Germany First Policy?

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

I'm sorry, I can't let that one go. I believe Australia & N.Z. were doing their fair share of the fighting against Japan in 1942 from my recollection. In fact it was the Aussies at Milne Bay which inflicted the first decent defeat on the Japs back in '42.

Sorry, but we here in Australia kind of get sick of the old "McArthur" attitude that it was only the red white & blue that fought in the Pacific theatre.

Regards

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing was said against the other Allies in the Pacific. The thread was infact about America's "Germany First" policy. I simply pointed out that the USA was active in the Pacific before they were really doing [much] against Germany.

As for McArthur, I don't think much of him. I don't think he was any great General. Like others of the War, Rommel and Monty, I think they are "heros" of the press more than actual military skill.

As for other countries, yes there were others. There were many on the Allied side. One has to look obejectivly at their contributions.

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-15-2000).]

[Phil the Dill]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

As for other countries, yes there were others. There were many on the Allied side. One has to look obejectivly at their contributions.

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-15-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this: that Australia didn't commit many troops compared with USA? In fact proportionally to our population (approx 10 million 41')we commited quite a large proportion, more in total than India contributed - despite their large population.

------------------

"Your Mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries"

[gezeder]

i remember reading somewhere that Australia lost more troops in WW2 than the US - the book actually had small soldiers, visually representing casualties (ie. 25,000 per small guy on the page)

of course, the casualty count still looked pretty insignificant compared to germany and *gasp* russia.

mind you, i can't remember the source book, so take this post with a grain of salt!

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phil the Dill:

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this: that Australia didn't commit many troops compared with USA? In fact proportionally to our population (approx 10 million 41')we commited quite a large proportion, more in total than India contributed - despite their large population.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are quite right... the USA's contributions were minor. In fact, I doubt the USA was even needed in the war...

Seriously, that's like arguing that because you have 10 men with me having 10,000 and you sent 4 off to battle and I sent 2,000 and then you then claimed you were "more" contributing because you sent 40% and I only 20%.

Go figure.

Cav

[Hamstersss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Seriously, that's like arguing that because you have 10 men with me having 10,000 and you sent 4 off to battle and I sent 2,000 and then you then claimed you were "more" contributing because you sent 40% and I only 20%.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And he'd be right. The US may be more responsible for victory in WWII but that does not diminish the fact that countries like Australia gave disproportionately. Disproportionate effort is what makes us laugh at France and give respect to Germany and Japan. Some countries just have a stronger national will than others.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

And he'd be right. The US may be more responsible for victory in WWII but that does not diminish the fact that countries like Australia gave disproportionately.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you support this "fact"? What sources can I go to to see the numbers? I believe you I just want to check them out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Disproportionate effort is what makes us laugh at France and give respect to Germany and Japan. Some countries just have a stronger national will than others.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blah. It has nothing to do with "national will" as much as immediate threat. Countries moblize more when they are the crest of being over-run. I don't admire Japan or Germany for the numbers they tossed into battle. They had too. Their very countries depended on it.

I don't know why France gets a bad rap. There military was crippled by poor leadership more than anything. When the Germans invaded the Allies had more tanks, and better, troops and a similar number of planes. France and the UK were outplayed not outmanned in France.

Cav

[Doctor]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Blah. It has nothing to do with "national will" as much as immediate threat. Countries moblize more when they are the crest of being over-run. I don't admire Japan or Germany for the numbers they tossed into battle. They had too. Their very countries depended on it.

I don't know why France gets a bad rap. There military was crippled by poor leadership more than anything. When the Germans invaded the Allies had more tanks, and better, troops and a similar number of planes. France and the UK were outplayed not outmanned in France.

Cav

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just reading a book that supports your claim.

