Best fighting allies

[Wolffen]

JLEES

Hey man come on leave English out of it. I would like to see your usage of his language where ever he is from!

[JLEES]

Wolffen,
If you're from around the Eagles Nest in Germany, you're the best person to ask this question. Who do you think was Germany's best ally in WWII? Do you think it was the Hungarians, Romanians, Croatians, Fins, Italians or Japanese? What ally do you think fought the hardest, fought the longest and drew off more Allied power and resources away from the Third Reich then any other Axis country?
James

[Napoli]

Wolfen, he's Australian, so we speak "Australian", not English
JLEES, the question you asked Wolfen would have to be the most silliest, even I know what he would say
Out of the European Allies, earlier on I would say the Italians but just. Hitler didnt do them any favours by starting his war earlier before Italt could rebiuld themselves into a true fighting force. They kept the English navy busy although not successfull to a point, but still doing damage. They helped in the amount of planes on direct route over the channel. They also did have good early success on the Russian front also and added numericaly to that front at the same time.
OK, it could be said that their entries into Nth Africa, Yugoslavia and Greece were resounding failures at first, but one could also say that the British were already in those countries and later could have become a launching pad for an attack themselves.
But this info would be up to 1942 only. After that is anyone elses guess.
Flame me if you like (but not you Wolfen )

[julian]

Hi James,

Its good to see that you are still beating the same battered drum(seems to be coming apart at the seams), but James, tell me, is it possible to critique someone's grasp of english only to follow by indulging in a basic grammatical error:

'and obvious limited intelligence'

after all James, shouldn't that be 'and obviously', a small oversight for someone of your vast experience in the english language. I fear too for your blood pressure, one would think that:
'idiot', 'little special education student', 'idiots like you'
is no language for a fine upstanding military man, eh James. But it appears that your latest rant demonstrates a slightly unhinged approach:

'little lost little idiot'
indeed, I certainly hope you consider a less mentally demanding hobby, than these debates, an angina attack can be very dangerous in the twilight of your life, perhaps I could suggest ping pong, or the weekly crossword puzzle as a viable alternative, I do have your best interests at heart .
I'm sure though James, that a suitable computer program would relieve you of the arduous task of composing one repetitive post after another, indeed, if programmed to rehash the same feeble issues ad infinitum, becoming increasingly bizarre, voila, the perfect 'James' post is produced! thereby releasing your intellect for more productive tasks??
I was amazed to read your continued attempts to discredit the '15%' you are obsessed with, obviously this is a case of 'how low can you go', now you are claiming:
'US resources could have '
now its 'could have' not 'you know' or 'have dicovered', or even more of an oxymoron in a 'James' post, you 'can prove'. So to elaborate on your argument, you repudiate this point because of a 'could have'?, obviously much easier to make it up as you go along rather than actually use evidence, eh James. But I do have another quote, for you to subject to your usual thourough and exhaustive analysis:

'On the 15th of June, 1943, the Austalian Government was informed that Pacific War was reduced to fifth on the list of priorities, after the Atlantic, Russia, the Mediterranean and the U.K' from High Command, Australian And Allied Strategy 1939-1945, D.M Horner

So will the next demented reply contain the contention that 'the allies could have built up in the Pacific after June, 1943' and so on and so forth until the distance to 1945 is closed. Of course, what is overlooked by this toddler like strategy, is the vast increase in demand by the European theatre 1944 onwards, it would be ludicrous to suggest that the Pacific theatre would increase its share of the allied output in such circumstances.
What I'm almost afraid to ask though, is:
'Even Mommy would be shamed by your stupidity'
evidence of a Freudian mother fixation, eh James, just keep taking those pills.

Cheers

Julian

P.S Of course you would have discovered by now, which troops were 'drawn away from the Germans' and shipped to the Pacific, eh James

[JLEES]

Julian,
Again and again, you’re still missing the point! We’re not talking about what percentage of military force was targeted at what enemy. So it’s not important whether 1/3 or ¼ or 1/5 of the Allied power was sent to the Pacific, because we’re talking about what ally assisted Germany more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you can’t understand a few million service men in the Pacific (that’s counting their logistical support; God I hope you understand the word logistics!) and not in the Atlantic assisted Germany, well okay! You’re right too in the last message, my argument is repetitive, because I’ve had to ask you numerous times to understand the point and I’ve failed in this effort. Please if it’s possible try to understand this. I’m a failure at trying to get a point of simple math across to you. I’ve tried but I’m not a special education teacher.

