Best fighting allies

[Victor]

I believe JLEES starts his argument by assuming that Japan was Germany's best ally just because it tied down a lot of US and Commonwealth forces. But he seems to forget that without Pearl Harbor and the US de jure entry in the war Germany would have had one very dangerous opponent less.

Even if the British could have mustered more forces in North Africa (but keep in mind, just as Julian said, that they also had to leave garrisons in the colonies) that was only a secondary front. They could not actually mount an invasion of Italy on their own afterwards. Without the USAAF, the success of the bomber campaign would not be so sure, nor would the air superiority in 1944.

But most of all, keep in mind that Germany's main battle was on the Eastern Front.

As for Germany supporting its other Eastern European allies you should note that this help was paid for and was not for free. In fact Germany took more than it offered so please don't make it sound that they did any favors.

[Hanski]

"Japan was Germany's best ally just because it tied down a lot of US and Commonwealth forces". And what was it that necessitated Japan's entry into WWII, and thus her contribution to the Axis side? It was the pre-war naval embargo that depleted Japan of its oil and other strategic goods - the embargo placed by Britain and the U.S. that the Japanese tried patiently to negotiate off but failed, until they had no option left but to start their offensive.

Hence, Churchill and Roosevelt were ultimately the best allies of Germany.

Hanski

[JLEES]

Julian,
Let me reply in English once again; I believe this is the language we’re using on this site and I’ll get directly to the point a second time. Please try and keep up, or if you have to read everything twice that’s okay!

First off, I never said I was an expert in 'troop' dispositions, as you sarcastically replied, but I was in the military for 24-years before retirement. By the tone of your reply you must be a college professor schooled in military history, or maybe someone important. Otherwise, you’d sound like a jerk by the tone of your last posting. Nevertheless, two can play at that game, so I’ll come down to your level.

Since you didn’t understand the comment about troops being unavailable for the European/African theaters, I’ll make the point again, but a little simpler the second time. If the British stationed 100,000 men in Singapore to fight the Japanese and they did, and if these troops found themselves in Japanese P.O.W. camps, which they did; then they were not deployed against the Germans, which they could have been but were not. So when you say, “whose troops does this refer to?” Those are the guys! These were the 100,000 Commonwealth soldiers whom never fought the Germans, because they were “guests of the Japanese Empire” for a few years. There were other British commands in the Pacific and Asia too beyond Singapore. If you think this is an example of “vagueness” you’d better read some material about the Pacific Campaign in WWII, there is no other way of getting more specific and clearing some of the misunderstanding. You might want to checkout Singapore on the map too.

Next, you said, “Commonwealth troops in India and Burma…the permanent garrisons, from the Indian Army, mainly native troops, whose existence was to counter threats other than the off chance the Japanese might invade.” Now that is one way to simplify something out of reality and have the ability of the written word to outrun the thoughts behind it. I think you had better read about the Burmese Campaigns and Japanese attempt to penetrate into India and how there forces were pushed back and out of the area. There were a little more then just simple native troops and crop dusters in that theater of operations from 1942-45. As they say, “a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.”

Meanwhile, I think there were a lot more than “a few hundreds more planes” in the Pacific from 1942/43-time frame. And I think there were a hell of a lot more then a few hundred planes in the Pacific in 1944. There were thousands of military aircraft in the Pacific that could have been sent to fight Germany, but they were fighting the Japanese instead and this too was a good thing for nazi-Germany. Again you had better do some reading on the subject, your limited knowledge of Allied airpower is shining through your last posting.

Then you made another eye opening point when you said, “So the Japanese provided one superpower foe for Germany and refused to help with the other, but as Jlees, with his usual succinct analysis, puts it, the Japanese very kindly decided to help with the country they already attacked, Germany should be eternally grateful” There were some interesting point made here but they had nothing to do with the issue. Overlooking the last incomplete sentence, we were discussing who was the best ally Germany had and not who was the best ally Japan had. Although you had some great reverse logic there, please stay focused on the topic. Sorry for being so blunt and to the point, but you requested I respond in that manner.

Then you said, “As I have pointed out repeatedly, the European theatre took priority in equipment, men and supplies as per JCS(joint Chiefs of Staff) resolutions.” That too is a great point, but no one is debating it. Germany had a higher rating then any of the other European Axis nations too for that matter, but that is also off topic. We are talking about whom was Germany’s best ally. Again, please stick to the issue, or read everything a little longer first and think about it before you reply. Reading about the Pacific Theater also helps before making a decision too.

Interesting, after reading your reply it’s obvious you’re the one that excels at 'the ignore and reply tactic.’ But it goes further then that too. You seem to have an intellectual denial problem. Again, I’ll get to the point: if a few million Allied troops are fighting the Japanese Empire and they are not fighting the Germans, it’s a good thing for Nazi-Germany. We’re talking basic math here and it shouldn’t be too complex for even you, Julian, to figure out. There was no other Axis Ally that single-handedly drew off such forces and fought them single-handedly throughout the entire war then the Japanese Empire. There is no other simple way to put it then that.