From "Panzer Battles" by Maj. Gen. F.W. Von Mellenthin in the chapter titled "The Conquest of France":

"The German Army was actually inferior to the Allied armies, not only in numbers of divisions but particularly in numbers of tanks." (French and British forces had 4,000 tanks, with the best having 2-pounder guns and stronger armor. Germany had 2,800 tanks, with a 37mm standard gun)

"To sum it up: The Battle for France was won by the German Wehrmacht because it reintroduced into warfare the decisive factor of mobility."

He suggests that the main factors for success at the time were mobility and concentration of attacking force.

[virtualfreak]

One reason why Germany beat France so quickly can also be contributed twards the fact that France put too much faith in the magino (not sure if it is spelled right) line. French generals concluded that the arddens region was too heavly forested for tanks to pass through so they concluded that the german army would have to directly attack the magino line.The germans did however attack through the arddens and belgium,and holland with the succesfull use of paratroopers.Thus flanking the magino line and attacking it from the rear not too mention trapping several thousand french and british troops around Dunkirk.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by virtualfreak:

One reason why Germany beat France so quickly can also be contributed twards the fact that France put too much faith in the magino (not sure if it is spelled right) line. French generals concluded that the arddens region was too heavly forested for tanks to pass through so they concluded that the german army would have to directly attack the magino line.The germans did however attack through the arddens and belgium,and holland with the succesfull use of paratroopers.Thus flanking the magino line and attacking it from the rear not too mention trapping several thousand french and british troops around Dunkirk.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The part about the Ardennes is correct, it was though, both bef[o]re the fall of France and later in the Battle of the Bulge, to be too impassible for attack.

On the other hand, the French and British DID expect the Germans to attack through Low Countries. This is where many of the forces were. In fact, the German plan dpended on the Allies moving to defend the Low Countries. The Germans attacked in the North, got their attention and then punched through in the South and turned their flank.

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-15-2000).]

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

I don't know why France gets a bad rap. There military was crippled by poor leadership more than anything. When the Germans invaded the Allies had more tanks, and better, troops and a similar number of planes. France and the UK were outplayed not outmanned in France.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One thing that people may not realize, is that more Frenchmen died on the Russian Front fighting for Germany, than did fighting for their own country during 1940. Just read that the other day, in "unknown facts about WWII."

I understand your frustration Cav. I'm biting my lip. We both know that if the U.S. did not enter the war on the Allied side, the Axis powers would most likely have won the war, and darkness would have grasped Europe and Asia, creating a world so horrible, and never before imagined, or seen. Thank God the Allies won.

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 09-15-2000).]

[Hamstersss]

There seemed to be a misunderstanding of my jab at France, it was not a direct comparison with that of Germany, it was a comparison of their peoples. The Germans fought tooth and nail to the very end, just like the British and the Japanese. The French were outfought but they also gave up. The number of French in the Resistance and Free French units was incredibly low and the Vichy French went over to the Allies because of a popular general (I can't remember his name, the one who was assassinated soon after) and this, I feel, is why there is so little esteem for them.

Cavscout, I agree that necessity caused the Australian participation but a lot of people feel the same way about the US. Some could argue that, considering how safe we were from attack, our national effort was astounding. To those people I would say "Yes but...", yes but this does not take away the national honor gained by an nation that fights to the very end.

I hope I explained myself fully.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[Doctor]

I was under the impression that following the first Russian offensive the Germans were fighting a losing battle, US or no US.

Seemed like it was downhill after Stalingrad, and though it may have taken longer Russia probably could have beat the Axis. They did, after all, have the disposable manpower to throw at the German lines.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was under the impression that following the first Russian offensive the Germans were fighting a losing battle, US or no US.

Seemed like it was downhill after Stalingrad, and though it may have taken longer Russia probably could have beat the Axis. They did, after all, have the disposable manpower to throw at the German lines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doctor-

To do this subject justice really requires acres of paper instead of the flippant treatment I'm about to use, but there are at least two very important factors I believe need to factored in to your statement and conclusion:

1) Lend-Lease to Soviet Russia. Trucks, trucks, and more trucks. The Sovs had to move their heavy industry East (an amazing undertaking to begin with) and had to move their troops around beyond railheads. U.S-provided motor transport was a significant factor in those successes.

