There are no invincible countries.
Germans are the direct heir to the Vikings in Europe & the best fighting people in modern Europe. Hence it’s a necessity for all Europeans to keep them down & demilitarised.
However, they have the most balkanised empire in Europe & that’s cos they have suffered defeats in wars. Austria, half of Belgium, Kaliningrad, about 1/4 of Poland, half of Switzerland, Luxembourg, Hungary to an extent, etc. Those are German lands that have been balkanised to keep the Germans down. And that happened cos they lost wars.
descended from ________ really don't add up to much imo
never been a fan of the 'best fighting people' stuff overall
only constant at scale is the cultural and social ability to rapidly adapt, innovate, and endure the demands of a peer to peer fight to top to bottom. the brits and americans quickly evolved combined arms in action as well as logistically and were more than happy to not 'fight fair' by letting armor/artillery do the heavy lifting. a US tank crew loses their tank, they get another tank. the german tank crew loses a tank and they're suddenly riflemen.
germans thought that just because they beat up on the french twice and kept the brits in check they had the book on warfare in ww2. if the game changes faster than you can keep up with, you lost.
Yes, that Zhukov. He led the Soviet army in that war.
They weren’t small clashes. Calling them small clashes would amount to calling Russo-Japan war a small clash. People talk about the Russo-Japan war which Japan won but always want to disregard the 2 that they lost to the Soviets.
How’s the 2nd Sino-Japanese different from a lot of wars in recent times? That’s like saying there is a huge elephant in the room during Korean War since British forces achieved the biggest feat in the war & it wasn’t an American war.
Japan has always had a great navy but its invincibility is overstated. It benefits more from geography - than any type of invincibility. Japan is basically the UK of Asia since it’s a bunch of Islands thus making it extremely difficult for any to invade. And it would require a lot of amphibious landings hence countries don’t try it (think Normandy multiplied by 20).
There’s a reason why the US decided to nuke the country to break them cos invading would millions of American lives. Normandy was a total disaster during world 2 & they had to use human waves. And they weren’t even fighting the best German forces cos Hitler sent almost 90% of them to the eastern front against the Soviets. Without that it would’ve been worse. So, with the disaster in Normandy still fresh in the mind of the US generals - nuke was the better option for Japan to save lives. And not cos Japanese people are some super human being.
Geography is Japan’s biggest strength - they’re not invincible.
you're not giving the japanese navy nearly enough credit
they weren't just good, they were elite and made the brits - who ran the seas at the time - fall allllll the way back. carriers, night fighting, amphibious assaults, the best pilot training at the time, etc. they got beat off *attrition* more than anything else lol
they didn't have the materiel to replace losses, their doctrine didn't lead to interoperability between manpower, their training while ahead of its time, took too long and crews were designed to only work with each other, the list goes on. its not about invincible or not, its about effect and sticking to the objective. so punching it out with the russians AND the americans? its wild they even lasted as long as they did fr
geography alone doesn't account for a significant portion of that imo. better geographical places exist and get ran through plenty lol
also - the allies could've blockaded Japan and called it a wrap at that point
that nuke was a show of force for everybody. if 'saving lives' was a persistent US objective then the army wouldn't have got whooped all the way up Italy for no real reason and iwo jima would've been bombed into dirt instead of becoming an occupation.