Best fighting allies

Discussions on all aspects of the smaller Axis nations in Europe and Asia. Hosted by G. Trifkovic.
Sokol
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 14 Nov 2002 14:23
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Sokol » 21 Nov 2002 16:11

The Pacific is not my forte when discussing WW2. But I do offer this: 1943 and 1944 were pivotal years in striking blows against the Germans and Italians in Europe, rather than rolling back the Japanese. Most Allied resources would have been sent to help the Italian Campaign, followed by Normandy and the destruction of Fortress Europe rather than capturing tiny islands in the Pacific. I'd say that in '43 and '44 (especially '44) the percentage of men funneled into Europe was far more significant than the percentage of men funneled into the Pacific. I say this without evidence, it just seems logical. If you can prove me wrong, go right ahead, I need some lessons on this theater of war anyway.

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 10:36
Location: Finland

Post by Tiwaz » 21 Nov 2002 16:59

To make my huge contribution to this thread... :P

Gentlemen, remember that people of Finland are called Finns with 2 n not Fins.

Thank you and you may return to your interesting discussion.

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by Victor » 21 Nov 2002 17:40

Rasvan01 wrote: 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.
Actually, Japan had absolutely no advantage in an attack on the Soviets. They had to get to the Dutch East Indies and quick, before they ran out of gas. An attack on the SU would only drain their feeble resources. Plus the memory of the defeats the Red Army inflicted on them was still fresh.
Rasvan01 wrote: That decision freed a ton of division for the russians, just in time so they could transfer them to the eastern front.
These are the forces transferred from the Soviet Far East to the European theatre, prior to the winter counter-offensive in 1941:
2 tank divisions in July
1 tank division in August
3 rifle divisions in September
3 rifle divisions, 1 motorized rifle division and 1 tank division in October
1 tank division in November
Total: 6 rifle divisions, 1 motorized infantry division and 5 tank divisions

It seems that the Soviets did not have too much problem in moving forces from there before Pearl Harbor.

JLEES
Member
Posts: 1992
Joined: 26 Apr 2002 04:01
Location: Michigan, USA

Germany over Japan

Post by JLEES » 21 Nov 2002 18:05

Sokol,
There is absolultaly no dispute that Germany was placed on higher priority then Japan, but that is not the issue. Yes, as someone else has pointed it out like a broken record, they received only 15% of the Allied force against them in January 1943, but not afterwards as this person falsely has claimed. Meanwhile, when looking at it from the other direction, no other Axis power received more attention by the Allies throughout the war then Japan, after Germany. The issue is who was Germany’s best ally. When you gage what Axis power, after Germany, destroyed more Allied units, tied-down more Allied units away from Germany, was given no German support throughout the war (unlike other Axis minor allies) and required the LARGEST amount of Allied resources in terms of men, supplies and equipment to destroy them, the answer is Japan. Italy only fought for ½ years after the US entered the war and required German assistance immediatly after attacking Greece and Britain in early 1941. Who else is there that falls into this category besides Japan?
James

Rasvan01
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 19 Jul 2002 00:33
Location: Chicago

Post by Rasvan01 » 22 Nov 2002 00:13

James,

I agree that issue is about the Germans BEST ally, but best as in who was the most helpfull for them and not who was the second toughest on the block, if now what I mean. Because if you look at the good and bad Japan brought to the Germans, I think they were rather better off!! I know, Japan kept around 15% of the ally forces commited on the Pacific theatre (like you and Julian so gracefully pointed out- hehe he) but think about the rest of 85% that got funelled in the germans general direction...
So, if you want to talk about the best ally out of the context, yes Japan would be my pick too, but given the situation I don't think so!!

Victor,

Thank for the data abot what the soviets transfered prior to the winter counter-offensive. Yes, it seems they didn't have to much problem transfering units prior to winter 1941. Do you think they had some intelligence informations about the Japanese intentions? After all there were some notorius spies operating in Japan, if I'm correct.
And I would be curious to know what units did the soviets move after Pearl Harbour?

When it comes to advantages( as in "Japan had absolutelly no advantage by attacking the Soviets") I know that everybody entered the war with a personal agenda. I know they desperately needed the oil in the East Indies, and yes, it is was very clear they're strategic priority, but I'm not talking about that. What I was saing is: weren't they far better by( after securing the East Indies resources of course) not attacking the americans but opening a second front with the soviets, as in the spirit of our debate here about " the Germans BEST ally" ?

