set out to prove it.

Germany - Japan Relations Page

 

[seminole97]

Yes, Japan and Germany were part of the primary pieces to the axis of evil. The Japanese were gunning for the Pacific/ Far East and Germany the West. Suppose they won what their initiatives were-- were they really going to coincide or be happy with their half of the world? Probably not.

Who attacks who first-- Japan or Germany-- if they had conquered what they wanted to do?

Or do you believe that they never would have attacked each other?

Neither. It's not possible to hold together an empire that large and disparate. Germans could hardly keep a thumb on what they had, it never would have lasted.
Vietnamese weren't the only folks itching to ditch Japanese occupation, and Japan simply couldn't conquer China. Their desire to establish the 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere' stems from trying to gain equal footing with the Imperial powers of the day. They chafed at not being considered 'one of the big boys' (e.g. Washington Naval Treaty), and wanted to be a position where they weren't economically threatened by Western embargoes. That's not the same as thinking you're going to conquer the world. Germany or Japan conquering the world is more Allied propaganda than anything else.

 

[Spearchucker87]

Neither. It's not possible to hold together an empire that large and disparate. Germans could hardly keep a thumb on what they had, it never would have lasted.
Vietnamese weren't the only folks itching to ditch Japanese occupation, and Japan simply couldn't conquer China. Their desire to establish the 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere' stems from trying to gain equal footing with the Imperial powers of the day. They chafed at not being considered 'one of the big boys' (e.g. Washington Naval Treaty), and wanted to be a position where they weren't economically threatened by Western embargoes. That's not the same as thinking you're going to conquer the world. Germany or Japan conquering the world is more Allied propaganda than anything else.

I kind of agree. I got this British DVD set on WWII from a couple years back that has some new info. One of quotes from Hitler to his inner circle, as the Japanese Pacific advance seemed invinvible, was that "the white man will soon disappear from these lands" Hitler wanted a supreme Aryan Empire, but didn't really envisage conquering the whole world. If not for his wrong turn in the air war with Britain (switching from military/industrial targets to civilian, when Britain's air industry was only a couple weeks from collapse--he became enraged when civilian Berlin was accidentally[?] bombed) today his Reich would be the supreme nuclear power and cover Europe, the old soviet union and north Africa. But I don't think they could've attempted to physically cover the rest of the world.

 

[Nole Lou]

I'm no expert, but I don't see either of them trying to attack the other, nor the United States. Their leaders may have been "crazy" but I don't think they were crazy as in totally irrational. I can't imagine strategically that they would have had designs on each other (or the US) had they been left to dominate their own spheres.

 

[Spearchucker87]

I'm no expert, but I don't see either of them trying to attack the other, nor the United States. Their leaders may have been "crazy" but I don't think they were crazy as in totally irrational. I can't imagine strategically that they would have had designs on each other (or the US) had they been left to dominate their own spheres.

Yep, given the US physical location, with oceans on both sides and, Canada and the wilderness buffering to the north, and Mexico / central America to the south, nobody was going to physically conquer us. And it took about 10 years following the war for nuclear stockpiles to start reaching a serious threat, and you'd still have had "mutually assured destruction" once that happened. Like you say, Hitler was "crazy" but not irrational. If you're old enough to have read 1984, I think it would have been like the balance of 3 major powers in that novel.

 

[seminole97]

If not for his wrong turn in the air war with Britain (switching from military/industrial targets to civilian, when Britain's air industry was only a couple weeks from collapse--he became enraged when civilian Berlin was accidentally[?] bombed) today his Reich would be the supreme nuclear power and cover Europe, the old soviet union and north Africa. But I don't think they could've attempted to physically cover the rest of the world.

Germany lacked the sealift to actually threaten Britain.
Sea Lion was the not going anywhere. The invasion of Norway (on a considerably smaller scale) devastated the Kriegsmarine. They weren't going to invade England with a bunch of river barges...

