Which was the tougher theater - Europe or the Pacific?

These numbers represent the total Soviet casualties (both military/civilian) of WW2. Since Soviet WW2 causalities were closer to 29 million not 24, I suspect that the 119,500 per week figure is a bit low.

 

In a book I read called The World Within War, it talked about that. It said the soldiers envied and were jealous of the airforce, because after their 2-10 minutes of heavy combat, they'd fly home and enjoy hot showers, good food, and relaxation. Of course, they didn't mention about the 71% chance of dying though. There was also a program where pilots could trade positions with infantry, and vice versa I believe, but I don't know how much that happened. And once the flyboys swept in and bombed the tanks the infantry much appreciated them, unless they it was friendly fire...

Also you can't say either war was harder, but I think the Pacific was much more savage for the Americans. All the body mutilation, the jungles and disease, atrocities the Japanese would commit, civilians killing themselves, the Navy actaully loosing thousands of men, malaria, spider holes, caves, tunnels, etc. Sure, the Germans had great defenses and better weapons, but there wasn't that racial hatred and the body mutilation wasn't on the scale that was in the Pacific.

 

if this is for civillians and military personal its still a frightening figure

this must mean at least 50 000 red soldiers died every week

ps that figure i brought up was believe it or not in a pearl harbour book!

 

I think Lou was hoping to gain some perspective from all of us on the authors thoughts and findings.... Lou correct me if I'm wrong, sure the topic is a concern, but merely a premonition to the goal of the thread I for one, would like to know more of what a "ladies' day" is??... in reference to the banzai shout.

Jem

 

The problem is that the war on those vast theaters was consisted of numerous battles over space and time and cannot be encapsulated in a simple statement.

While I acknolowdge the Pacific Theater as a more brutal and bloody in general, a few battles in ETO did approach the level of carnage and destrcution in the Pacific. In the Falaise Pocket, so many Germans were killed by air strikes and artillery fire that the dead, lying in heaps, clogged vehiclular traffic and must be bulldozed away.

The Pacific War no doubt was fought in terrible climatic conditions against a fanatical, suicidal foe. But the frigid jungle fighting in the Hurtgen Forest was also horrible; in the triple canoply of the fortified forest, the rifle companies of the 4th and 28th Divisions suffered over 100% casaulties and were ultimately defeated by the Germans.

Regular German army soldiers often displayed chivalry on the field, negotiating cease-fires to allow the medics to stablize and collect the wounded and treated POWs well. Then there were the SS and the SS-indoctrinated Volksgrenadiers, who brutally murdered civilians and executed prisoners.

Also let me reiterate my position: the Pacific was the most barbaric theater the Americans fought and it was the toughest for the soldiers. But from the General and Admiral's perspective, after the twin victories of Midway and Guadacanal, the war had effectively devolved into an operation to exterminate an enemy who had already lost the war but refused to recognize it.

In North Africa, Italy and NW Europe, it was true that the Germans were doomed, but we only knew this by historical hindsight. At the time, Allied Generals still believed that Germany could strike back and hit very hard. As late as 1945 Patton grumbled, "we could still lose this war."

A NATO officer once said that the difference between the American and Japanese militaries in WWII was that the Americans were a modern, combined-arms, high-firepower army while the Japanese was the best WWI army ever. Fighting in jungles allowed the Japanese to maximize their superiority in some forms of warfare while vitiating their shortcomings.

Had the Japanese been forced to fight in open terrain good for tank manoeuvers, they would not have lasted more than a few month against a mechanized army. They were beaten by Zhuikov and an unreformed Red Army in Khalkhin Gol at 1939, and crushed again in the Manchurian Strategic Offensive (aka Operation August Storm) at 1945, this time losing an Army of one million at less than two weeks.

Take away the jungles and the fortified works, then the Japanese Imperial Army would reveal itself as an army of high morale but pathetically lacking in firepower and mobility. No one with half a brain could say the Pacific War was anything but a hellish campaign; but the ground combat was fought in conditions that were idealy suited for the Japanse while degrading US superiority to the greatest extent possible. Even so, it was clear that by the end of 1942, the US Navy and Army Air Force owned the Seas and their enemy's days were numbered.

The Germans on the other hand maintained a good deal of airpower until 1943, and had much better weapons and tactics than the Japanese. If they were put into a situation like the Pacific Islands, they would have fought well.

 

I just got back from New Orleans where I spent 6 hours in the National WWII Museum (and still didn't get to see it all). Based on what I did see, the Pacific wins hands down, IMHO.

 

one estimate i heard was over 2500 casulties an hour on average. shocking...

 

The worst theatre of the second world war was the Eastern Theatre, the Russian front. Over 30 million people died and atrocities were rife by both sides, engineered starvation, massacres of jews and "partisans"

The second place must surely go to the war in China. over 15 million dead, mainly chinese, and once again atrocities were part of everyday life.

For the west, more men died in Europe than in the Pacific but there were more troops fighting in Europe so this was always going to be. The conditions of war in the Pacific and the fact there was a real hatred between the western allies and the japanese, in the way there never was between the Western Allies and the Germans makes me go for the Pacific as a worse theatre to fight in.

Excepting Normandy, Arnhem and the Bulge, fighting was not that severe (although it varies from unit to unit)
infantry had the options of huge artillery and air power and rarely had to close and engage the enemy, or suffer large losses doing so.

The fighting in Italy was, in my opinion, much worse for the western allies than western europe and germany. world war one conditions, trench warfare, the enemy only 50 yards away, mud and rain...