If you think there was just a “few hundred Allied planes” in the Pacific from 1941-45 and only 38 divisions (with a formula of 38x15,000 men) and that’s it, okay! I see you’ve done your homework! Therefore, when you say, “So will the next demented reply contain the contention that 'the allies could have built up in the Pacific after June, 1943' and so on and so forth until the distance to 1945 is closed” you’ve got to understand you’re not controlling this debate with your idiotic, close-minded, logic. You’re not talking to Mommy here, where you can control the issues and flow of information. It doesn’t work that way around intelligent adults. Your tactic of selectively pointing out what Allied forces (a percentage) typically was sent to the Pacific in 1942/early 1943 and overlooking the rest of the campaign (all two and a half years that followed when the forces were greatly enlarged) isn’t going unobserved. Even though this has nothing to do with the issue (as stated above), your further attempts to be selective with the facts and control the debate are going to get you no where here. There are too many intelligent people who can see through your B rated act.

Now for an intelligent conversation:

Napoli,
Unquestionably you’re correct: Italy assisted Germany the most in the opening moves of WWII. Even during her “nonbelligerent” period of the conflict (September 1939-June 1940) as a “force of being” she tied down large numbers of Commonwealth troops in the Med simply by existing (very similar to what Japan did to the Soviets before December 1941 in the East). Then when Mussolini declared war on the British there was a period of time when it may have looked like she could have been a great ally with her “parallel war” strategy. Sadly, after her attack on Greece; Germany being forced to cancel her offensive on the USSR for a few months and having to send troops into the Balkans; then the Afrika Korps with Luftwaffe assets to North Africa, Fascist-Italy became more of a drain to the Third Reich economically/military then an asset. Therefore, unquestionably, Japan became Germany’s best ally from December 1941 onwards.

If we look at the situation this way, Italy was the best ally from September 1939-June 1941; Japan maybe June 1941 to May 1945. Very good point, Napoli!

James

[webtoy100]

I think this board has concluded that most of Germany's allies were 'OK', but almost all of them were not much use becuase they had useless equipment.

So, on that basis I'd like to nominate the Swedes and Swiss - the so called 'neutrals' who were only too happy to supply iron ore, ball bearings and the rest to the Germans who made it into tanks and other equipment. Sure they didnt do any fighting, but their supplies alone must be the equivalent of several panzer divisions. Oh, and in the Swiss case, send Jewish refugees back to certain death - in Germany's 'other' war...

These two countries were very lucky that the Allies had other fish to fry once the war had finished...

More at:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9806/02/us.nazi.gold/#2

And, as someone else has noted, the Russians didnt do too bad until 6/41 -glad to give Hitler oil and grain, and send him congratulations when he overran France. What a bastard Stalin was - tempted to say he got his just desserts but he didn't - 20m of his countrymen did though.

WT

[Rasvan01]

I don't think that anybody can deny that Japan was the most powerfull allied, and (thanks to their medieval-like society) gave the most fanatic soldiers.
However, and please correct me if I'm wrong, strategically-wise I think they made one of the biggest mistakes of the war when they attacked Pearl Harbour instead of atacking the soviets. That decision freed a ton of division for the russians, just in time so they could transfer them to the eastern front. And another thing-the attack on Pearl Harbour precipited the US into action. Granted, they were looking for a motif to do so, but the longer they were out of the mayhem, the better for the axis.
So, Japan did exactly what Churchill was praying for, a stupid thing to stir the americans into battle. Do not forget that England received only conditioned help from USA(loans and guaranties) and they were on the brink of bankrupcy. The japanese attack freed the migty economic power of the americans, not only for England but for the russians too-the long convoys to Murmansk...
Japan-the most powerfull allied? Think so. The most usefull? No way!

Sever

[Victor]

Hmmm, things really got out of hand these couple of days I have been gone.

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.

Well, I strongly believe that they did. The embargo gave Japan only two possibilities: to attack the Allies and start a war or to submit their requests. There was no middle road.

A good indication to this was the US decision to strengthen its position in the Philippines earlier in 1941.

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?

No, I was referring to you. I consider things to be a little more complicated. In fact we are in some kind of a vicious circle here.
Japan tied down Western Allied forces, but it also brought America de jure into the war. One has to measure up the advantages and disadvantages and frankly I find it hard.
How long would the US have remained neutral is hard to tell. It is obvious that it would have eventually entered the war one way or the other. But how much time would pass before that happened? Could the Germans overcome the SU in the meantime?

[JLEES]

Victor,
You’re correct! The attack on Pearl Harbor was a double-edged sword. In one sense Japan gave Germany one of its best allies by diverting Allied forces into the Pacific, but on the other side of the coin their attack on Pearl Harbor brought the USA into the conflict against the Axis. I’m sure the USA would have eventually found its way into the conflict against Nazi-Germany some how even if there was no Pearl Harbor attack. Pearl Harbor was a brilliant tactical and operational move on the Japanese part, but it turned into a strategic nightmare when the USA didn’t move for peace immediately and proved it was willing to fight its way to the Japanese mainland. But one must remember, Germany declared war on the USA; not the USA declaring war first of Germany. Therefore, it was Hitler’s fault there was US troops in Europe more so then the Japanese.
James

[Rasvan01]

I don't agree with James that Hitler brought the wrath upon himself by declaring war to USA. I believe that Roosevelt was looking for a reason to get in huddle, only the izolationism of the american people preventing him to do just so. The miscalculation of Japan provided him with all the "tools of the trade" and more.

Sever

[JLEES]

Rasvan01,
I agree with you that Roosevelt was looking for an excuse to get into it with Germany, but the isolationist attitudes of the Americans kept him neutral. I also stated at some point the USA would have found a way to fight Germany, even if Hitler had not declared war on them first. And I agree with you the miscalculation of Japan in attacking Pearl Harbor gave Roosevelt the excuse he needed to get into the war actively. But, by Hitler declaring war on the USA in December, Hitler escalated things a bit, which was not to his advantage and created a major enemy much sooner then necessary. He gained nothing but a major adversary in Europe. I’m sure eventually Roosevelt would have found a way to get troops into Europe and fight the Third Reich, but Hitler’s declaration speeded things up for the USA (to Roosevelt and Churchill’s advantage) and got the US ground troops there much faster. Taking on the largest industrial power of the face of the Earth and fighting the Soviets at the same time was not a wise idea on Hitler’s part; the proof to the pudding is the ruins of Berlin and a dead dictator.
James

[Napoli]

My reason on Italy being Germany's best Allied partner in Europe up to 1942 was based on a few things,
1) By tying up the Mediterean shipping area's with a strong navy making it harder for any planned landings into that area, or naval presence which as resulted they did in 1943 through the Italian penisular. This is one thing they would have over other Eastern partners. Had no presence been there it would be quite likely a push to Austria and associated area's would have been a target.
2) By sending large amounts of troops to the Russian front without being asked to do so and as I earlier said some good success along side German and other Axis divisions.
3) By having a pressence with their airforce, which unlike some other partners, was mostly locally made and no drain on German labour forces.
4) Yes starting campains in Greece, Turkey and the Middle East/Nth Africa did not go well, but one must assume the situation at the time.
Had there been no American entry, England would have possibly taken out of Nth Africa and basically left with no front to fight on except by air leaving them stuck on English soil almost ready for a surrender of some kind. The taking of Yugoslavia and Greece would have secured even less Allied friendly teritory leaving only Russia to fight (Even though I still dont believe this war could have eventually been won).
If America had entered at a later date, one would wonder what they would have found with an English surrender and a reason to actually start a war?
OK, it could be debated Italy did Germany no favours by extending into new fronts, but it also could be said Germany did no favours but starting war earlier than planned, declaring war on Russia and later declaring war on America. Through this Italy, once commited did help out on German fronts as they had agreed by also declaring war on both nations.

[JLEES]

Napoli,
I agree Germany didn't do Italy a favor by starting the war early in 1939, or by attacking the USSR in 1941, after Italy entered the war on Germany's side. Meanwhile, Italy didn't do Germany a favor by attacking Greece and failing to take Egypt in 1940 either. Both situations caused the other nation headaches. They were both assets and both liabilities to each other.
James

[julian]

Hi James,


'Now for an intelligent conversation'

Indeed, how could I mistake your elegant prose:

'You're not talking to Mommy', ' idiotic', close-minded, logic', 'special education teacher'

for anything other than the workings of a higher intellect, and of course its quite possible that the above gibberings might eminate from 'intelligent adults', following the theory of course, that anythings possible(pig's might fly et al).
But tell me James, what happened to you persona of english critic, did it go the same direction as your theories? It does seem though, James, that your ramblings, whilst obviously compelling, have not convinced everyone. I'll illustrate it for you:
1/ the Japanese gave the Americans an excuse to enter into the war, previous to Pearl Harbour, both congress and the American public were against entering into a European conflict
2/ The Joint Chiefs of Staff, until 1945, placed the Pacific theatre last in priority for men, equipment and supplies, behind Europe, England, Soviet Union, and for a time, the Mediterranean
3/ In 1943 this amounted to 15% of total resources, men, equipment etc
from 1944 this would have been a extremely low figure due to the Normandy invasion, the Italian theatre virtually ground to a standstill due to lack of resources, this theatre was of higher priority than the Pacific
4/ The Japanese provided no assistance against the Soviet Union, despite the U.S providing enormous assistance to the Soviet Union
thus the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of japan as an ally, added to the fact there was no coordination between Japan and Germany militarily, indeed, one could say, that by providing the U.S with an excuse to enter the war in 1942, Japan had signed Germanys death warrant
It appears James that your reasoning has assumed the guise of Frankenstein's monster, cobbled together, and with no argument fitting well, but as usual you have thrown a few blantant misconceptions in, let me assist you in uncovering them:

'1941-45 and only 38 divisions'

that large number of divisions only occured in 1945, in the preparation for the invasion of Japan, after the defeat of Germany, this force included many divisions transferred from Europe, as per my quote from Geofferey Perret's 'Old Soldiers Never Die', you really are running out of ideas, eh James, to throw this furphy in. And of course the plain deceitful:

'If you think there was just a 'few hundred Allied planes' in the Pacific from 1941-45 '

this is evidence of the paucity of your position, that you resort to blatant deception, I stated on the 15th of March:

'and that the Uboat threat had resided by 1942-1943, and while the allied airforces might have benefited from the addition of a few hundreds more planes(though it is hard to see where the aircraft carrier would have proved overly useful), the early entry of Japan by bringing the other superpower, U.S, to join the Soviet Union in pounding on the gates of Germany, was certainly no great benefit. '


at no time did I refer to the allied number of planes in the Pacific for the time period 1941 to 1945, you have, in your desperation, conjured this contention up, lying is not quite the sort of behavior expected from an ex-military man, eh James, not quite the officer and gentleman.
But I have no doubt, that like one of those dolls that has a cord, you pull, and the doll speaks, you have a cord that you pull yourself, just remember to change the batteries after the first two thousand pulls, eh James.

Cheers

Julian

[JLEES]

Julian,
Here we go again! Points that make no sense to the basic discussion of who was Germany’s best ally. Let take a look at your points one-by-one and dissect them to pieces:
1/ “The Japanese gave the Americans an excuse to enter into the war, previous to Pearl Harbor, both congress and the American public were against entering into a European conflict.” Great point, but it has nothing to do with the discussion!
2/ “The Joint Chiefs of Staff, until 1945, placed the Pacific theatre last in priority for men, equipment and supplies, behind Europe, England, Soviet Union, and for a time, the Mediterranean.” Another great point which has nothing to do with the discussion! Again were talking about whom was Germany’s best ally!!!!!!!!
3/ “In 1943 this amounted to 15% of total resources, men, equipment etc
from 1944 this would have been a extremely low figure due to the Normandy invasion, the Italian theatre virtually ground to a standstill due to lack of resources, this theatre was of higher priority than the Pacific.” The 15% you like to give was the percentage of force in the Pacific in January 1943. This percentage greatly expanded afterwards over the following 28-months until May 1945. Secondly, German was a higher priority; not that theater like you say. Or are you saying Italy was a higher priority in 1943 then Japan? If that is waht your try to say, your out there some where and maybe shoudl come back to planet Earth! Therefore, try again!
4/ The Japanese provided no assistance against the Soviet Union, despite the U.S providing enormous assistance to the Soviet Union. Great point! But again this is only a small part of the picture. What about the US force beyond your little 15%; the Commonwealth forces; the Chinese; the equipment; the supplies; the Australians in the Pacific; the New Zealanders; etc; etc.; etc! Please try again!!!!!

Your little statistic of 38 Allied divisions total is a little misleading isn’t it? I thought in one of your previous messages you said, ““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.” Well Julian, there was other commands having other divisions beside Macarthur’s in the Pacific and that’s why you should do some reading on the subject before making any further posts. For example, the was Nimitz command had numerous ground divisions attached to it for amphibious ops not under MacArthur’s command; there was the British command in Burma of 12-divisions in 1944 (West Point Second World War, page 224) attached to it; the was Curtis LeMay’s command with hundreds of B29s with all the associated logistical support flying against Japan (there was other Allied aircraft too in the Pacific like the 500 in China not under Lemay’s command; there was the US air and some ground units in China helping out too and the thousands of tons of supplies transported there weekly (West Point Second World War, page 226). In fact by 1945, “there were 39 Chinese divisions equipped with American equipment (West Point Second World War, page 231). These were units, supplies and equipment that could have been used in the European theater against the Germans and this is the point here!!!!!!!!! As pointed out in the past, I think the British could have used the 100,000 troops that surrendered in Singapore, or the US could have used the roughly 100,000 US and Philippine troops that surrendered in the Philippines in 1942 against the Germans, but the were Japanese POWs. Now lets turn the issue around, if Japan wasn’t Germany’s best ally quiz-kid who was? What other Axis country tied down so many Allied units for four years and captured so many Allied troops, sank so many Allied ships, shot down so many Allied planes and even attacked US territory? The question was asked before, but we didn’t get an answer from you. This should be good for a laugh!

I think you need to crack the books a little more.
Bye,
James