 

[BarryB1081]

I kind of agree. I got this British DVD set on WWII from a couple years back that has some new info. One of quotes from Hitler to his inner circle, as the Japanese Pacific advance seemed invinvible, was that "the white man will soon disappear from these lands" Hitler wanted a supreme Aryan Empire, but didn't really envisage conquering the whole world. If not for his wrong turn in the air war with Britain (switching from military/industrial targets to civilian, when Britain's air industry was only a couple weeks from collapse--he became enraged when civilian Berlin was accidentally[?] bombed) today his Reich would be the supreme nuclear power and cover Europe, the old soviet union and north Africa. But I don't think they could've attempted to physically cover the rest of the world.

Yeah, that, and pushing forward into Russia, during the winter, and outrunning his supply lines. Ignored his field commanders and decimated his army. Good thing he was a megalomaniac.

 

[Spearchucker87]

Yeah, that, and pushing forward into Russia, during the winter, and outrunning his supply lines. Ignored his field commanders and decimated his army. Good thing he was a megalomaniac.

Yep, thought he was the smartest 'general' in the room, and maybe just a figure of destiny. It never ceases to amaze me what kind of world we might be living in if Hitler had been either just a Little more cautious at certain key points, or conversely, even more conniving, but in the proper direction. #1) There's 100% no doubt he could have consolidated his holdings in continental Europe, if he'd chosen to stick with that and keeping cranking out his war machine. No one could touch him, as far as making a serious dent in freeing Europe back. #2) If he'd just left Britain alone and pushed west, timed it better / and put his resources into seizing key soviet oil reserves in the Caucasas-- as a key general pleaded (instead of shifting them to Moscow), he could have taken down the Soviet Union. #3) Now this is more in doubt, but I think there's even I chance that if he'd stuck to hitting Brittain's factories, he could have forced their surrender in early Fall 1940 and had enough left in reserve to STILL take out Stalin.

 

[styancey]

Hitler was not real happy with Japan for Pearl Harbo but declared war on the U.S. In a sign of support for their 'Ally'.

Hitler avoided attacking the U.S. To avoid another Lusitania like event that would bring America into the war. However, the United States had already been involved in the Atlantic.

Japan wanted to expand its expand its empire across the pacific and into Asia to control the spice trade, the affiliation with Germany was loose.


If I had to guess, Hitler attacks Japan first.

 

[oldscalphunter]

Yes, Japan and Germany were part of the primary pieces to the axis of evil. The Japanese were gunning for the Pacific/ Far East and Germany the West. Suppose they won what their initiatives were-- were they really going to coincide or be happy with their half of the world? Probably not.

Who attacks who first-- Japan or Germany-- if they had conquered what they wanted to do?

Or do you believe that they never would have attacked each other?

Umm.. I don't think Japan wanted to rule the world at all. They were in it because we forced their hand (not disputable) by aiding the Chinese. Japan wanted to keep to itself (apart from skirmishes with China & others in the asian pacific) but we forced them out of it. Germany is a different animal.

 

[YogiNole]

During the Russia invasion, Hitler wanted Japan to attack Russia from the east (Fast East Front) but they did not oblige. When Stalin learned of this, he used the forces in the East to bolster his army in the Battle of Moscow.
If Hitler beat Russia he seems like the kind of dude to hold a grudge. So my bet would be on Germany attacking Japan.

 

[nynole1]

Assuming they both won....yeah they would have gone after each other over time. I don't think there's more racist people on the planet than Germans and Japanese and they would have no love for one another.

When you call Germans and Japanese racist, you are talking about WWII, right?

 

[FSUTribe76]

When you call Germans and Japanese racist, you are talking about WWII, right?

Primarily, but we didn't bomb it completely out of them. When polled and asked the simple question "Would you be happy living next to someone of another race or country/tribe of origin." 'Mericuh was surprisingly only filled with about 2.5% of racists, far below what our media would say. Meanwhile both Germany and Japan were near the top of civilized countries in the 18% range. Only France topped Germany for most racist European country. Meanwhile the most racist countries were mainly in the Middle East but #1 was India at 44% and #2 was South Korea at 38% (North Korea was surprisingly substantially more tolerant about on par with Japan...so racist as #^%^ but half that of South Korea).