Victor,
I have not forgot about Pearl Harbor, but that isn't the issue. We are talking about who was Germany's best Ally. If we want to discuss Pearl Harbor, Nazi-Germany declared war on the US. It was Germany that actively took a military part against the USA, but that too is off topic. The question was just, who was Germany's best Ally? No other ally of Germany fought harder, longer, drew off more Allied power and supplies away from Germany and singlehandedly fought the Allies like Japan did.
James
James

[Victor]

"Japan was Germany's best ally just because it tied down a lot of US and Commonwealth forces".

Read my post more carefully and you will see how waaaay out of the context you quoted me.

[Hanski]

Victor,

I am not sure if I quoted specifically you (although I did cut it from your text) or the essence of what JLEES has repeatedly been pointing out. But regardless of just who of us was the first one to write it, I agree there is a strong point in noting that Japan was a major adversary of the Allied forces, and it indeed tied down resources that could otherwise have been used against Germany.

Along these lines, my remark about the role of Churchill and Roosevelt in Japan's forced entry into WWII is deliberately provocatory. I would be grateful to learn details about whether the Western Allies really considered the strategic risks of their embargo in this respect.

Hanski

[JLEES]

Victor,
You said, "I believe JLEES starts his argument by assuming that Japan was Germany's best ally just because it tied down a lot of US and Commonwealth forces. But he seems to forget that without Pearl Harbor and the US de jure entry in the war Germany would have had one very dangerous opponent less." Who was the "he" in your statement? I've never forgot about Pearl Harbor, or were you refering to Julian?
James

[Andy]

Sorry guys but it is not Japan's fault that Germany declared war on the United States. Germany did not have to declare war if they did not want to but they did. It is their own fault that they went to war with the United States not Japan's.

[Napoli]

Thats right Andy, like Italy doing the same to Germany in the begining, Germany should have taken a better look of its situation before comiting.
May it have been Hitler's foresite of thinking America would mostly concentrate on Japan, not thinking it may have been Germans suddenly becoming the main target?
Would kind of sound logical at the time.

[JLEES]

Napoli and Andy,
The German Declaration of War on the USA was probably Hitler’s greatest error. Although attacking the Soviet Union in June 1941, ranks up there as a major military grand-strategic blunder, committing Germany and the other European Axis powers to a war with the USA (the largest industrial power on the face of the Earth) was unbelievably stupid. This was especially idiotic after Japan failed to attack the USSR when Hitler earlier had moved east. By declaring war Germany gained nothing except a major adversary who focused his main military and economic energy on destroying them first.
James

[Napoli]

Possibly their idea in mind mostly to have unrestricted sinking of shipping from American Ports to European Ports?
That would seem logical also as to the amount of U-boat numbers they'd biult up by then.

[julian]

Ah yes, indeed, finally some rather helpful advice from Generalissimo James:
'or if you have to read everything twice that's okay! '
the key, it seems to understanding James's dilettante meaderings is to read his postings twice, or even better, thrice!! Of course being a JLees post, there is the obligatory chest-beating and vain posturing, we are reliably informed of General James's copius military service(very thoughtful, considering the execrable grasp of military history in his posts, one would hardly have known otherwise), and of course the descent into mental serfdom with the 'Sorry for being blunt...', don't apologise James, I had an excellent over this capital imitation of a poor man's Clint Eastwood. As for the rest of your repetitive diatribe, well I'm sure there must exist a template such as 'how to argue without thinking' in ms word, as your posts seem to flow from the same process line, rant, done, rave, done, logic, out the window. But lets see if I can provide some commentary on your elegant rebuttal.
When I asked you to provide figures on soldiers to be released from the British garrisons, I didn't realise that I was supposed to provide the answers to my own questions:

'There were other British commands in the Pacific and Asia too beyond Singapore. If you think this is an example of "vagueness" you'd better read some material about the Pacific Campaign in WWII, there is no other way of getting more specific and clearing some of the misunderstanding'

how ingenious of you James to use this policy of 'self-service' rebuttal, not one of your posts contains any facts or figures. Now James, when you wrote:
'No other Axis power drew off more allied troops away from Germany and took them on single-handedly then any other Axis nation then Japan'

and I asked 'whose troops are these', you replied(a rare answer) that this was the Singapore Garrison, but James, whilst you, in your mind, had a distinguished military career, was common-sense 101 a little too difficult? To write 'drew off more allied troops away from Germany' is to infer that troops serving against Germany were transferred to the Asia-Pacific region, the Singapore Garrison has always been in that region, this exercise, through your ineptness, resembles tooth pulling at the dentist, but I ask you again, which 'troops' were fighting against Germany, then were removed to the Japanese front? Perhaps you can reply in a manner other than advising me to consult 'books'.