Rasvan

julian
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 07:54

James, the forum's Don Quixote

Post by julian » 22 Nov 2002 05:33

Hi James,

Still giving the old a cord a pull? But tell me James, who would believe someone who engages in deceit and plain lying, I didn't find a reply in your latest gibberings to the shameful deceit practiced in your post:

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

as you have choosen to ignore this, as you invariably do with any facts or arguments that prove to be inconvient, let me remind you of what I really wrote:

'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. '

ah yes, indeed, only an individual with low self-esteem and moral turpitude would practice such deceit in a vain attempt to win the point, again not the sort of behavior one would expect from a military man eh James.
You, of course James, are oblivious to the fact that at the time of the preperation of the invasion of Japan, when 38 divisions were available, MacArthur was declared Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers(SCAP) thus commanding all allied and U.S forces including, naturally naval and marines, as per Geoffery Perret's 'Old Soldiers Never Die', p 469. As you see James, I have taken your advice, obviously well meant, to 'crack the books'( should that have been crack 'open'?), but never fear James, just keep giving that cord a pull and the same nonsense will be regurgitated endlessly to the amusement of all. Of course, you continue to express the truly bizarre contention, that:

'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!

indeed, as per your inestimable opinion, the fact that an ally's actions enouraged the entry of a beligerent superpower into the war, an event that eventually signs the death warrant of Germany, in no way reflects on the merits or worth of that ally, from what particular body part does this pronouncement eminate? As the absudity of Chinese divisions electing to fight against the Germans(did you forget the small matter of a Civil War), well, I see the exertions of this debate have taken their toll, perhaps a good lie down and a cup of tea would help ease your overheated mind.
But James who is this 'we', as per 'but we didn't get an answer from you'. is this perhaps, a royal 'we'? or could it be you imaginary supporters, sorry James, in this debate you're on your own. Indeed, as I wrote above, who would believe the postings of an establised cheat, perhaps you might trouble yourself to explain the mendacious use of my words as uncovered above, or will this just remain in the 'too hard basket'

Cheers

Julian

P.S what happened to the multitude of troops from 'logistics-weaponary'? eh James

User avatar
Napoli
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: 02 Oct 2002 13:23
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Post by Napoli » 22 Nov 2002 07:06

Sokol wrote:The Pacific is not my forte when discussing WW2. But I do offer this: 1943 and 1944 were pivotal years in striking blows against the Germans and Italians in Europe, rather than rolling back the Japanese. Most Allied resources would have been sent to help the Italian Campaign, followed by Normandy and the destruction of Fortress Europe rather than capturing tiny islands in the Pacific. I'd say that in '43 and '44 (especially '44) the percentage of men funneled into Europe was far more significant than the percentage of men funneled into the Pacific. I say this without evidence, it just seems logical. If you can prove me wrong, go right ahead, I need some lessons on this theater of war anyway.
Simplified and to the point, I like it. During those years in the Pacific it was more of a clean up operation only. The naval battles which were the important to the outcome of this theatre had resulted in the Allied forces becoming dominant and just island hopping to sweep away behind the lines. As mentioned earlier the biuld up of troops later in '45 really for the invasion of Japan itself which in the end were never needed (thanks to that oversized bomb).
Also interesting to note figures by somebody else in another thread(lone soldier?) that put the strength of Allied forces after the D-day landings at something like 5-1 in the west alone. If this was the case, then it would be assumed to say that the so called 15% (yes, I'm getting a good laugh of that argument myself :lol: but starting to lose what its all about?) tied up in the Pacific does not really mean much even if it was up to 50% of Allied troops there as the ratio of Allied men in Europe was so abundant that the Axis forces were never going to win anyway you would assume looking at the numeric numbers they had overall.
Something I'd like to find out is how did the eastern Axis European countries compare with each other? I dont have much info on them but like Italy they did do well in certain area's.
If this was the case then

JLEES
Member
Posts: 1992
Joined: 26 Apr 2002 04:01
Location: Michigan, USA

the japanese empire

Post by JLEES » 22 Nov 2002 18:48

i would respond to julian, but he is can not handle counter arguements. the issue of japans assistance to germany can be simply put this way. if the usa had to send 15 percent to the pacific and there was more later, then it wasn not going to fight the germans. there was no other axis power that had 15 percent plus of the powerful us ecomony dedicated to its destruction. the 15 percent is laughable after 1943. this is the point that is over julians head. this has nothing to do with who was the biggest bad ass in terms of combat performance, but they were in second place here too. therefore, by default they gave germany the greatest assistance in terms of economics. now looking at the damage they did to the allies, no other axis power did more damage besides germany. no other axis power captured and destroyed the same numbers of troops. it was not italy or romania, it was japan. they also pulled more allied manpower away from germany than any other axis nation. it was not italy or romania. germany had to give the other axis minors military and economic assistance, but not japan. japan fought alone for four years, longer then any other axis power. although these points are over julians head, they should be above the educated people out there. again what other axuis power contributed more to germanys war effort. and remember germany declared war on the usa, it was not the other way around. julian does not seem to understand that either.
james

JLEES
Member
Posts: 1992
Joined: 26 Apr 2002 04:01
Location: Michigan, USA

japan

Post by JLEES » 22 Nov 2002 19:05

we are getting way off track here. my point is simple. even if 10 percent of the allied power was going to the pacific, and there was a lot more than that, a öot more then 15 percent after 1943, then it helped germany because it wasn not going to fight them in europe. no other axis power had even 10 percent of the us economy and manpower sent to fight them. no other axis power fought without german assistance but japan. if another axis power fought harder and had a greater amount of the us economy sent to fight them specifically, how were they. they assisted germany hinglehandedly in this manner. i am sure the allies in europe would have loved to have the 50 plus allied divisions there fighting germany instead of in the pacific fighting the japanese. now was there 30, 40, or 50 divisions set aside fighting the romanians or the italians without german support at any point in the war. if japan was not in the war the alles may have won a year earlier after roosevelt figured out a way for the us to get into it.
james