 

[seminole97]

Yep, thought he was the smartest 'general' in the room, and maybe just a figure of destiny.

Well, he looked pretty damn smart after he told the German General Staff to ditch their rehash of the Schlieffen plan and instead go with Manstein's bolder stroke. That gave him an undue appreciation for his own strategic insights.

It never ceases to amaze me what kind of world we might be living in if Hitler had been either just a Little more cautious at certain key points, or conversely, even more conniving, but in the proper direction. #1) There's 100% no doubt he could have consolidated his holdings in continental Europe, if he'd chosen to stick with that and keeping cranking out his war machine. No one could touch him, as far as making a serious dent in freeing Europe back.

.

Stalin wasn't interested in freeing Europe, but the disposition of the Red Army in '41 suggest he wasn't done taking, he just wanted to see the West bleed itself first.

#2) If he'd just left Britain alone and pushed west, timed it better / and put his resources into seizing key soviet oil reserves in the Caucasas-- as a key general pleaded (instead of shifting them to Moscow), he could have taken down the Soviet Union.

He was already at war with Britain because he invaded Poland. Britain wasn't quitting, and FDR was doing what he could to drag the U.S. into the conflict. He turned on Russia in hopes of taking out Britain's last hope, but the Germans vastly underestimated Russia's strength.
It was Hitler who turned his armies away from Moscow and instead compelled 2nd Panzer Army to divert south and help Army Group South complete the capture of Kiev. By the time 2nd Panzer Army could turn back toward Moscow the rains came and movement ground to a halt. When the frosts came and the offensive could be resumed the Germans annihilated the defenses in front of them, but ran out of time before the worst winter in memory closed in stopped an army unprepared for the environment.
The effort to take the Caucasus region stretched the Wehrmacht too thin, and permitted the Red Army counter stroke that captured the 6th Army at Stalingrad. It was unreliable German allied troops from Hungary, Romania and Italy that folded under Soviet assault and left the left flank of 6th Army completely exposed.

#3) Now this is more in doubt, but I think there's even I chance that if he'd stuck to hitting Brittain's factories, he could have forced their surrender in early Fall 1940 and had enough left in reserve to STILL take out Stalin.

The Luftwaffe came close to 'winning' the battle of Britain by focusing on airfields and air sweeps. The concepts of strategic bombing exercised by the RAF and USAAF were not part of Luftwaffe doctrine. They 'lost' when they diverted assets to revenge bombing against population centers (in response to British raids of the same type).
With the U.S. already trading war material to Britain in exchange for the privilege of garrisoning British islands they could scarcely spare the troops to man themselves the Luftwaffe wasn't going to drive the British out of the war by trying to bomb factories. They ended the Battle of Britain to cut their losses.
If Germany had the opportunity to fight Russia without having to try and occupy Europe from Norway to Greece, maybe they have a small shot, but it would require just about everything going right. The productive capacity of Russia was vastly underestimated and when Case Blue failed the writing was on the wall, even if it took three more years to get to Berlin.

 

[nynole1]

Primarily, but we didn't bomb it completely out of them. When polled and asked the simple question "Would you be happy living next to someone of another race or country/tribe of origin." 'Mericuh was surprisingly only filled with about 2.5% of racists, far below what our media would say. Meanwhile both Germany and Japan were near the top of civilized countries in the 18% range. Only France topped Germany for most racist European country. Meanwhile the most racist countries were mainly in the Middle East but #1 was India at 44% and #2 was South Korea at 38% (North Korea was surprisingly substantially more tolerant about on par with Japan...so racist as #^%^ but half that of South Korea).

