Less interest in the Pacific?

Jon,

Not what you expected at all.... it's very clear on how people feel, and that's fine. Unfortunate, but what can you do. If anything, I have gained a deeper appreciation for our Pacific Veterans......and to realize that more. I can only hope that our fellow Rogues with differing perceptions will dig deeper, and grow on the subject. If anything, choosing words wisely and maintaining the respect deserved despite your own opinion. Cheers to the Rogues in maintaing your cool.... not so sure I would have conveyed my message the same

take care,

special2

 

Just because a battle or campaign was fought, doesnt mean it was meaningfull in the successfull prosection of the war. But it also in no means denigrates the valor and conduct of the participants.

It is a fact that Germany did have the industrial and scientific capabilities to avoid defeat, simply be keeping the allies from its borders. Germany is a contiental power and it would take troops on the ground to beat them. Thats why Germany was the top priority to be beaten. It was the most dangerous.

It is also a fact that Japan had no possibility to win the war. None. And if required, the allies could have waited untill 1945 to start offensive operations against Japan, and they still would have won the war, with or without an atomic weapon. Japan is a meritime power, and the conditions to defeat them are far simpler than Germany. Thats why Japan was seen as the least dangerous and the war in the Pacific could be relegated to a secondary theater if needed.

As the war progressed, certein areas in the ETO and PTO (which includes for me, the CBI) became strategically suspect or irreleveant. Once the allies invaded southern france, Italy became secondary and a 'sideshow". The allies could have stopped in their tracks in Italy and the outcome and final strategy of the war would not change in the least.

In the Pacific, theres nothing offensively Japan could have done in the CBI that would change things. The Pacific was a maritime fight and whomever controlled the sea's dictated the outcome of the war on the land. Once the USN began its island hopping campaign in Nov 1943, every other theater in Asia became irrelevent to the final outcome. At that point, Japan was in a futile battle to keep its sea lanes to its homeland open. The war was lost, and they knew it. It would not be an understatement to say that after June 1944, whatever happened in the CBI/Aleutions/NG and PI was irrelevant to the final outcome. If anything, the battle for the PI was what drew out the final naval power of Imperal Japan. Nothing in Burma or China could effect a surrender of Japan.

 

Japan could barely support its own needs let alone training and equiping a hypothetical Chinese and Indian army. And how do you suppose they were going to build a fleet within 2 years to support them?

Sorry, but converting China and India into industrial powers to support the empire within two years, is a non starter.

 

But you wouldnt KNOW Japans problems if you were living back then. How woudl they build a fleet? Heck if I know, but if the war was just being lived and wasnt over; anything is possible. The fear of possibilites is a whole other threat altogeather.

Its easy to twiddle ones thumbs and deny any possible changes. But do you think that the American brass simply concluded:" Japan has X industrial capacity, Japan has X Merchant ships, Japan has X tons of fuel reserves, and we will beat them within 5 years." Because if you do you are sorely unaware about LIVING something and knowing what already happened.

For the first six months of the war, Japans rapid conquest gives the impression that they were invicible, sure history will tell us that they werent. But whos to say that they wouldnt overune the British, force Chinese surrender and so on.

Statistics and facts are very different then life.

 

You are right of course tote.. Hindsight as they say ls a wonderfull thing.. If any chinese vets were reading this thread they would have reason to feel no different than americans reading last few posts. Fdr and his advisors at time and not hindsight, had a much differing view and indeed policy on chinese worth.

 

Incorrect on all accounts.

You think the Brits and the US were completely blind to Japanese industrial capabilities? In 1941, they still had sources in Japan that told them plenty.

The JCS knew it after Pearl Harbor and they didnt panic did they? In fact they were sober headed enough to recognize that Japan was going to get weaker by the month vis-a-vis the US, untill eventually they would be swamped. Thats why Germany was given priority.

The fact is Japan's economy was maxed out even before the war started and there was little room for expansion. The war for the Pacific was a maritime battle with huge demands made upon logistics. And it didnt matter what happened in China or India, because ultimatly, everything had to go by sea. And Japan was known not to have the industrial power to rapidly build up its merchant fleet and/or its naval power.

 

Thanks Urqh, Syscom does not seem to understand what I am trying to say so I will simply leave it at that.

 

What started as a simple comparison of statistical information available for different theatres of war turned into this many headed Hydra of a thread . Only once have I started a thread that developed into a horror completely different to my original post.I left that forum years ago bewildered as to how it had happened. Jagtigers and Totenopfs feelings are understood. Not a pretty thread at all.

