Two-Front War

I don't think the Germans could have fought like the Marines in an island hopping campaign as the Navy and Army executed. even if they were trained along those lines. I just saw a comment somewhere else debating who was the best soldier of WWII-Germans or Japanese... Well the USMC wiped the floor with the fanatical and suicidal Japanese troops so I'd vote Marines.

 

It all depends on the leadership, The Marines had their good battles but also their bad battles. The Japanese early on very good, Later the got worse, However even later in the war there was another island attacked and rather then the suicidal wave attacks the officer/general in charge organized a combined arms attack that proved very successful but ultimately not enough. Ill try and find the name of the battle.

 

The Japanese tactics were well suited against their early targets...They landed in areas that were either undefended or weakly defended, massed their troops, the moved against their objective. However, Japanese tactics against a well prepared defense were abysmal, and they suffered accordingly. Once, the Japanese were on the defense, there was little they could do, but hold out for as long as possible.

Maybe in China, but not any Pacific battle that I am familiar with.

Although, you may mean that the Japanese used attritional warfare rather than their wasteful Banzai Charges. If that is so, you could look to Iwo Jima and General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, or Okinawa and General Mitsuru Ushijima. Both Generals were very skilled at defense, although Ushijima was hindered some of his more offensive-minded subordinates.

 

The US Army and the Soviet Army also "wiped the floor" with the Japanese...Are you going to vote for them too?

 

The Russians fought the Japanese in a series of land battles where Russian armor was an important factor. I'm talking about the sea campaign, the series of landings from island to island into brutal defenses and a willingness for the Japanese to fight for the new acquisitions of their Empire deep into the Pacific that they didn't want to give up.

 

Just because they didn't want to give up doesn't mean that they fought well. Although from what I've read the battle at Kalingol (sp?) was closer than the losses would leave one to believe (there also seems to be considerable dispute as to what said losses were).

 

isn't the improved numbers idea somewhat a fallacy, because they didn't start really going to a super wartime schedule till later in the war?? so of course, the numbers will be better in the later years, because they weren't ramped up to full capability early on....and the Allies could not sustain the ''effective'' bombing...the Allies did not gain complete air superiority, for effective bombing, till later

 

Would not all nations heavily involved in ww2 fight two front war ? Only the US could manage it nicely.

 

Several were fighting on more than one front.

 

I agreed but would changing the topic to managing multi-front war more appropriate ?

 

Interesting topic. Not a whole heck of a lot of study material to reference out there.
Any pointers anyone?

Why Russia stayed with one front?
How the Commonwealth handled a three front war: Europe, SEAC and North Africa thence Italy?
How the USA handled a three front war: Europe, the Pacific and SEAC,

I am astonished that no lectures or conferences on this have been published, uploaded!
It has the makings of a terrific topic for them.

Good place to start a review would be:
1. Douglas MacArthur and America's Two Front War
http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/26191

2. The US's OSS report:
The strength of enemy armies in Asia and Europe is discussed, as is the need to keep Russia, an ally of the Americans, out of a two-front war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmHLxAltQ8Y

 

Well as soon as Germany was defeated, the Ruskies jumped right into the Pacific front. Grabbed huge chunks of Manchuria etc
The Second Sino-Japanese War: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/RMF.htm

The Soviets had a million + troops ready to invade northern Japan. Why the US accelerated use of the AB.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=20999

 

There is no proof that the use of the A Bomb was a warning/deterrent to the SU .There is also no proof that,if it was a warning, it made an impression on the SU = that Stalin was planning something, but retreated,because he was scared because of the A Bomb .

 

The truth is that the US asked for a Soviet intervention,and that Stalin agreed .

 

Ive stated in another post how I think it was hypocritical of the Russians to ask for a 2nd front in Europe when they did not start a 2nd front against Japan....

 

I see what you are saying here, and though I agree with the hypocrisy of it, the Soviets were taking it on the chin. And as you know as well, once the eastern front was opened up, civilians were also being slaughtered. The Soviets had ample reasons for stressing a 2nd front.

 

Except that vast amounts of Siberia was not of much use. The Japanese weren't going to threaten to close on Moscow. The logistics were to great. If the Germans were on the doorsteps of Washington DC, I'd bet the US wouldn't care much about east Asia and the Japanese.

From a Soviet vantage point, they were in fight for survival. Japan was already having major logistical and energy problems. People forget that Kyiv was liberated more than 6 months prior to D-Day. The fighting on the Eastern front was at a level that was so much higher than the west. Hitler bailing out Mussolini for sure took pressure off the Soviets. The west opening up would have been an incredible boon, delaying the inevitable without nukes.

The US was perfectly willing to let the Soviets and Germans kill themselves in the east.

Civilian slaughter was likely not a concern of Stalin's. He'd been slaughtering Ukrainians and others for years.