I never put much stock in polls for obvious reasons, but in personal experience, Germans and Japanese are almost neutered from their defeats in the war. The recent up tick in resentment from Germans comes from the swell of muslim/turkish immigrants taking over areas of the country where native Germans cant even visit anymore in safety. That will always bring out the response mentioned in that pole and I don't blame them one bit. Lose two world wars and still be the most dominant economic force in Europe, thEY deserve to be a little cocky.
As for Japan, with birthrates very near the bottom of any civilized country, that doesn't reflect the actions of society who feels they are superior IMO.

 

[seminole97]

As for Japan, with birthrates very near the bottom of any civilized country, that doesn't reflect the actions of society who feels they are superior IMO.

I think that has more to do I think with their economy over the last 20+ years than anything else.
Japanese racism is usually referred to with terms like 'xenophobia'.

 

[Spearchucker87]

Germany lacked the sealift to actually threaten Britain.
Sea Lion was the not going anywhere. The invasion of Norway (on a considerably smaller scale) devastated the Kriegsmarine. They weren't going to invade England with a bunch of river barges...

I wasn't thinking about Germany invading so much as just devastating their air industry to the point that it ended Brittains ability to significantly hurt Germany through the air or provide air support for a sea landing on Western continental Europe. But let me keep reading the rest of your info.

 

[Spearchucker87]

..........the disposition of the Red Army in '41 suggest he wasn't done taking, he just wanted to see the West bleed itself first.

He was already at war with Britain because he invaded Poland. Britain wasn't quitting, and FDR was doing what he could to drag the U.S. into the conflict. He turned on Russia in hopes of taking out Britain's last hope, but the Germans vastly underestimated Russia's strength.

You recall some items that I'd forgotten, and probably know many that I never did in the first place. What's your opinion on the idea that had Hitler "played it smart", not undertaken huge efforts on so many fronts, that he would have been able to consolidate and hold on to much of his continental conquests? I haven't looked at the numbers in ages, but I thought that even after he began to experience setbacks, the Nazi war industry was still pumping out huge amounts of tanks / artillery, a fair amount of planes, and a good amount of subs (though never as many as Admiral Donizt wanted). He eventually lost huge numbers of men, tanks and artillery in the soviet effort. Plus there was North Africa, and all the aerial losses due to that poor strategic change in the battle of Brittain. If Russia sees no weakness and no reason to pounce, are the Allies really going to be in a position to break through into German occupied territory from the West?

 

[FSUTribe76]

Umm.. I don't think Japan wanted to rule the world at all. They were in it because we forced their hand (not disputable) by aiding the Chinese. Japan wanted to keep to itself (apart from skirmishes with China & others in the asian pacific) but we forced them out of it. Germany is a different animal.

Read up on Japan and pan-Asianism. Japanese culture stressed their superiority to other Asians and then on another level the Asians superiority to other cultures. They fully intended to conquer all of Asia, the small Pacific island countries and Australia and rule it under their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" which despite the name was not limited to East Asia but intended to expand to all of Asia and Oceania.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_East_Asia_Co-Prosperity_Sphere

So all they wanted was 2 continents and about 50% of the worlds population and not the entire world. ;p

 

[seminole97]

You recall some items that I'd forgotten, and probably know many that I never did in the first place. What's your opinion on the idea that had Hitler "played it smart", not undertaken huge efforts on so many fronts, that he would have been able to consolidate and hold on to much of his continental conquests? I haven't looked at the numbers in ages, but I thought that even after he began to experience setbacks, the Nazi war industry was still pumping out huge amounts of tanks / artillery, a fair amount of planes, and a good amount of subs (though never as many as Admiral Donizt wanted). He eventually lost huge numbers of men, tanks and artillery in the soviet effort. Plus there was North Africa, and all the aerial losses due to that poor strategic change in the battle of Brittain. If Russia sees no weakness and no reason to pounce, are the Allies really going to be in a position to break through into German occupied territory from the East?