 

Agreed rhs... Some of the best posts and yet some of the worst posts in a thread.. Inadvertantly some of my american cousins are proving bones point for him. Be carefull with shouts of sideshows.. It could come and bite us in the bum.. And im quietly dispairing at the underlying theme here that some nations casualties seem more worthy. Indeed getting ugly.

 

if all you wanted was "all hail america they rock, Japan sucks and are mean" then sorry you ain't gonna get that from me, your gonna get MY OPINIONS AND THOUGHTS, if people don't wanna hear them, then I don't really give a damn.

And I did have research, I cannot quote everything from everywhere, it all comes from talking to people, history programs, books, websites and all other things I have read and listened to for several years, I'm not a robot who can save the tile of every book and program I watch and get every person I've ever spoken to to come on here and say its true, just like allot of peoples whos opinions are listened to but are not asked for proof.

and if people think this topic is going bad because someone came in and didn't agree with everyone else, then why even bother having a WWII forum?, a subject filled with controversy, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

and why bother showing a picture and mentioning all the ill-treatment of allied pow's, the rapes murders etc, I already admitted to knowing about the cruelty of the Japanese, but the allies were just as bad, we executed our fair share of Japanese POW's, I'm sure we murdered enough people to, but of course were "the good guys", it never really happened, and if it did I suppose its all easy to justify -_-

 

So your opinion on why the Pacific war is not discussed as often as the ETO on this forum is "dropping the bomb was bad, Allies bad, Japanese good", and I'm going to be a sarcastic little prick towards the veterans on this forum who fought so that you may have your opinion.

It is well documented that the Allies treated PoW's far more humanly than the Axis countries. Did some rouge servicemen execute PoW's. Yes. But you can not control human emotions like that at a time when you train these men to be ruthless killers. War is hell, like it or not. Collateral damage etc. It happens as hard as you try to keep it from happening.

Again I ask where is the documentation that wholesale slaughter was a Allied policy in WW2 towards the Japanese?

EDIT: Sorry Jeff, Your reply wasn't up when I started typing

 

my F**ked up opinion?, well obviously this really is not a forum for people with opinions, you either agree with everyone else no matter what you think, or F-off.

and I wasn't a sarcastic prick towards the people on this Forum because of my opinion, but more because of the reaction towards it, obviously I expected conflict towards it, but it looks more like people expect you to agree with them or else F-off.

perhaps you should add this violence towards none conforming opinions to the Forum rules for new users to be aware of?

also it would be difficult for me to prove that wholesale slaughter was an allied policy, since I never said it was.

but I'll assume since I never said that you were talking to someone else who did say that and I missed it.



also does this mean the opinions of General Dwight D. Eisenhower and Admiral William Leahy, President Truman's Chief of Staff were F**ked up?, cus neither of them agreed with the bombings either.

Eisenhower said himself that it was a "barbarous weapon"
and Leahy "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.... In being the first to use it, we ... adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
are these respected men pricks as well now?

I may of been incorrect about them already surrendering, but as Leahy said himself, they were ready to surrender by this point


also Richard Aldrich, has published a study of diaries written by US and Australian soldiers, in which it says that they sometimes massacred prisoners of war, it states that many times Japanese soldiers were killed during surrender, or on there way to POW camps, it also states it was common practice for U.S. troops not to take prisoners, and Niall Ferguson a british historian agrees.

 

I know exactly what I am saying.

Germany was given "top billing" for a reason.

Japan never had the strategic potential to win the war and was treated as such when it came to allocations of men and materials.

 

Ah but there is the internet of which I am confident you can find sources to substantiate your remarks or not. You reference websites as one of your sources, which ones? Your continual presence on this forum is a stake here.

 

Less interest for the PTO?

There is no Rommel or Tiger tank, nor are there many "what if" scenarios.

The Japanese were doomed to failure, and we all acknowledge that.
In the ETO it is easy to be dazzeled by the shiny gear of the Germans and some of their charismatic commanders.

And dare I say there is an element of "Klingons" with the Japanese to us westerners. We don't know their language, nor their culture and don't relate to them in the same way we do to the Germans.

Just my 2 øre.

 

Ships and aeroplanes was in the ETO aswell. The shiny gear that I was referring to was all on the german side, we find less (if any) from the Japanese.

To sharpen my point a bit more. The Germans sway us in a manner of having the shiny gear, and to some point we admire certain points about them.

The Japanese were all horror to us.