JLEES
Member
Posts: 1992
Joined: 26 Apr 2002 04:01
Location: Michigan, USA

Post by JLEES » 22 Nov 2002 19:08

julian said, But James who is this 'we', as per 'but we didn't get an answer from you'. is this perhaps, a royal 'we'? or could it be you imaginary supporters, sorry James, in this debate you're on your own. maybe he should read the other posts by the intelligent people out there who thought japan was germanys best ally. what a lost child.
james

mabadesc
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 20 Nov 2002 21:03
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Post by mabadesc » 22 Nov 2002 21:03

I may be partial, but I would also have to say the Romanians. Their occupation of Crimea - Sevastopol is just one example.
Maybe their good performance was not just due to great strategy and courage, but also to the fact that most Romanian officers truly respected the German Wehrmacht and were willing to work together on equal footing (though they were obviously less equipped).

Rasvan01
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 19 Jul 2002 00:33
Location: Chicago

Post by Rasvan01 » 22 Nov 2002 23:13

James,

I'm sorry, because it seems you really believe that Japan attacking USA rather helped the axis effort, but again the problem is not what good the japanese did to the germans by holding abot 15% :lol: of they're forces in the Pacific but what damage did the 85% :lol: :P they commited to Europe!!! Don't forget that prior Pearl Harbour the american help to England(and Russia) was limited and conditioned, after, however, the floodgates went large over!

Incidentally, you touch a point that everybody else is mentionig:
if Japan was not in the war the allies may have won a year earlier after roosevelt figured out a way for us to get into it
. You see this is exactly the problem: there is not telling what may happened if Japan, insted of trying to commit hara-kiri by attacking Pearl Harbour, attacked(after a fill-up in East Indies, of course) the Soviets! And again, I'm sure Roosevelt would have made up something to jump in, but is not telling when!! You live in America, and sound like a citizen, so you have to know that izolationism is a caractheristic of the people here!!! I believe that one more year without the americans, and the war could have ended in 47-48 maybe...

And another thing: you are insisting that Hitler brought the americans in Europe by declaring war to the USA. I hope that you don't relly believe that Roosevelt would't have commited the same effort in Europe, only because of that! Give Roosevelt some credit, will you!

Rasvan

User avatar
Bad Tolz
Member
Posts: 289
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 07:24
Location: Many places!

Post by Bad Tolz » 23 Nov 2002 01:39

French were ultimate cowards?
Hmm,lets take a look at that,to be fair...
The Germans rated them along with the Poles,as the best and most determined troops fighting on west front near end of war,they had big respect for them.
French volunteers also fought extremely bravely in divisions such as "Charlemagne" and earned praise from their German counterparts.French were among soldiers in last stand fighting in Berlin,and went down to the last bullet.
Just because French bashing is quite fashionable and the thing to do in some parts of the world,be fair please.
Regards.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 23 Nov 2002 02:07

Bad Tolz wrote:French were ultimate cowards?
Hmm,lets take a look at that,to be fair...
The Germans rated them along with the Poles,as the best and most determined troops fighting on west front near end of war,they had big respect for them.
French volunteers also fought extremely bravely in divisions such as "Charlemagne" and earned praise from their German counterparts.French were among soldiers in last stand fighting in Berlin,and went down to the last bullet.
Just because French bashing is quite fashionable and the thing to do in some parts of the world,be fair please.
Regards.
You talking about fairness Bad Tolz? 8O

When were the French fighting in Berlin?

Not that I consider French soldiers to be bad at all, I actually think they did pretty good for the circumstances.

User avatar
Bad Tolz
Member
Posts: 289
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 07:24
Location: Many places!

Post by Bad Tolz » 23 Nov 2002 07:13

:roll:
Yes!
The French did fight in http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/charlemagne.html

And you can read just how hard they fought here:

http://axis101.bizland.com/Charlemagne1.htm

http://www.wssob.com/033divchl.html


April 23rd

April 23rd, 1945: In the West, units of the British Second Army reach Harburg across the Elbe from Hamburg. Reichsführer-SS Himmler begins secret negotiations for a separate peace in the West with Count Bernadotte, head of the Swedish Red Cross. In the battle for Berlin, the attacking Soviet armies have now completely surrounded the city and are systematically decimating the motley ranks, consisting of various Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS units (including numbers of Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Latvian and French volunteers) as well as Volkssturm and Hitler Youth, of the exhausted and badly outmanned and outgunned defenders who are now under the command of General Weidling, CO of LVI. Panzerkorps.

Return to “Minor Axis Nations”