If Hitler stopped after conquering France I think he would have been in pretty good shape to die of old age.
But his eyes were always to the East, so its hard for me to envision him not launching the attack on Russia and bringing about his downfall. I think even if it came after a separate peace with Britain the British would have aided Russia to maintain balance on the Continent, and FDR was trying like heck to get us in the war and would have found a way eventually.

 

[Spearchucker87]

If Hitler stopped after conquering France I think he would have been in pretty good shape to die of old age.
But his eyes were always to the East, so its hard for me to envision him not launching the attack on Russia and bringing about his downfall. I think even if it came after a separate peace with Britain the British would have aided Russia to maintain balance on the Continent, and FDR was trying like heck to get us in the war and would have found a way eventually.

Thanks for the clarification and I made one edit: I of course meant to ask about the Allies being able to invade the continent from the west, not the "east", as you probably realized. What you say makes sense. Hitler underestimated the "slavs" as a race I think, so he was bound to think his superior Ayrans could overcome them.

My perception at least is that those Soviet fighting men turned out to be some of the toughest SOBs to ever don military uniforms. I don't know what motivated or made them tick, but I sure got the sense that nobody in their right mind should try to undertake a land invasion of the soviet people of that time. Not sure if they are so tough today.

 

[FSUTribe76]

Thanks for the clarification and I made one edit: I of course meant to ask about the Allies being able to invade the continent from the west, not the "east", as you probably realized. What you say makes sense. Hitler underestimated the "slavs" as a race I think, so he was bound to think his superior Ayrans could overcome them.

My perception at least is that those Soviet fighting men turned out to be some of the toughest SOBs to ever don military uniforms. I don't know what motivated or made them tick, but I sure got the sense that nobody in their right mind should try to undertake a land invasion of the soviet people of that time. No sure if they are so tough today.

I don't know about tough Soviet troops they lost a ton of them. If you mean fighting against the Germans despite being slaughtered...Stalin had troops called "barrier soldiers" placed behind his own line to shoot anyone who retreated. They killed a min of 150,000. So the choice was fight the Germans and maybe survive or flee and be executed and your family could face further reprisals as well.

 

[Nole Lou]

I don't know about tough Soviet troops they lost a ton of them. If you mean fighting against the Germans despite being slaughtered...Stalin had troops called "barrier soldiers" placed behind his own line to shoot anyone who retreated. They killed a min of 150,000. So the choice was fight the Germans and maybe survive or flee and be executed and your family could face further reprisals as well.

This is what I was thinking...tough in terms of what they endured I'm sure, like every other fighting force that has lived through hell. It's amazing what humans have endured. But I've never heard that they were especially tough or effective soldiers (obviously they were tough, but in comparison to other troops). There was just a massive amount of them, and as Tribe pointed out, they were compelled to fight "to the last man" under threat of death.

 

[Spearchucker87]

I don't know about tough Soviet troops they lost a ton of them. If you mean fighting against the Germans despite being slaughtered...Stalin had troops called "barrier soldiers" placed behind his own line to shoot anyone who retreated. They killed a min of 150,000. So the choice was fight the Germans and maybe survive or flee and be executed and your family could face further reprisals as well.

I didn't mean that they were "skilled" soldiers, rather I've always gotten the impression that soviet soldiers showed incredible grit, fierceness and determination in the fight for their cities. Of course it could have been the nature of the winter fight and the nature of Stalin's regime that compelled such an approach, as you note. If you lost, there was hardly reason to expect some kind of safe transport to a peaceful field hospital, as might happen for an American. If Stalin was dissatisfied with your unit he might just let you perish himself. Even if it was not a situation where you fled and the barrier guys got you or the NKVD, you and/or your family.