'I think you had better read about the Burmese Campaigns and Japanese attempt to penetrate into India and how there forces were pushed back and out of the area. There were a little more then just simple native troops and crop dusters in that theater of operations from 1942-45. As they say, "a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous."'

Indeed, ah yes James, who more eminently qualified to make the assertion, "a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous." , I could not in a month of Sundays discover, but James, I feel embarrassed asking a man of your military experience, you do realise that in foreign garrisons such as India, Burma, native troops were pre-eminently used, and these troops were of a high standard. But let us instead peruse the multitude of statements that proved a tad too difficult, even for a man of your esteemed and self-publicised military experience, so were consigned to the 'good points' 'nothing to do with the issue' basket. These points included the JCS dictum of 'Europe first', and the absence of Japanese assistance against the Soviets, understanderbly you would consider them 'nothing to do with the issue', the issue being in your mind, to fudge and obfuscate any relevance this debate has to the facts. Along with these ridiculous assertions comes the most laughable statement of the whole post,:
'if a few million Allied troops are fighting the Japanese Empire and they are not fighting the Germans'
As per Geffery Perret's 'Old Soldiers Never Die', prior to the planned invasion of Japan, with the assistance of soldiers from the European theatre, there was approx 38 divisions under the control of MacArthur against the estimated Japanese force of two million, that number of divisions, using the 15,000 men in the field, and 15,000 men in support for each division, is just over a million, the largest force in the Pacific, and at the end of the European war. So General James's assertion of 'a few million' is another example of General James's intertwinning of fact and fantasy, as for the 'enormous' amounts of men and materials that was being prevented by the Japanese from toppling the Nazis, another drum beaten constantly by the good General, unlike James who relies on the rant and rave I will quote S.E Morison, History of United States Naval operations:
'Admiral King had caused a rough estimate to be made of the percentage of the total effort(men, ships, planes and munitions) of all the allies, including Russia and China, then employed in the Pacific. He reached the surprising conclusion that only 15% of the total allied resources then enegaged were employed in the Pacific, including the Indian Ocean, Burma and Chinese theatres. European, African, the British build up were getting the remaining 85%, along with supplies to the Soviet Union.'

So this 15% is the amount that James is bemoaning, wailing that if not for the Japanese that 15% could have been added against the Germans, and caused their immediate collapse!!
Therefore as per James, the military expert, Japan was a wonderful ally, because it fought well, and Germany didn't need to send supplies, opposed to which, Japan hastened the enterance of the U.S, which did send supplies to Germany's nemisis, the Soviet Union, Japan only accounted for 15% of total allied forces and equipment and refused to assist Germany against the Soviet Union. Well obviously, James certainly has demonstrated what a firm grasp he has on it, though what 'it' is, he and we are not sure

Cheers

Julian

[JLEES]

Julian,

I don’t have time to play today, so I must keep this short. Nevertheless, one of your comments made me burst out laughing: “As per Geffery Perret's 'Old Soldiers Never Die', prior to the planned invasion of Japan, with the assistance of soldiers from the European theatre, there was approx 38 divisions under the control of MacArthur against the estimated Japanese force of two million, that number of divisions, using the 15,000 men in the field, and 15,000 men in support for each division, is just over a million, the largest force in the Pacific, and at the end of the European war.” First off, there are other forces then these, which must be considered. There are the naval forces; there are the air forces; there is the logistical train stretching across the Pacific; there are the Australians in the Pacific; New Zealanders; Chinese with their US and British produced equipment; the Indians, etc and all that manpower, military units, air power, naval power, logistical-weaponry support would have gone to the European Theater of Operations if the Japanese we not around as an enemy. You can simply say 38 divisions x 15,000 men, with a 1:1 support ratio when it was on the average 1:3 during the conflict, it is not that simple. And since we’re talking the Pacific theater it was probably greater then 1:3. Good try with the equation, but you’re not that swift. So, we’re talking well over a million men! Try several million! Therefore, with all this information, you still think the Japanese contribution was minimal and maybe the Fins or Romanians helped Germany more then the Japanese Empire! Okay!!!!

Now the 15% of the Allied military “resources” aimed at the Japanese you bring up. Remember we are just talking Allied resources. Again another great point, but you’re missing the point. As they say, “the ox maybe slow, but the Earth is patent.” The question is what Axis allied nation assisted Germany the most? Therefore, in your estimation the Fins, Italians or Romanians must have drew sing handedly 16+ percent of the Allied power away from Germany and fought for 4-years. Which Axis power do you have in mind that did this?

