Well, what do you think? i personally think the Japs wouldve surrendered 2 months earlier.Just because of fear. The reason i say this is, Patton was a pretty chivelrous(i think i mispelled that) guy. Had we witnessed the japanese brutality on the front lines he probably wouldve torched everything on site and attack with a ferocity the warfare had never seen before. Your thoughts?

CVM

__________________

I know George Smith Patton would have gotten the job done, but everything was completely different that the fighting in the ETO. It would be interesting to see what would have taken place with Patton in command.

[ 15 August 2002, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: C.Evans ]

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

No difference. He was a great officer. But the war in the Pacific was not a mobile war, which was Patton's speciality.

And the Japanesse would not have surrendered just because of one man. They surrender only when there were two options, surrender nicely to the Americans or face the Soviets and the "special bombs", which meant the killing of 100.000.000 Japanesse, including one named Hiro-Hito.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

I have to agree with Friedrich on Patton...his abilities were far better used in Europe. And its not like the Japanese werent accustomed to harsh warfare...they almost never surrendered, preferring fighting to the death or even suicide to capture. And part of the army tried to stage a coup when Hirohito surrendered to the Americans...not all of them feared the Soviets...or the bomb.

__________________
"If your gonna buy the angel s**t, you might as well go for the zombie package as well."
-George Carlin