 

[Spearchucker87]

BTW, apropos to this topic, I came across this discussion of what German soldiers thought of the Russians as well as everybody else. Here's what one German had to say on the Americans:

http://www.quora.com/What-did-the-G...nk-of-British-US-Canadian-and-Soviet-soldiers

Americans: "Enthusiastic amateurs with a disposition to aggression I'd never seen in any other nation's sons." If there was something he noticed different between Americans and the other European Allies, it was how they reacted to an attack. The other allies would immediately return fire and edge their way to a more favorable position. Americans would immediately return fire, bring a punishing rain of artillery or air power on top of whatever they were fighting, and move to counterattack as soon as the rain of death ended. While he did not believe that an American infantryman or tanker was particularly skilled compared to British or German counterparts, they more than compensated for it with sheer, unadulterated, unapologetic combat aggression.

This link doesn't put the soviets onto any particular high plane. But I did come across something earlier that said even though Germans were taught that soviet soldiers were subhuman, in the field they grew to respect them and even refer to them as superhuman. I wasn't bookmarking though and can't find it again in a very rushed search.

 

[seminole97]

I don't know what motivated or made them tick

“In the Red Army it takes a very brave man to be a coward” - Marshal Georgi Zhukov

Between the prospect of the NKVD shooting you for desertion or dying as German slave labor (if you made it that far west) fighting to your last was probably the best option.
Both sides were guilty of atrocities from the outset that both were able to use as propaganda about the mercilessness and ruthlessness of the opposition.

 

[FSUTribe76]

I didn't mean that they were "skilled" soldiers, rather I've always gotten the impression that soviet soldiers showed incredible grit, fierceness and determination in the fight for their cities. Of course it could have been the nature of the winter fight and the nature of Stalin's regime that compelled such an approach, as you note. If you lost, there was hardly reason to expect some kind of safe transport to a peaceful field hospital, as might happen for an American. If Stalin was dissatisfied with your unit he might just let you perish himself. Even if it was not a situation where you fled and the barrier guys got you or the NKVD, you and/or your family.

If you really want to talk tough then look no further than the Finns during WW2. They had out of date equipment and the Soviet Army invaded thinking they'd have an easy time of it as they outnumbered them substantially sending in almost a million of the Soviets best professional forces (this was before they were all lost to the Germans) with almost 7,000 tanks and 4,000 planes versus the Finnish Army's aroughly 70,000 professional soldiers and another 200,000 conscripts poorly trained and drafted throughout the war, 20 tanks and 62 planes.

So with the more than 12-1 advantage in professional infantry, 112-1 advantage in tanks and 65-1 advantage in planes I'm sure the Soviets just walked right over the Finns.....oh wait a minute. Actually the Soviets lost nearly 200,000 men to the Finns 25,000 (with the Finnish infantry garnering a 30-1 kill ratio tops in the war even over the elite German units versus outdated Polish army). Basically a small Finnish army armed almost exclusively with hunting rifles held off the fully professional (at that time) Russian army for almost four months with no assistance and against a heavily mechanized and upgunned opponent. One of the Finnish snipers armed only with his hunting rifle killed between 550-800 Soviets himself.

 

[FireInTheNole]

I don't know about tough Soviet troops they lost a ton of them. If you mean fighting against the Germans despite being slaughtered...Stalin had troops called "barrier soldiers" placed behind his own line to shoot anyone who retreated. They killed a min of 150,000. So the choice was fight the Germans and maybe survive or flee and be executed and your family could face further reprisals as well.

SIAP, but this video really drives home the point IYAM.



Animated Data Visualization Of World War II Fatalities
.

 

[S3M1N0L3]

Primarily, but we didn't bomb it completely out of them. When polled and asked the simple question "Would you be happy living next to someone of another race or country/tribe of origin." 'Mericuh was surprisingly only filled with about 2.5% of racists, far below what our media would say. Meanwhile both Germany and Japan were near the top of civilized countries in the 18% range. Only France topped Germany for most racist European country. Meanwhile the most racist countries were mainly in the Middle East but #1 was India at 44% and #2 was South Korea at 38% (North Korea was surprisingly substantially more tolerant about on par with Japan...so racist as #^%^ but half that of South Korea).

So Americans are better liars when answering poll questions?