2) Hindsight is 20/15. Read the telegrams between heads of state, the intelligence reports, and the editorials of the time ('41/'42). Almost No one believed the Soviets would be able to hold off collapse. Morale and will and propaganda and similar factors played (and play) a tremendous role in wars and campaigns. It was not a given at the time that the Germans would be defeated in Russia. The addition of a Second Front on the continent of Europe was deemed essential for the survival of the Soviet Union, and indeed was essential.

In short, Germany definitely could have defeated her opponents without the U.S. entry into the war. Once the U.S. was fully committed with her Allies it was at that point, in hindsight, that Germany was fighting a losing battle.

To simply assume that the Soviet Union would have been able to defeat Germany on its own hook is as dangerous a statement as claiming that the U.S. could have done the same.

-dale

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

The Germans fought tooth and nail to the very end, just like the British and the Japanese. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans and Japanese all fought untill they surendered, just like the French. Exactly what is the differance. The Brits bailed out when it got rough and retreated tot he mainland.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The French were outfought but they also gave up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No different than the Germans or Japanese. They all gave up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Cavscout, I agree that necessity caused the Australian participation but a lot of people feel the same way about the US.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How so? The U.S. was never [truly] threatened by the Japanese or Germans. On the other hand, the Japanese were close to establishing bases that could have bombed Australia.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Some could argue that, considering how safe we were from attack, our national effort was astounding. To those people I would say "Yes but...", yes but this does not take away the national honor gained by an nation that fights to the very end.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still don't understand this "national honor" you praise. What is the honor in fighting to the end in a war you can not win and one which you started? What is the honor in Germany waiting untill the country was overrun to give-up? Where is the honor in waiting for two atomic bombs to erase two of your cities? Japan and Germany were under rulers who cared little for their own people [and only] for themselves. Hitler fought untill the end because he didn't think the German people deserved to live if they lost. Is that honor?

Cav

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."

--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-15-2000).]

[Muldune]

Dalem,

I dis-agree, I don't believe Germany could of defeated Russia, However, had they had a stable pact, they would have been able to beat the UK, and would there in turn make any invasion attempt pointless.

[dumbo]

"The Brits bailed out when it got rough and retreated tot he mainland"

Just like the Americans in the philipines?

_dumbo

" [A]s long as mankind shall continue to bestow more liberal applause on their destroyers than on their benefactors, the thirst of military glory will ever be the vice of the most exalted characters." - Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

[virtualfreak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Muldune:

Dalem,

I dis-agree, I don't believe Germany could of defeated Russia, However, had they had a stable pact, they would have been able to beat the UK, and would there in turn make any invasion attempt pointless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you on the fact that germany couldent defeat Russia. Even if they did defeat Russia Germany didnt have the manpower or resorces to occupy such a huge country.

Just imagin how many divisions germany would have had for the normandy invasion if they haddent Invaded the Soviet Union.

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem:

Doctor-

1) Lend-Lease to Soviet Russia. Trucks, trucks, and more trucks. The Sovs had to move their heavy industry East (an amazing undertaking to begin with) and had to move their troops around beyond railheads. U.S-provided motor transport was a significant factor in those successes.

2) Hindsight is 20/15. Read the telegrams between heads of state, the intelligence reports, and the editorials of the time ('41/'42). Almost No one believed the Soviets would be able to hold off collapse. Morale and will and propaganda and similar factors played (and play) a tremendous role in wars and campaigns. It was not a given at the time that the Germans would be defeated in Russia. The addition of a Second Front on the continent of Europe was deemed essential for the survival of the Soviet Union, and indeed was essential.

-dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While Lend Lease certainly helped to 'mechanize' the Red Army it was far from collapse by Stalingrad.The Red Army would have just paid a higher price without the support. Truth is the Red army could have won the war by its self cause Germany lost the war @ tyhe gates of moscow in 1941...everything after that was down hill. US had to get into Europe to pervent Soviet post war domination of the European market.

The Best thing the Americans ever did for Europe was the 'Marshal Plan'.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dumbo:

"The Brits bailed out when it got rough and retreated tot he mainland"

Just like the Americans in the philipines? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ayep and why I still can't figure why McArthur is given such accolades.

Cav

[dumbo]

Cav: Hehe Ok fair enough glad you werent just picking on us brits

_dumbo

Mandatory Gibbon Qoute.

"Twenty-two acknowledged concubines, and a library of sixty-two thousand volumes, attested the variety of his [Gordianus II's] inclinations, and from the productions which he left behind him, it appears that the former as well as the latter were designed for use rather than ostentation. " - Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

[Basebal351]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger:

What if...Japan had invaded Russia fromt the east in conjunction with operation Barbarossa in 1941? Would they have given Russia much trouble?

-johnS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Tiger, Hitler was counting on Japan to declare war on Russia and invade from the east. The invasion never occured though, for Japan was already fighting in the rest of Asia and in the Pacific. Its' forces were pretty slim, and fairly spread out compared to the size of Japan itself. Russia also had a system of defences set up on it's eastern front, and had quite a few troops stationed and trained there. For Japan to have beaten Russia like it did in the Russo-Japanese war in 1905 would have been difficult, but not impossible. Considering how much Russia was in disarray after Germany launched its' invasion, I wouldn't be surprised if Japan could have pushed the Soviet governement into peace terms with the Axis powers, something the Soviets had been EXTREMELY close to doing anyways.

Also of note, Russia's eastern front was also a place relatively unaffected by Stalin's military purges of the 1930's, so its' military leadership would have been much stronger than that found in Russia's western front at the start of the war, due to Stalin's purges. Hope that helps .

Geez, I watch History Channel too much!!

[Big Iron]

I believe he Good Doctor had a very effective point with:

-- It bought us time to develope the A-Bomb and use it without fear of pissing off our European Allies who live next door to ground zero in Germany.

Yup.

Dead on.

------------------

[Phil the Dill]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

You are quite right... the USA's contributions were minor. In fact, I doubt the USA was even needed in the war...

Seriously, that's like arguing that because you have 10 men with me having 10,000 and you sent 4 off to battle and I sent 2,000 and then you then claimed you were "more" contributing because you sent 40% and I only 20%.

Go figure.

Cav

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOAH. Calm down Cav - I wasn't trying to take anything away from the Americans - without them the war would have gone on for many more years than it did. I was just trying to say that Australia was not some backwater country that didn't contribute their fair share - I was highlighting how well we did fight, and the lengths that we went to.

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Basebal351:

For Japan to have beaten Russia like it did in the Russo-Japanese war in 1905 would have been difficult, but not impossible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're forgetting that Japan and the Soviet Union had some major actions occuring in 1939 in Mongolia. THe Japanese got their asses handed to them. That was, in addition to what you mentioned, the major reason Japan did not attack. They were wary of facing their eastern forces.

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Wesy]

Japan's war aims were all about China. China was the reason they went to war in the first place. They were no threat to the US or Australia (at least in terms of occupying or invading those areas). Think about it, Japan DID NOT have the logistical wherewithall to move a force of tens of thousands of soldiers and their associated supplies to said geographically challenged destinations in a short timeframe (as would be required during an invasion). Plus continue to occupy, engage and support their large garrisons in China, the frontiers against the USSR, and their far flung empire. Only the US had that kind of power projection. Not Germany, Not the UK, Not the USSR.

The Pacific Theater is a Geographically HUGE Theater of operations relative to ETO. Germany was a greater threat, militarily and economically as it could influence industrialized Europe. In contrast, Asia was far more of a economic "backwater" relative to Europe.