But your quotation was, “'Admiral King had caused a rough estimate to be made of the percentage of the total effort (men, ships, planes and munitions) of all the allies, including Russia and China, then employed in the Pacific. He reached the surprising conclusion that only 15% of the total allied resources then engaged were employed in the Pacific, including the Indian Ocean, Burma and Chinese theatres. European, African, the British build up were getting the remaining 85%, along with supplies to the Soviet Union.' When was the quotation made? Was Admiral King speaking in 1942 or 1943? Do you even know? When was the “then” in Admiral King’s statement? This little word “then” has a great deal of significance. Although we’re getting off course again and remember we’re talking “resources.”

Napoli,
I think when Hitler declared war on Japan he had no idea of the problems they were facing on the Eastern Front against the Soviet counterattack. The Red Army counterthrust was only a few days old and maybe didn’t look that serous at that point. The U-Boats may have looked like a promising screen too against US power and who would have thought Roosevelt would have made Germany first instead of Japan. It was a major mistake.
James

[julian]

Hi James

What on earth is this latest shambles you have posted, you have proved equally inept at grammar, logic and military history, now you have turned you attention to the science of mathematics, proving equally as inane at that. What on earth is this 16%+? what relevance does this bizarre formulation have to the subject, obviously you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to post this, eh James.
Well since you like a good chuckle, you should stand back and admire your handiwork, trying to reach the mythical several million mark(like all James's figures, no precise amount, just vagueness), what a lot of disparate groups you have added to the bizarre list. I'm surprised James, someone of your enterprise should not have forgoten to add SWPA's charwomen, or MacArthur's pool cleaners to the list, gee, that would be a few more to the bunch. Of course, as usual, being the 'sliped my mind' kind of guy, you conviently forgot that the allies were included in the number of divisions, but it sounds a lot better stretching them out, eh James. Of course this figure is at the end of the war, and even with you adding every group you could possibly dream of, logistical-weaponary??, it still doesn't add up, so what would it have been like 1943-44?.

'Was Admiral King speaking in 1942 or 1943? Do you even know? When was the "then" in Admiral King's statement? This little word "then" has a great deal of significance'

Of course James, I have these answers, unlike you, I have actually made the effort to research what I write, these figures are from the Casablanca Conference in January 1943, quote taken from S.E Morrison, History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, Vol VI(1950) PP 4-5, perhaps worth perusing should you ever lose yourself and end up in a library. Of course James, you do realise that this is not a quote of Admiral King 'speaking', but of initiating data estimates, indeed, perhaps you are unused to utilising any evidence(especially written) apart from what eminates from your mouth. Ah yes, indeed, another example I fear of you scraping the barrel clean, your last posts have contained merely one failed attempt after another to disparage my arguments, and now the most dismal effort, a bogus attempt to reduce the debate to a simplistic mathematics formula, which even you don't understand, and the feverish addition of every unit you could possibly dream of to reach this mythical 'several million', and now a vague, dissolute attempt to throw doubt on Admiral King's quote, a feeble attempt at that. But tell me James, have you discovered yet which troops were drawn from fighting the Germans to be moved to the Pacific?

Cheers Chump

Julian

P.S Is that what you were in the Military, a Corporal in the logistics-weaponary? eh James

[JLEES]

Julian,
Overlooking your poor use of the English language and obvious limited intelligence, lets look at the below situation again:

You were the one you brought up 15%, not me. If you don’t understand 16+% please reread the last few messages and try to think about it a little before posting another reply.

Okay, idiot now it’s time you do the math. If Admiral King made the quoation in January 1943, the “then” is January of 1943. That would mean the radio of US resources could have greatly increased from January of that year until May of 1945 (When nazi-Germany was still around). If you are still lost, this would mean the US had about 28 months to increase their forces in the Pacific and your little figure if 15% you think your so proud of is pointless.

Now if there is a 3:1 ratio of strength between “tail to teeth” when calculating strength and we’re just looking at 38 divisions at 15,000 men, you do the math. Now remember, my little lost little idiot, we’re just looking at the divisions and not naval forces and air power, which were significant from 1944 onward in that theater of operations. In case this is beyond your intelligence there was hundreds if not a thousand plus US/British ships in the Pacific throughout the campaign. Now Julian, my little special education student, would that would be your one million plus men. If you’re still confused on this point find a high school student who has a basic understanding of math and can read history books to help you out. There was also a great deal more than “a few hundred planes” in Pacific as you so idiotically stated. There were thousands deployed against Japan in the Pacific. So this “mythical several million” should be starting to look like reality, even for idiots like you. Now unless your completely brain-dead things should start looking clearer to you now, I hope for your sake.

What a joke! Even Mommy would be shamed by your stupidity.

James

[Marcus]

julian & JLEES,

There is no need for that unfriendly tone so drop it!

/Marcus