Pacific theater question.
Pacific theater question.
Did the japs give the allies any hard time to the point where the allies thought they were going to loose? Were the japs hard to beat according to the allies? Were the allies confident in winning the pacific?.
- Klaus Yurk
- Member
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: 15 May 2004, 04:15
- Location: Lincoln, Ne.
The Allies had a "Germany First" policy so they must have thought Germany was far more dangerous than Japan. Even Yamamoto guaranteed only six months of victory.
In hindsight, I don't think the Allies ever seriously thought that Japan had the economic and industrial power to "win" against them. Yet, if for any reason, either the UK or the USSR dropped out of the war against Germany, Germany had a chance of manking it very difficult, if not impossible, for the Allies to defeat her. Ergo...Germany first.
Just my opinion.
In hindsight, I don't think the Allies ever seriously thought that Japan had the economic and industrial power to "win" against them. Yet, if for any reason, either the UK or the USSR dropped out of the war against Germany, Germany had a chance of manking it very difficult, if not impossible, for the Allies to defeat her. Ergo...Germany first.
Just my opinion.
The Japanese scored many significant victories against the Allies early in the war. The successful attack at Pearl Harbor, the conquest of the Philippinnes and Malaysia, including Singapore, the defeat of British forces in Burma, and the conquest of much of Indonesia culminating in the destruction of the ABDA fleet put Japan in a strong, if extended position. The Japanese did not believe they could defeat the US in traditional terms, i.e. conquer the US and capture Washington. What they hoped to do was to run up a series if impressive victories and then establish a solid defensive position of layered rings of islands and archipelagoes upon which the Allied forces would be impaled, thus compelling the Americans to seek terms.
As posted previously, the US/UK position was "Germany First." The Pacific theater was, initially, to go on the defensive but the victories at Midway and, then, Guadalcanal gave impetus to offensive efforts. I don't think the Allies ever felt that the Japanese could totally defeat them. Rather, it was a question of how long would it take to defeat Japan, and at what cost.
As posted previously, the US/UK position was "Germany First." The Pacific theater was, initially, to go on the defensive but the victories at Midway and, then, Guadalcanal gave impetus to offensive efforts. I don't think the Allies ever felt that the Japanese could totally defeat them. Rather, it was a question of how long would it take to defeat Japan, and at what cost.
- Leo Niehorster
- Member
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: 21 Jan 2004, 23:07
- Location: Hangover, Germany
- Contact:
- Leo Niehorster
- Member
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: 21 Jan 2004, 23:07
- Location: Hangover, Germany
- Contact:
Leo,
No, nothing "politically correct", just the way I was raised.
I've been taught that "Japs" are a derogatory term and judging from the below I'm not alone in being tought that.
No, nothing "politically correct", just the way I was raised.
I've been taught that "Japs" are a derogatory term and judging from the below I'm not alone in being tought that.
/MarcusCNSNews.com wrote:The Japanese government has criticized North Korea after its envoy at the United Nations repeatedly used the term "Japs" to describe the Japanese during a General Assembly session.
Government spokesman Yasuo Fukuda said it was "outrageous" for North Korea's deputy ambassador to the U.N. Kim Chang Guk to have used the derogatory term three times during the meeting in New York.
[...]
General Assembly president Julian Hunte also took Kim to task for "using this kind of language."
- Leo Niehorster
- Member
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: 21 Jan 2004, 23:07
- Location: Hangover, Germany
- Contact:
- Leo Niehorster
- Member
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: 21 Jan 2004, 23:07
- Location: Hangover, Germany
- Contact: