PDA

View Full Version : Least important theatre of operations in WW2



mynameisroland
05-09-2006, 10:05 AM
Id say Pacific, Britain left that one till last in their strategic planning due to lack of forces and resources to protect their possesions but Germany were the immediate and far more menacing threat to the world imo.

mynameisroland
05-09-2006, 10:05 AM
Id say Pacific, Britain left that one till last in their strategic planning due to lack of forces and resources to protect their possesions but Germany were the immediate and far more menacing threat to the world imo.

stathem
05-09-2006, 10:09 AM
That's terrible trolling Roland.

Antarctica.

Haigotron
05-09-2006, 10:10 AM
Any theatre where soldiers died is important...well that's what I think

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-09-2006, 10:29 AM
The americans would not give a damn about that theater if the IJA didnt attack them & mess up their colonies .

Megile_
05-09-2006, 10:33 AM
I won't be contributing anything useful to this thread, but I will be watching it with mild amusant, no doubt.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-09-2006, 10:46 AM
the WWII vetrans of the pacific theater feels left-out by hollywood,hollywood simply isnt making that much movies about them, So sad IMO.Their hardships on that theater is unmatched by those serving in europe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Blutarski2004
05-09-2006, 10:46 AM
Italy.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-09-2006, 10:48 AM
The BBC television theatre in London. Closed for the duration. Like this thread should be.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-09-2006, 10:50 AM
have you seen the movie "The Great Raid"?

out of the 78,000+ Americans who surrendered at Bataan & corrigidor only 500+ survived,IMO its the darkest chapter on US military history.

Some people is sickened by that movie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

PBNA-Boosher
05-09-2006, 10:57 AM
The pacific theater isn't important? The allies and Japan fought over areas much larger than Britain and it isn't important? Yeah... tell that to everyone who died there. There is no "least important" theater of operations. Every operation is crucial if success is to be possible. There is no "theater of operations" that the allies could have stood to lose.

MrMoonlight
05-09-2006, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Id say Pacific </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say...
If there were an award for the "stupidest thread of the week", you'd be this week's winner.

reverendkrv1972
05-09-2006, 11:30 AM
no comment....

other than....



OI! Boemher! Shutiiiiiitt!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

horseback
05-09-2006, 11:39 AM
I vote for any theater of operations where members of your family or people you care about were killed, wounded, or lost property, rights or freedom, Top_Gun_1_0_1.

cheers

horseback

TC_Stele
05-09-2006, 11:43 AM
Guys, stop trying to defend the PTO. He's obviously trolling.

Irish_Rogues
05-09-2006, 11:53 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

p1ngu666
05-09-2006, 12:17 PM
CBI and italy.

japanease had actully yoinked so much landmass, it put hitler to shame in terms of area

LEBillfish
05-09-2006, 12:31 PM
California.......The U.S. was hoping the Japanese would take it over, let them build up for 50 years, then naturally re-annex it. In that way our auto and electronics industry would always be the world leader. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Alas, 1 submarine and a few balloon bombs does not a war make. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Dunkelgrun
05-09-2006, 01:00 PM
Walmington-on-Sea.

Byeeeeee!

goshikisen
05-09-2006, 01:15 PM
Next can you give us your list of top 10 classic rock bands... maybe top 10 power ballads?

Mjollnir111675
05-09-2006, 01:29 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif&lt;"Umm,is it , like, too late to mention the Avenger http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif&lt;Yee-Agghh!) cockpit ?")

S!


"Whoever claims he has never perceived an oppressive feeling of fear has certainly never been to the front. The prerequisite for bravery is fear,just as the fear of dying and the uncertainty of what follows this earthly existence are the prerequisites for the origin and existence of every religion." Otto Carius

DuxCorvan
05-09-2006, 01:29 PM
Lest likely guy to star in 'Broken-Backhole Mountain'. I'd say Keith Richards.
http://www.thegoldenera.net/images/hats/Keith%20Richards.jpg

Heavy_Metal1982
05-09-2006, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
the WWII vetrans of the pacific theater feels left-out by hollywood,hollywood simply isnt making that much movies about them, So sad IMO.Their hardships on that theater is unmatched by those serving in europe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same people who produced 'Band of Brothers' is doing something similar to that in the Pacific theatre. I'm really looking forward to it. Check it out:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374463/

joeap
05-09-2006, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Lest likely guy to star in 'Broken-Backhole Mountain'. I'd say Keith Richards.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
*vomits*
Like the Stones ok but ughhh.

Zeus-cat
05-09-2006, 04:03 PM
The Aleutians was only given minimal attention by both the Japanese and the US.

I'm not sure you can really call any theater the least important. If one side made a major push in an area, then the other side would feel the need to counter it. That's how wars are fought. You commit your forces to where they do the most damage to the enemy.

ElAurens
05-09-2006, 04:09 PM
Teh P51 won t3h warz.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

WTE_Galway
05-09-2006, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
have you seen the movie "The Great Raid"?

out of the 78,000+ Americans who surrendered at Bataan & corrigidor only 500+ survived,IMO its the darkest chapter on US military history.

Some people is sickened by that movie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That period didnt really show Macarthur in a good light .. hid in a bunker then snuck off to Australia in a Dakota just before the surrender.

Waldo.Pepper
05-09-2006, 07:37 PM
Greenland without a doubt. See this page...

http://home6.inet.tele.dk/ron/greenland/wbs.htm

SkyChimp
05-09-2006, 07:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
The americans would not give a damn about that theater if the IJA didnt attack them & mess up their colonies . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What colonies???? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but weren't the British, French and Dutch the big colonial powers?

ColoradoBBQ
05-09-2006, 09:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
have you seen the movie "The Great Raid"?

out of the 78,000+ Americans who surrendered at Bataan & corrigidor only 500+ survived,IMO its the darkest chapter on US military history.

Some people is sickened by that movie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The number of American POW at the Phillipeans were 15,000, the other 60,000+ were the Filopinos under US command.

BfHeFwMe
05-09-2006, 09:18 PM
Yeah, shame on them for setting free all those colonies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

And out of those 70,000 men captured at Bataan, most were either Philippine Scouts who were Philippino's in the regular US Army, or the bulk which were freshly raised Philippine defense force who weren't under Regular Army structure and poorly trained. Only around 1 out of 7 were US Soldiers on the actual march.

I don't think you'll find many Japanese inclined to visit that ex-colony. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

-HH-Dubbo
05-09-2006, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The same people who produced 'Band of Brothers' is doing something similar to that in the Pacific theatre. I'm really looking forward to it. Check it out:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374463/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that is anywhere as good as Band Of Brothers, it'll be well-worth the watch.

I'd really like to see something similar regarding the Aleutian Campaign.

Enforcer572005
05-09-2006, 10:35 PM
there were alot of the pows taken to japan itself. im pretty sure there were considerably more survivors than that. Maybe just that many left in the philipines.

i hope the new project has a section on guadalcanal.

WTE_Galway
05-09-2006, 10:52 PM
i would like to suggest Tasmania as the least important front of the war

shinden1974
05-09-2006, 11:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Yeah, shame on them for setting free all those colonies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

And out of those 70,000 men captured at Bataan, most were either Philippine Scouts who were Philippino's in the regular US Army, or the bulk which were freshly raised Philippine defense force who weren't under Regular Army structure and poorly trained. Only around 1 out of 7 were US Soldiers on the actual march.

I don't think you'll find many Japanese inclined to visit that ex-colony. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're kidding right? I was born in the Philippines, there's Japanese all over the place, my cousin married one. Both my grandfather and great-grandfather were captured during the war, we all got over it.
Pinoys don't get all wrapped up in who-did-what-when, a trait they share with americans...who don't have a problem with japanese, germans and brits

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-09-2006, 11:29 PM
^LOL^ people from europe & america and anywhere else is all over that place and all over asia hahaha,

BTW, The axis troops/etc during the war is not related to the current genaration,so ... we dont need to hate them

MadRuski
05-09-2006, 11:37 PM
all of the battles were important because in all of them, men lost their lives.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-10-2006, 12:02 AM
the bombing of Dresden is the least important air raid conducted.

All bombing raid & killings that targeted civilians are immoral or if u dont have moral,its barbarism,or of you are not a barbarian your an An

ImpStarDuece
05-10-2006, 12:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

What colonies???? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but weren't the British, French and Dutch the big colonial powers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

US colonial territories at the time of WW2 would of been Guam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, American Samoa and Jarvis Island. They had almost exactly the same realtionships with these nations as the traditional colonial powers (Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Holland, Protugal) did with their own colonies, its just wasn't called 'colonialism'.

The US annexed quite a few nations and set up colonial relationships with them during the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth.

joeap
05-10-2006, 02:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Yeah, shame on them for setting free all those colonies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err or unchained from one master to chain to another.

J_Anonymous
05-10-2006, 06:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shinden1974:
You're kidding right? I was born in the Philippines, there's Japanese all over the place, my cousin married one. Both my grandfather and great-grandfather were captured during the war, we all got over it.
Pinoys don't get all wrapped up in who-did-what-when, a trait they share with americans...who don't have a problem with japanese, germans and brits </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And people from Philippines, Korea, China, Australia, New Zealand, the U.S., Canada, Brazil etc. are everywhere in Japan, too.

Breeze147
05-10-2006, 06:19 AM
There are a lot of Latin Americans playing in the Major Leagues. They are everywhere.

I am Irish/German/American. Obviously, I am a drunken, intelligent, bigot.

The Japanese were the eventual winners of WWII. Think about that when you are driving your Toyota, listening to your Sony cd player, on your way home to watch tv on your Panasonic tv.

The least important front of the war was....I don't know, but I'm sure the Americans won it with the P-51.

Disclaimer: My British friends should read this tongue in cheek. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
05-10-2006, 06:35 AM
5th April 1943 - An Eskimo from the Artic who supported the Axis gave a chinese burn to visiting Frenchman.

23rd Sept 1944 - A member of the Ummagumma Tribe in the Equatorial Rainforest gave a wedgie to his friend who was a big Hitler fan...

Possibly one of these is the least important theatre in WW2. Anyone got any less important?

mynameisroland
05-10-2006, 07:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
The BBC television theatre in London. Closed for the duration. Like this thread should be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Get bent mate

mynameisroland
05-10-2006, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
the bombing of Dresden is the least important air raid conducted.

All bombing raid & killings that targeted civilians are immoral or if u dont have moral,its barbarism,or of you are not a barbarian your an An </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Such a waste of time that the US adopted exactly the same tactics with their uber high altitude strategic bomber to burn Japan out of the war.

mynameisroland
05-10-2006, 07:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMoonlight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Id say Pacific </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say...
If there were an award for the "stupidest thread of the week", you'd be this week's winner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for your input.

mynameisroland
05-10-2006, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
The pacific theater isn't important? The allies and Japan fought over areas much larger than Britain and it isn't important? Yeah... tell that to everyone who died there. There is no "least important" theater of operations. Every operation is crucial if success is to be possible. There is no "theater of operations" that the allies could have stood to lose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty innacurate and also irrelevant. Size of operations is pointless. The Japanese were not developing nuclear weapons, Japan was not running a program of extermination over civilian populations, Japan never attacked mainland Britain or mainland US.

If the Pacific was that important why did the USA openly state that the European theatre was top priority.

mynameisroland
05-10-2006, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reverendkrv1972:
no comment....

other than....



OI! Boemher! Shutiiiiiitt!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MUSH you slaaaaaaaag

mynameisroland
05-10-2006, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
CBI and italy.

japanease had actully yoinked so much landmass, it put hitler to shame in terms of area </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup all those square kilometeres of Ocean and deserted islands counted for much more than occupied Europe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
05-10-2006, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

What colonies???? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but weren't the British, French and Dutch the big colonial powers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

US colonial territories at the time of WW2 would of been Guam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, American Samoa and Jarvis Island. They had almost exactly the same realtionships with these nations as the traditional colonial powers (Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Holland, Protugal) did with their own colonies, its just wasn't called 'colonialism'.

The US annexed quite a few nations and set up colonial relationships with them during the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey I thought the US was all about liberating countries from evel Imperialism &gt;?

mynameisroland
05-10-2006, 07:26 AM
As far as troll threads go , if you read a little bit more in to my 1st post it is actually a valid point. The PTO was comparitively strategically meaningless in the grander scale of the final outcaome of WW2. Whats the worst that could have happened if Japan was left unhindered for 5 years ? If Germany was not prioritised and left to defeat Russia, Britain and America would be up **** creek without a paddle.

If you see my post as denigrating service men who died in the PTO then you are seeing what YOU want to see not what I posted.

Breeze147
05-10-2006, 08:39 AM
If the PTO had gone another 5 years (unhindered), Japan would have a lock on all of the natural resources in China, Korea, Southeast Asia, Burma, and the Western Pacific. They would have been strong enough to capture India, Austrailia and New Zealand. They would have probably carried out several attacks against the U.S. West Coast. They would have overwhelmed Hawaii.

The Japanese enslaved their P.O.W.'s and the populations of their conquered territories. They randomly murdered Chinese for sport. They conducted medical experiments on the Chinese.

The Japanese would have been a better position for world domination than Germany.

Other than that, no good reasons to defeat Japan that I can think of. Oh, maybe retribution for that Pearl Harbor affair.

LEBillfish
05-10-2006, 09:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
......The PTO was comparitively strategically meaningless in the grander scale of the final outcaome of WW2. Whats the worst that could have happened if Japan was left unhindered for 5 years ? ........ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, lets look at that....The following area's "for sure" would have been conquered;
All of the Pacific Islands
China with serious threat to pincering the Soviet Union to aid the Germans (knocking them out of the war)
Korea (all ready held)
Malaya
India
Nepal
Pakistan
Probably moving into Saudi Arabia
Alaska
New Guinea
New Zealand
Australia
Panama
ALL of the Pacific Ocean and Bearing Sea.
Indian Ocean
Naturally moving to the Western Edges of the Americas
& Eastern Edges of Africa
Etc....

Now consider this, the British and U.S. would have been sacrificing tremendous amounts of territory that allowed for re-supply meaning 5 years later the interior of this vast region secure, the allies would have had a terrible time to re-take it.

Next, given no hindrance in their operations, with no need to struggle to re-equip their forces......That would have allowed the Japanese time to develop;
Jet Aircraft
ICBM's & missiles (V1 & 2 technology)
Ultra High Altitude manned weapons (they already were making pressurized space suits for)
Nuclear Weapons
Various other energy weapons they had in the works
Additionally lacking items like radar now well placed and so on.

Remember as well, with the Soviet Union out of it worried about a Japanese attack as they were anyway, you know have just the U.S. and Great Britain fighting there resources already taxed & technology not advancing as quickly due to the need to manufacture "volume"......

In the end with the Soviet Union not in it anyhow till the Germans attacked........"what if" now facing a combined German & Japanese invasion instead decided to sue for peace joining the Axis.....
Sounds like then the possibility is "2/3 of the world" is almost instantly the Axis Powers, their manpower doubled or more to possibly quadrupled (as the Japanese pressed those they conquered into military service)....and the Soviets had their own little interests in land grabbing as well as their issues with Western Doctrine.

Do you consider Stalin more likely to get in bed with Roosevelt and Churchill.....or Hitler, Mussolini & Tojo when you consider their methods?.......

5 years left to do what they want?.....How bout you change the Nazi flag to a swastika on a "red" circle (instead of white with a red background) and add a Italian ax in one corner, in the opposite a hammer and sickle.

Like the new world flag?

mynameisroland
05-10-2006, 09:29 AM
Japan would have taken longer than 5 years to out muscle Britain or the USA. Japan had a lesser industrial capacity than either of the above nations and they were primarily a sea power. If Britain was not involved in a war in Europe the British Army, the RN and RAF could have fought the IJN and IJA and defeated them or at least have held the Japanese and caused them to accept an armistice.

In 1939 the RN was the largest in the world, their battleships and battlecruisers were superior to the Japanese, they had more cruisers and more destroyers thanks to the Washington treaty. Britain also had a massive lead in technologies such as Jet engine, Radar, mass production techniques ect. Japan was not the kind of super power you make it out to be. It had excellent Naval aviation and carriers but neither the foresight or the industrial capacity to expand and capitalize on these. Remember that Britain alone outproduced Germany in all areas of war construction for the Second World War with the exception of one year : 1944. If you compare the figures to Japanese military production this translates to overwhelming nummerical superiority.

Germany on the other hand had made real steps towards ICBMs and Nuclear weapons even though it was fighting the three most powerful nations in the world at the same time. Had Germany been treated with the same importance and allocation of resources the Japanese were, Germany would have feasibly won the war or been unbeatable. German technology and military effectiveness was deemed far more dangerous than anything Japan could do. As for Japan causing any real concern to the USA fat chance. Only madcap admirals trying to drum up funding suggested as much as that. You cannot sustain an invasion force to attack the West coast of the US from anywhere in the Pacific. Japan did not have a logistical chance in hell of pulling of anything other than pinprick raids with one or two fast hit and run units like the Kongo or maybe a carrier strike. Both of which would probably have resulted in a loss of the forces involved.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-10-2006, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
The BBC television theatre in London. Closed for the duration. Like this thread should be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Get bent mate </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooooh! I'm scared. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

LEBillfish
05-10-2006, 10:41 AM
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying....more so considering what was "done" in 5 years of resource hogging war.....Ship wise the Japanese had a much more advanced fleet then the U.S. at the beginning of WWII....Without a war in the pacific how much effort do you think the U.S. would of put into carrier forces, or rebuilding their navy (as in battle ships and cruisers vs. Destroyers).

The Germans and the Japanese shared much info.....Now consider no Soviet Union in the picture.......How well do you think England would have faired without that bit of greed by the Germans?......That doesn't even figure into them seeing who's winning this bout, and deciding "might as well join in with the Axis".

Now for the Japanese to be as backward as you claim....Funny how they hammered the **** out of everyone till the U.S. devoted a serious amount of effort at some serious cost to slowly drive them back. You're forgetting, one goof at midway and whoops.....Guadal Canal purely blood and guts hard fought for....New Guinea? If Kenny had not received a couple lucky Ultra intercepts or had the Japanese code, it would have been lost.

Now that's as it was, not after they had 5 years to strengthen.........Your comments remind me of a poster and what the west thought of Japan just before the war.....You tell me?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/japnpostLG.jpg

Megile_
05-10-2006, 11:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:


Hey I thought the US was all about liberating countries from evel Imperialism &gt;? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

There it is folks... the point of this thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

I would never have guessed it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

Treetop64
05-10-2006, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
...Japan was not running a program of extermination over civilian populations... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Tell that to the descendents living in China and Manchuko who had parents and grandparents subjected to daily bombing of populations centers in those regions during the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If the Pacific was that important why did the USA openly state that the European theatre was top priority. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because Germany had the greatest economic potential of the axis powers, and must be defeated first. However, strategicly speaking, that does not mean that the PTO was any less important than the ETO.

I really don't understand the point of one's opinion of which theater of operation was more important than the other. As stated many times in this thread, anywhere men faught and died was a pretty important place, even the Alutian campaign.

LEBillfish
05-10-2006, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If the Pacific was that important why did the USA openly state that the European theatre was top priority. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because Germany had the greatest economic potential of the axis powers, and must be defeated first. However, strategicly speaking, that does not mean that the PTO was any less important than the ETO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That I'd disagree with, as economics mean little when the monetary structure gets set aside, and raw materials are simply taken from those you conquor........Politics more my bet, as when England itself is threatened, the LAST holdout in Europe, you can't sacrifice it then hope to get it back by flying the Atlantic to get to it......At the time, all the Japanese were going after considered "third world"....So expendable till you could get round to it. Sad but my guess on the logic.

joeap
05-10-2006, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
CBI and italy.

japanease had actully yoinked so much landmass, it put hitler to shame in terms of area </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup all those square kilometeres of Ocean and deserted islands counted for much more than occupied Europe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't be a twit, China, Indonesia, the Phillipines and Southeast Asia had a LOT of landmass. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Oh and google "Unit 731" please.

mynameisroland
05-10-2006, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
CBI and italy.

japanease had actully yoinked so much landmass, it put hitler to shame in terms of area </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup all those square kilometeres of Ocean and deserted islands counted for much more than occupied Europe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't be a twit, China, Indonesia, the Phillipines and Southeast Asia had a LOT of landmass. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Oh and google "Unit 731" please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately you dont appear to see or undertand sarcasm. To put it in to plain English for you with no innuendo: Millions of sq miles of Ocean and islands do not make the PTO of greater significance than some of the most developed countries in the world under German rule.

You are looking at size and numbers, Europe mattered more than the PTO hence it being priority No. 1

As for it being political, yes sure you can say that. Id say it was common strategic sense.

joeap
05-10-2006, 03:30 PM
sight, sarcasm noted. However, the Pacfic is an ocean, I am talking about Asia, an older centre of civilisation than Europe, China today is rather developed which it might not have been had Japan stayed. I'd call Eurocentrism but do in fact agree that Europe was the main theatre. After all even in naval terms what one battleship (the Tirpitz) along with a battlecruiser and pocket battleship or two in Norway (in most respects a secondary theatre in Europe) could casue the Brits to keep at least 2 KGV clas BBs and a carrier on call ... and even the Yanks to keep some modern BBs for awhile in the Atlantic (Washington was attached to the Home Fleet even Iowa spent some time in the Atlantic) when the Pacfic was the pure naval theatre shows the importance of the ETO. Not to mention it was primarily about u-boats and of course the ground and air strength of the Western Allies was concentrated in the ETO.

shinden1974
05-10-2006, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Pretty innacurate and also irrelevant. Size of operations is pointless. The Japanese were not developing nuclear weapons, Japan was not running a program of extermination over civilian populations, Japan never attacked mainland Britain or mainland US.

If the Pacific was that important why did the USA openly state that the European theatre was top priority. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not developing nuclear weapons:
http://www.physicsdaily.com/physics/Japanese_atomic_program

not running programs of extermination over civilian populations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_War_Atrocities

never attacked mainland US:
http://www.portorfordlifeboatstation.org/article1.html

You're pretty accurate and relevant!

Here's an idea...

you have absolutely no interest in the PTO and what happened there.

You don't really give a **** about the fighting that went on there except 'hiroshima-US-bad'.

About the only fact you seem to know is japan was inferior economically.

...you should go back to your little dream world where you take your little plane up and win the war where it really mattered and leave affairs such as 'theaters of WWII' to people who can think and read.

J_Anonymous
05-10-2006, 07:37 PM
So, which country/region is located in the center of the world?! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Which country/region is less significant than others?!

See maps below and draw your own conclusion!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.mapsofworld.com/japan/japan-location-map.html

http://images-jp.amazon.com/images/P/B000301YZM.09.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

http://www.flourish.org/upsidedownmap/hobodyer-large.jpg

ps. Personally, I like the 3rd map, upside down! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Targ
05-10-2006, 07:48 PM
During the battle of Midway a second Japanease fleet larger than the one at Midway was in US waters and included six air craft carriers. At that time there were close to 500,000 troops in Alaska.
The US government conducted the largest censorship ever during WW2 in Alaska as they were very concerned about the public panicking if they ever found out about the Very large Japonease presence in US waters and occupied US territory.
But the good news was that they had all ready cracked the japo's code and ignored the huge fleet in US waters.
Everything they had was at midway. Had the media and politicians known about the huge fleet in Alaska than I would bet they would have been clamoring for the effort to have been there and not at midway or worse yet a split US response.
1942 was a bad year for the Allies as we were indeed close to defeat in many places and many ways.
We could have been the one suing for peace instead.

Von_Rat
05-10-2006, 08:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

What colonies???? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but weren't the British, French and Dutch the big colonial powers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

US colonial territories at the time of WW2 would of been Guam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, American Samoa and Jarvis Island. They had almost exactly the same realtionships with these nations as the traditional colonial powers (Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Holland, Protugal) did with their own colonies, its just wasn't called 'colonialism'.

The US annexed quite a few nations and set up colonial relationships with them during the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if im not mistaken the philipines were not a us colony at that time.

LEBillfish
05-10-2006, 09:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
if im not mistaken the philipines were not a us colony at that time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I believe it was....The MacArthur or his father I believe the Governor if you will.......The U.S. essentially drove the Spanish out in Teddy Roosevelts time with the "Great White Fleet".

Ishmael932
05-10-2006, 11:13 PM
Regarding the PTO. The points the author of this thread seems to miss are legion. While the bulk of area was ocean, there were substantial resources the Japanese needed for their war effort: oil from Indonesia, Iron & coal from China and Manchuria, rubber from Indo-china to name a few. These were the driving forces for Japanese expansion along with Lebensraum for Japanese in China.

In addition, Japanese resistance was exponentially more fierce than Germany. During the invasion of Tarawa, of a defensive garrison of some 15,000 Japanese troops, less than 50 were taken prisoner. Contrasting the breakdown of German resistance as the allied armies closed in on Germany, Japanese resistance became ever more furious and fanatical the closer allied forces got to the home islands.

If the bomb had not been used, the invasions of Kyushu and Honshu(Operations Olympic and Coronet) would have generated close to a million allied deaths conservatively not to mention the countless millions of Japanese. the Japanese Army planned to mobilize the entire population of some 50 million into the armed forces. They had close to 3000 Kamikaze planes of various types ready for the invasion. At the same time, they had moved Unit 731, the Japanese biological weapons program to the home islands in preparation to send bio-weapons via high-altitude balloons to the West coast. They had received plans for jet and rocket motor technology from the Germans by that point as well. All of this combined with the rugged terrain of Japan was ideally suited to defensive warfare.

At the same time, the Soviet Union was poised to invade Hokkaido from Kamchatka. Their invasion was actually planned to start on the day of the Japanese surrender transmission. It was only because of MacArthur's role as Supreme Allied commander in the Pacific that kept them from occupying and dividing Japan with a puppet Communist government as was done in Korea.

The last point I'll make is that we were still finding Japanese soldiers holding out on islands in the Pacific into the late 60's, some 25 years after war's end. How many Germans were still at war then? Those soldiers, when they finally returned to Japan, were lionized as heroes for maintaining the traditions of Bushido.

Von_Rat
05-10-2006, 11:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
if im not mistaken the philipines were not a us colony at that time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I believe it was....The MacArthur or his father I believe the Governor if you will.......The U.S. essentially drove the Spanish out in Teddy Roosevelts time with the "Great White Fleet". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmm i think douglas macauther was comander in chief of philpine army. he wasn't even in the us army at the time i believe. technically he was working for the philipino president, quiezsno or somthing like that was his name.

btw teddy was asst navy secratary or some such at start of spanish american war, he resigned and formed rough riders and fought in cuba. his presidency and great white fleet came years later.

WTE_Galway
05-11-2006, 01:45 AM
Seems to be some odd arguments going on about the strategic importance of PTO versus ETO


One statistic should answer the question once and for all. In discussions with Churchill immediately after Pearl (the Arcadia conference? I am not sure) Roosevelt agreed to commit 80% of US resources to the ETO, the remaining 20% going to the war in the Pacific.

HotelBushranger
05-11-2006, 02:14 AM
The PTO was important because the Japanese were invading every land they could get near. They even got to within several hundred miles of Australia. Just because it wasn't in Europe, doesn't mean it was bloody unimportant Europe boy. Now go off and fly your Spitfire screaming 'I wont teh war!!!1'

ploughman
05-11-2006, 02:21 AM
Yeah, Europe spitflying numpties.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/OzSpit.jpg

HotelBushranger
05-11-2006, 02:41 AM
Ah yes, the Spitfire Mk VIII that never saw aerial combat, after the batch of Spitfire V's that were decripet, unreliable and cost the lives of many pilots http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

ploughman
05-11-2006, 02:50 AM
You're absolutely right. No Spitfires ever saw meaningful service in Australian hands.

John_Wayne_
05-11-2006, 03:13 AM
Interesting.

http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/japsland/japsland.htm (http://home.st.net.au/%7Edunn/japsland/japsland.htm)

panther3485
05-11-2006, 03:55 AM
Possibly fair bait for the little 'uns, Ploughman (it may not work even on them), but you'll need something rather more tasty if you want a bigger Aussie fish!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Best regards, mate!
panther3485

ploughman
05-11-2006, 04:01 AM
Yeah, poor bait badly cast. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'll get my coat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

joeap
05-11-2006, 04:48 AM
Well the verdict is in: I suggest this thread was a racist troll no more no less.

mynameisroland
05-11-2006, 04:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shinden1974:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Pretty innacurate and also irrelevant. Size of operations is pointless. The Japanese were not developing nuclear weapons, Japan was not running a program of extermination over civilian populations, Japan never attacked mainland Britain or mainland US.

If the Pacific was that important why did the USA openly state that the European theatre was top priority. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not developing nuclear weapons:
http://www.physicsdaily.com/physics/Japanese_atomic_program

not running programs of extermination over civilian populations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_War_Atrocities

never attacked mainland US:
http://www.portorfordlifeboatstation.org/article1.html

You're pretty accurate and relevant!

Here's an idea...

you have absolutely no interest in the PTO and what happened there.

You don't really give a **** about the fighting that went on there except 'hiroshima-US-bad'.

About the only fact you seem to know is japan was inferior economically.

...you should go back to your little dream world where you take your little plane up and win the war where it really mattered and leave affairs such as 'theaters of WWII' to people who can think and read. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without completely disregarding what you have posted, can I ask you honestly do you believe that Japan posed the same or even remotely equal threat that Germany did?

Secondly, Japan did execute Chinese, they also did a good job torturing and killing POWs but did they commit genocide on the same scale as the Germans?

Thirdly, Japanese skirmishes with the US mainland cannot be put in the same light with the German bombing of Britain and the threat of having a 3 million plus army situated less than 50 miles from Britains coastline.

As for you taking insult to my thread fair enough. As someone with your name 'shinden1974' I would expect no less. What I suggest is that instead of taking my provocative post personally you remove your blinkered spectacles and open your eyes. Japan posed comparitively little threat to the long term ambitions of the USA and of Britain. Immediate trouble yes but in the long run no.

Japan was economically inferior to Britain let alone German and the USA. The USA fought and beat Japan using largely only their USN. The US Army and USAAF was devoted to crushing Germany. Sorry to dent your pride but fighting Japan was not the end of the world for Britain or the USA.

mynameisroland
05-11-2006, 04:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Well the verdict is in: I suggest this thread was a racist troll no more no less. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for being judge jury and executioner. Guilty until proven innocent eh ?

mynameisroland
05-11-2006, 04:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Yeah, poor bait badly cast. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'll get my coat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please do, from reading your weighty contributions you will hardly be missed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

mynameisroland
05-11-2006, 04:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
Ah yes, the Spitfire Mk VIII that never saw aerial combat, after the batch of Spitfire V's that were decripet, unreliable and cost the lives of many pilots http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you know anything about Spitfire VIII service please expand on it and show us how maniy aerial victories the Spit VIII achieved? I have read up on it and the scale of action is miniscule.

ploughman
05-11-2006, 04:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Yeah, poor bait badly cast. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'll get my coat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please do, from reading your weighty contributions you will hardly be missed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm suprised you bother.

mynameisroland
05-11-2006, 05:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ishmael932:
Regarding the PTO. The points the author of this thread seems to miss are legion. While the bulk of area was ocean, there were substantial resources the Japanese needed for their war effort: oil from Indonesia, Iron & coal from China and Manchuria, rubber from Indo-china to name a few. These were the driving forces for Japanese expansion along with Lebensraum for Japanese in China.

In addition, Japanese resistance was exponentially more fierce than Germany. During the invasion of Tarawa, of a defensive garrison of some 15,000 Japanese troops, less than 50 were taken prisoner. Contrasting the breakdown of German resistance as the allied armies closed in on Germany, Japanese resistance became ever more furious and fanatical the closer allied forces got to the home islands.

If the bomb had not been used, the invasions of Kyushu and Honshu(Operations Olympic and Coronet) would have generated close to a million allied deaths conservatively not to mention the countless millions of Japanese. the Japanese Army planned to mobilize the entire population of some 50 million into the armed forces. They had close to 3000 Kamikaze planes of various types ready for the invasion. At the same time, they had moved Unit 731, the Japanese biological weapons program to the home islands in preparation to send bio-weapons via high-altitude balloons to the West coast. They had received plans for jet and rocket motor technology from the Germans by that point as well. All of this combined with the rugged terrain of Japan was ideally suited to defensive warfare.

At the same time, the Soviet Union was poised to invade Hokkaido from Kamchatka. Their invasion was actually planned to start on the day of the Japanese surrender transmission. It was only because of MacArthur's role as Supreme Allied commander in the Pacific that kept them from occupying and dividing Japan with a puppet Communist government as was done in Korea.

The last point I'll make is that we were still finding Japanese soldiers holding out on islands in the Pacific into the late 60's, some 25 years after war's end. How many Germans were still at war then? Those soldiers, when they finally returned to Japan, were lionized as heroes for maintaining the traditions of Bushido. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes the PTO contained resources essential for Japan to wage war. Britain and the USA did not require the Pacific to ensure they could continue to fight. What you dont understand is that I am not saying the PTO was insignificant to Japan, or to members of some posters families who fought there. What I am trying painfully to point out is that the PTO was secondary to events in the MTO and ETO for Britain and the USA. You can argue against this all you want but to do so would be to ignore the actual events of WW2.

Japanese soldiers fought hard ? Thanks for the insight there. Considering that German soldiers were fighting the largest assembled collection of armed forces in the world Id say they did pretty well. To say that the average Japanese group of 15000 soldiers were inherantly tougher than the average group of 15000 Wehrmacht soldiers is quite frankly rubbish. Fighting to the death is not a great military quality. If it was then the Average Japanese was a better soldier than your average American, how does that fit in your version of events?

Japanese infanrty, artillery units and tank units were extremely poorly equiped compared to any other main combatant involved in WW2.

Honour attached to still fighting a war on a desert island 25 years after the wars end is something but the actual military value of these troops was castrated by poor equipment, poor infrastructure and lack of mobility.

mynameisroland
05-11-2006, 05:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Yeah, poor bait badly cast. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'll get my coat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please do, from reading your weighty contributions you will hardly be missed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm suprised you bother. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you jump on every post I make without contributing anything what do you want me to say? If you deem the thread too distasteful to comment constructivly either prove me wrong in my allegation, or please bugger off.

luftluuver
05-11-2006, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If you know anything about Spitfire VIII service please expand on it and show us how maniy aerial victories the Spit VIII achieved? I have read up on it and the scale of action is miniscule. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It is hard to get aerial victories when the enemy fighters are hard to find, since there was so few of them around.

Spitfire VIII production was 1654.

mynameisroland
05-11-2006, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
......The PTO was comparitively strategically meaningless in the grander scale of the final outcaome of WW2. Whats the worst that could have happened if Japan was left unhindered for 5 years ? ........ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, lets look at that....The following area's "for sure" would have been conquered;
All of the Pacific Islands
China with serious threat to pincering the Soviet Union to aid the Germans (knocking them out of the war)
Korea (all ready held)
Malaya
India
Nepal
Pakistan
Probably moving into Saudi Arabia
Alaska
New Guinea
New Zealand
Australia
Panama
ALL of the Pacific Ocean and Bearing Sea.
Indian Ocean
Naturally moving to the Western Edges of the Americas
& Eastern Edges of Africa
Etc....

Now consider this, the British and U.S. would have been sacrificing tremendous amounts of territory that allowed for re-supply meaning 5 years later the interior of this vast region secure, the allies would have had a terrible time to re-take it.

Next, given no hindrance in their operations, with no need to struggle to re-equip their forces......That would have allowed the Japanese time to develop;
Jet Aircraft
ICBM's & missiles (V1 & 2 technology)
Ultra High Altitude manned weapons (they already were making pressurized space suits for)
Nuclear Weapons
Various other energy weapons they had in the works
Additionally lacking items like radar now well placed and so on.

Remember as well, with the Soviet Union out of it worried about a Japanese attack as they were anyway, you know have just the U.S. and Great Britain fighting there resources already taxed & technology not advancing as quickly due to the need to manufacture "volume"......

In the end with the Soviet Union not in it anyhow till the Germans attacked........"what if" now facing a combined German & Japanese invasion instead decided to sue for peace joining the Axis.....
Sounds like then the possibility is "2/3 of the world" is almost instantly the Axis Powers, their manpower doubled or more to possibly quadrupled (as the Japanese pressed those they conquered into military service)....and the Soviets had their own little interests in land grabbing as well as their issues with Western Doctrine.

Do you consider Stalin more likely to get in bed with Roosevelt and Churchill.....or Hitler, Mussolini & Tojo when you consider their methods?.......

5 years left to do what they want?.....How bout you change the Nazi flag to a swastika on a "red" circle (instead of white with a red background) and add a Italian ax in one corner, in the opposite a hammer and sickle.

Like the new world flag? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How would Japan fastrack their economy, industry, scientific R&D, military and infrastructure to exceed the USA's or lets face it even Britains in the space of 5 years?

mynameisroland
05-11-2006, 05:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If you know anything about Spitfire VIII service please expand on it and show us how maniy aerial victories the Spit VIII achieved? I have read up on it and the scale of action is miniscule. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It is hard to get aerial victories when the enemy fighters are hard to find, since there was so few of them around.

Spitfire VIII production was 1654. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know the production figures, I also know that they saw little aircombat and fought in a role that a P40 would be equally if not better suited to. I really dont see why the person who origionally mentioned the VIII bothered it has no relevance to the significant of the PTO although it was and excellent aircraft and my favourite model after the VII.

mynameisroland
05-11-2006, 05:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
The PTO was important because the Japanese were invading every land they could get near. They even got to within several hundred miles of Australia. Just because it wasn't in Europe, doesn't mean it was bloody unimportant Europe boy. Now go off and fly your Spitfire screaming 'I wont teh war!!!1' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very mature, soon you will be nearly old enough to start shaving! Why dont you loose the nationalistic cobblers and see that even if Australia was taken it was a redeemable situation. The invasion of Australia was important especially to .... Australians! But does the collapes of Australian mean the end of WW2 NO!!!! not for one second.

ploughman
05-11-2006, 05:17 AM
Which post of yours did I jump on, unless you're Bushie as well as Roland? Or is it that I am sullying your thread with my presence? Pompous twerp.

Viz the relative effectiveness of troops this (http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/armies/introduction.aspx) histiographical assessment might assist you in your reading on the subject, if you are so inclined.

ElAurens
05-11-2006, 05:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The USA fought and beat Japan using largely only their USN. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This single sentence shows how clueless you are about Pacific/Asian operations.

I suggest a trip to the library for some remedial reading.

HotelBushranger
05-11-2006, 05:29 AM
When I talked about Australia, it ment that Australia being forced out of the war, being a major ally of the UK and USA (yes there were other nations in the war!), would mean that there would be no platform for the US to start striking back.

When will you start respecting the notion that there were other countries in the war, and the world doesn't revolve around the UK and its European issues? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The USA fought and beat Japan using largely only their USN.



This single sentence shows how clueless you are about Pacific/Asian operations.

I suggest a trip to the library for some remedial reading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh and +1

ImpStarDuece
05-11-2006, 06:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:


If you know anything about Spitfire VIII service please expand on it and show us how maniy aerial victories the Spit VIII achieved? I have read up on it and the scale of action is miniscule. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Nos 67, 81 and 152 were all equipped with the Mk VIII and saw heavy action against the Japanese in India and Burma against the IJA in early 1944, claiming around 150 kills. In late 1944 they were joined by 3 more squadrons and were involved in pushing the Japanese back from the Burma-India border.

Spitfire VIIIs also saw action against German and Italian units over Sicily and Southern Italy in 1943. The USAAF 52nd and 31st FG claimed close to 200 victories in Mk VIIIs. The RAF did fairly well with the type in theatre as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif with at least 15 squadrons being equipped with the type at one stage or another.

Australia had less of a rewarding time with the Mk VIIIs it got. Mostly they were used in the island hopping campaigns and were assigned mopping up and cover tasks, and as a result saw little A2A action.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-11-2006, 06:16 AM
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-VIII.html

mynameisroland
05-11-2006, 06:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The USA fought and beat Japan using largely only their USN. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This single sentence shows how clueless you are about Pacific/Asian operations.

I suggest a trip to the library for some remedial reading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please tell me of any large US Army Pacific operations that come close to the scale or significance of landings like Torch or DDay, or the fighting that took place during the Bulge ?

mynameisroland
05-11-2006, 06:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
When I talked about Australia, it ment that Australia being forced out of the war, being a major ally of the UK and USA (yes there were other nations in the war!), would mean that there would be no platform for the US to start striking back.

When will you start respecting the notion that there were other countries in the war, and the world doesn't revolve around the UK and its European issues? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The USA fought and beat Japan using largely only their USN.



This single sentence shows how clueless you are about Pacific/Asian operations.

I suggest a trip to the library for some remedial reading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh and +1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pardon me for denting you pride 'Mate'. Australias contribution while significant was not pivotal after Winter 1941. With australia out of the war in 1942 I see no major implications for the final outcome of the war.

After all this is what the topic is about : World War 2. Not My country is teh best. No one here has posted anything to disprove that the PTO was of SECONDARY significance to events elsewhere. Like it or not this was the way it was.

mynameisroland
05-11-2006, 06:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:


If you know anything about Spitfire VIII service please expand on it and show us how maniy aerial victories the Spit VIII achieved? I have read up on it and the scale of action is miniscule. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Nos 67, 81 and 152 were all equipped with the Mk VIII and saw heavy action against the Japanese in India and Burma against the IJA in early 1944, claiming around 150 kills. In late 1944 they were joined by 3 more squadrons and were involved in pushing the Japanese back from the Burma-India border.

Spitfire VIIIs also saw action against German and Italian units over Sicily and Southern Italy in 1943. The USAAF 52nd and 31st FG claimed close to 200 victories in Mk VIIIs. The RAF did fairly well with the type in theatre as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif with at least 15 squadrons being equipped with the type at one stage or another.

Australia had less of a rewarding time with the Mk VIIIs it got. Mostly they were used in the island hopping campaigns and were assigned mopping up and cover tasks, and as a result saw little A2A action. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The VIII was deemed to be much needed but perhaps it arrived too late after the fate of IJA air power was already sealed. 200 kills may sound a lot but if you look at air activity over Europe or the Eastern front during the same period or even during the last months of the war air activity was greater.

mynameisroland
05-11-2006, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Which post of yours did I jump on, unless you're Bushie as well as Roland? Or is it that I am sullying your thread with my presence? Pompous twerp.

Viz the relative effectiveness of troops this (http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/armies/introduction.aspx) histiographical assessment might assist you in your reading on the subject, if you are so inclined. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its my mistake Ploughman, I confused your post with LowFlyers. Sorry mate.

Ps read your link, I have read a good article written by a Senior Israeli Strategist on the topic too he conluded in laymans terms that the fighting efficiency of 2 German Soldiers was equivalent to 3 or 4 US/British soldiers and 5/7 Soviet troops. Rather than stating racial supperiority it sensibly looked at efficiency of organisation, tactical superiority, and greater initiative at a unit level.

mynameisroland
05-11-2006, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
The BBC television theatre in London. Closed for the duration. Like this thread should be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Get bent mate </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooooh! I'm scared. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im scared by your photoshop skilz mate but thats not the point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-11-2006, 06:45 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

mynameisroland
05-11-2006, 06:55 AM
"The initiation and course of the campaign in Western Europe in the last year of World War II owed much to the influence of the United States, whose entry into the conflict in December 1941 changed the balance of power in favor of the Allies.<span class="ev_code_RED"> In spite of the outrage of the American public against Japan for its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, the country's political and military leadership agreed with their new British allies that Germany represented the greater threat</span>. Although there was agreement on this point, however, there remained serious controversy between the two English-speaking nations over where and when to best strike against Germany. The United States favored an early direct assault at the enemy heartland through Western Europe, while the British advocated a more deliberate and indirect approach through Italy and Southern Europe."

Mythos revisited: American Historians and German Fighting Power in WWII
by Thomas E. Nutter

Now call me brash for actually starting a thread that dents some egos in here but in reality all I am stating is that the PTO wasnt as important as the ETO.

ploughman
05-11-2006, 07:07 AM
I don't suppose you have a link to that Israeli thing you were talking about do you Roland?

You mistook me for LF? Well I don't mind been mistaken for him at all. Not at all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Breeze147
05-11-2006, 07:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The USA fought and beat Japan using largely only their USN. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This single sentence shows how clueless you are about Pacific/Asian operations.

I suggest a trip to the library for some remedial reading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please tell me of any large US Army Pacific operations that come close to the scale or significance of landings like Torch or DDay, or the fighting that took place during the Bulge ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

D-Day is in a class all it's own and shouldn't even be considered as a point of comparison. I would say that he U.S. Army had fairly signicant operations in the retaking of the Philippines and the invasion of Okinawa.

LEBillfish
05-11-2006, 07:29 AM
Gentlemen, I propose we all have been mistaken about mynameisroland. Though he may or may not be ignorant to the events in the Pacific and there potential outcomes, or simply self gratifying wishing to lay praise upon his own people, let me submit to you this based upon his replies yet more so their manner.

He's a post count *****......Simply trying to bost his post count in his own thread. He obviously is not taking the time to investigate what is presented. His "Quote & Quip" style simply meant to boost his post count by +1.

HotelBushranger
05-11-2006, 07:32 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif +1 Good point

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
05-11-2006, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Id say Pacific, Britain left that one till last in their strategic planning </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I knew it was a bad thread (I am a little supprised this was allowed to run at all) but the contents and some of the replies here drive me to respond for my part.

Roland is your intention to display yourself as an effing fool for the sake of a few cheap laughs and questionable noteriety?

Apart from the fact that the Japanese ,were not, in the initial stages of the war as an immediate threat to the British as the German advance. It was more a question of priority and not importance. The Japanese were not bombing the **** out of the British in the first years of the war and so obviously they would not feature as highly on the campaign map.

That said Speaking as the Grandson of a British soldier who's father spent his time in a Japanese P.O.W camp, along with many other members of the various participating nations in the PTO, as a result of the kind of pompous racist attitude that enabled command to belive in the inferiority of the japanese soldier and their military capability that you ,strangly, seem to share.

I myself would not be here right now if some one had not, eventualy, taken the Japanese involvement seriously and eventualy liberated my grandfather and others from incarceration.

One of the biggest military mistakes one can make is to assume because of your enemies apperance, race, creed, or colour, that your enemy is incapable of fighting with an equal amount of skill, determination, or vigour.

In my own opinion, part of the reason that the Japanese were so successful in the early stages of their campaign was, a result of ignorance and racism combined. To me the commonwealth troops in the early days of that theater of operations were the victims of their own commanders who were, it seems, a bunch of fools and bigots, who at the time believed that the average japanese was a squat slant eyed bespecticled simpleton incapable of coordinated military assault. Take a look at the propoganda posters and movie's of the time for evidence of this.

One example of the validity of this attitude and the IMPORTANCE of this theater, however, was learned the hard way by an entire commonwealth military force (my grandfathers regiment among them) who were completely wrong sided when the Japanese took Malaya and Singapore, with their, as you put it, inferior arms and munitions.

Most of these troops (Some of which, Austrailian troops I believe, had literaly just arrived by ship) were orderd to surrender with out a fight by the british command.

As if this was not enough the troops were then forced to line the streets so that they could be reviewed and filmed by the Japanese commander, that he may asses the full extent of his triumph over the so-called superior force he had so easily defeated.

Archive footage of this exists and can be seen in the now somewhat dated documentary 'The world at War' and still brings a tear to my eye when I think how those troops must have felt at having to surrender in such a manner, and the battle they would then have to fight simply to survive at the hands of their captors.

More information can be found here or just google 'british surrender to japanese'

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/about_us/history/world.../v02n02_history.html (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/about_us/history/world_war2/v02n02_history.html)

Now as you say the British had a lack of resources with which to take the fight to the japanese in the Pacific but it was, in part, as a result of their own shameless blunder in the early stages of the PTO and ill informed opinion of their enemy and not by bloody choice.

All theaters of operation were important to those that actually took part in them and to try and attach some kind of petty little poll of popularity is both insulting and disrespectful to the memory of all who participated.

If you are indeed a UK resident then I am suprised that you are so poorley informed about your own countries efforts during the war.

If not well then perhaps you have some excuse and the purpose of your post is more clear.

Either way you seem to have formed your opinion on the number of games/movies produced for each theater and their popularity rather than the actual facts and timeline of events.

As you say Roland you are innocent until proven guilty but the onus is on you to prove your innocence , not us, A job at which you are currently failing at misserably.

This is I think the first time I have seen you attempt to troll and I can honestly say you have missed the point of the best kind,if their is one, of troll post entirely and mearly come over as offensive.

A parting piece of information for you do not state your opinionions in a public place where people are actually present unless you are an eight foot gorrilla with a machine gun. And then still make sure you are the only gorrila.

I suspect you will get less debate and more reaction.

ploughman
05-11-2006, 08:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:


He's a post count *****......Simply trying to bost his post count in his own thread. He obviously is not taking the time to investigate what is presented. His "Quote & Quip" style simply meant to boost his post count by +1. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, I should know as I've been doing it for years.

I thought Roland was Dutch, I have not idea why though. Funny that, how you can come to erroneous conclusions based on little or no data. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
05-11-2006, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
I thought Roland was Dutch, I have not idea why though. Funny that, how you can come to erroneous conclusions based on little or no data. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooooh subtlety thy name be Ploughman http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-11-2006, 08:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
I don't suppose you have a link to that Israeli thing you were talking about do you Roland?

You mistook me for LF? Well I don't mind been mistaken for him at all. Not at all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

panther3485
05-11-2006, 08:12 AM
Hi there, Ploughman

Quote:
"Funny that, how you can come to erroneous conclusions based on little or no data."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Even funnier when erroneous conclusions are based on substantial amounts of data, which we don't have to look too far to see happening on many a thread here, eh?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

ElAurens
05-11-2006, 11:10 AM
The United States Army's biggest contribution in the Pacific war was in New Guinea, where the USAAF along with the RAAF totally broke the back of Imperial Japanese air power. The Japanese did not loose their air arm over the blue Pacific, rather it was over the imposing green canopy of the jungles of New Guinea.

JtD
05-11-2006, 12:54 PM
"Least important theatre of operations"

To whom?

Also, Roland, you seem to totally underestimate the economical and military strenght Japan had in 1940. The course of the war certainly did not favour the development of Japan, but today it is in 4th place of exports worldwide, way ahead of i.e. the UK. It beats many Western nations in raw industrial power. Btw, the arguable single biggest military defeat the UK suffered in it's history was handed to it by the Japanese.

And to some of the other folks, you totally seem to underestimate Roland. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

ploughman
05-11-2006, 01:16 PM
I think that might be ammo for Roland there Jtd. A massive defeat at Singapore, the longest retreat in UK military history in Burma...and it didn't matter, ergo the PTO was less important than...blah, blah, blah. If Roland was saying the Japanese weren't very formidable opponents then I'd be agreeing with you, but I don't think he is.

Interestingly, the largest defeat the IJA suffered was handed to it by British and Commonwealth forces. War has a peculiar symetry to it sometimes.

shinden1974
05-11-2006, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shinden1974:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Pretty innacurate and also irrelevant. Size of operations is pointless. The Japanese were not developing nuclear weapons, Japan was not running a program of extermination over civilian populations, Japan never attacked mainland Britain or mainland US.

If the Pacific was that important why did the USA openly state that the European theatre was top priority. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not developing nuclear weapons:
http://www.physicsdaily.com/physics/Japanese_atomic_program

not running programs of extermination over civilian populations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_War_Atrocities

never attacked mainland US:
http://www.portorfordlifeboatstation.org/article1.html

You're pretty accurate and relevant!

Here's an idea...

you have absolutely no interest in the PTO and what happened there.

You don't really give a **** about the fighting that went on there except 'hiroshima-US-bad'.

About the only fact you seem to know is japan was inferior economically.

...you should go back to your little dream world where you take your little plane up and win the war where it really mattered and leave affairs such as 'theaters of WWII' to people who can think and read. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without completely disregarding what you have posted, can I ask you honestly do you believe that Japan posed the same or even remotely equal threat that Germany did?

Secondly, Japan did execute Chinese, they also did a good job torturing and killing POWs but did they commit genocide on the same scale as the Germans?

Thirdly, Japanese skirmishes with the US mainland cannot be put in the same light with the German bombing of Britain and the threat of having a 3 million plus army situated less than 50 miles from Britains coastline.

As for you taking insult to my thread fair enough. As someone with your name 'shinden1974' I would expect no less. What I suggest is that instead of taking my provocative post personally you remove your blinkered spectacles and open your eyes. Japan posed comparitively little threat to the long term ambitions of the USA and of Britain. Immediate trouble yes but in the long run no.

Japan was economically inferior to Britain let alone German and the USA. The USA fought and beat Japan using largely only their USN. The US Army and USAAF was devoted to crushing Germany. Sorry to dent your pride but fighting Japan was not the end of the world for Britain or the USA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

first, I didn't say anything about japan's relative capability...no, not remotely an equally capable threat...duh...stating this over and over again while everyone nods isn't getting you anywhere. Your question is 'what is the least important theater of WWII, which is an insanely stupid question because it deals with viewpoints. Your average Filipino or Australian could give rat's *** about germany, like you don't give a rat's *** about the PTO but for some reason started this thread. These were two seperate wars.

secondly, what's your standard for genocide? your defense of this is pathetic...japan's atrocities and importance doesn't count because the 'scale' wasn't large enough? you wonder why people queestion your intelligence?

thirdly, obviously you have problems dealing with the point of my post, it's isn't the relative importance of britains near destruction compared to a few bombs dropped in the forest...it's the fact that you don't know and you were wrong about all three points. If you can't even figure out what the hell happened, you're in not much of a position to judge anything.

fourth paragraph...where's the part where I take insult? To insult me you have to say something that would actually bother me, you're at best boring and silly. Judge me by your name do you? good thing I don't stare at your FW and judge you to be a 'nazi' ...how silly. You're not provocative professor, you're a twerp.

Fifth...you're one fact http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif Hey! I'm hurt now! you didn't even mention the USMC (that's my outfit)...but it's your last sentence the makes me laugh.

dent my pride? my grandpa and great grandpa were captured in the philippines they fought and survived. The defied the japanese until the americans came, and thank god for that. Our Marines fought Island to Island, taking heavy losses picking up each others bodies and dragging their dead buddies back home as they fell. We won some of the bloodiest battles in this nations history and our story will be told and retold with honor and pride forever...

and you think you can dent my pride in that? You're not even worthy to step on our ****! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WTE_Galway
05-11-2006, 05:19 PM
speaking of Spitfire VIII's



the MkVIII from the Temora museum will be flying 10th and 11th of June .. only two flying days until august



http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/Spitfire.cfm

HerrGraf
05-11-2006, 08:55 PM
The only really "least important operation" would have to be the Aluetian Campaign fought in the Alaska Island Chain between the Japanese and U.S. Army and U.S. Army Aircorps. Very small numbers of people committed by either side with no purpose other than to suck of U.S. forces from the Midway attack.
Not neccessarily unimportant to those who participated.
By the way, huge numbers of U.S. Army and Aircorps used in the South Pacific T.o.O. Also huge numbers of U.S. aircraft used in the China Theater of Operations!

Ishmael932
05-12-2006, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ishmael932:
Regarding the PTO. The points the author of this thread seems to miss are legion. While the bulk of area was ocean, there were substantial resources the Japanese needed for their war effort: oil from Indonesia, Iron & coal from China and Manchuria, rubber from Indo-china to name a few. These were the driving forces for Japanese expansion along with Lebensraum for Japanese in China.

In addition, Japanese resistance was exponentially more fierce than Germany. During the invasion of Tarawa, of a defensive garrison of some 15,000 Japanese troops, less than 50 were taken prisoner. Contrasting the breakdown of German resistance as the allied armies closed in on Germany, Japanese resistance became ever more furious and fanatical the closer allied forces got to the home islands.

If the bomb had not been used, the invasions of Kyushu and Honshu(Operations Olympic and Coronet) would have generated close to a million allied deaths conservatively not to mention the countless millions of Japanese. the Japanese Army planned to mobilize the entire population of some 50 million into the armed forces. They had close to 3000 Kamikaze planes of various types ready for the invasion. At the same time, they had moved Unit 731, the Japanese biological weapons program to the home islands in preparation to send bio-weapons via high-altitude balloons to the West coast. They had received plans for jet and rocket motor technology from the Germans by that point as well. All of this combined with the rugged terrain of Japan was ideally suited to defensive warfare.

At the same time, the Soviet Union was poised to invade Hokkaido from Kamchatka. Their invasion was actually planned to start on the day of the Japanese surrender transmission. It was only because of MacArthur's role as Supreme Allied commander in the Pacific that kept them from occupying and dividing Japan with a puppet Communist government as was done in Korea.

The last point I'll make is that we were still finding Japanese soldiers holding out on islands in the Pacific into the late 60's, some 25 years after war's end. How many Germans were still at war then? Those soldiers, when they finally returned to Japan, were lionized as heroes for maintaining the traditions of Bushido. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes the PTO contained resources essential for Japan to wage war. Britain and the USA did not require the Pacific to ensure they could continue to fight. What you dont understand is that I am not saying the PTO was insignificant to Japan, or to members of some posters families who fought there. What I am trying painfully to point out is that the PTO was secondary to events in the MTO and ETO for Britain and the USA. You can argue against this all you want but to do so would be to ignore the actual events of WW2.

Japanese soldiers fought hard ? Thanks for the insight there. Considering that German soldiers were fighting the largest assembled collection of armed forces in the world Id say they did pretty well. To say that the average Japanese group of 15000 soldiers were inherantly tougher than the average group of 15000 Wehrmacht soldiers is quite frankly rubbish. Fighting to the death is not a great military quality. If it was then the Average Japanese was a better soldier than your average American, how does that fit in your version of events?

Japanese infanrty, artillery units and tank units were extremely poorly equiped compared to any other main combatant involved in WW2.

Honour attached to still fighting a war on a desert island 25 years after the wars end is something but the actual military value of these troops was castrated by poor equipment, poor infrastructure and lack of mobility. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Response to point 1:

This is a Eurocentric point of view in what was truly a World War. Germany had a greater industrial output, but it was the Red Army that truly did the heavy lifting in Europe with Allied aid. The German order of battle against the soviets was always vastly more than the forces arrayed against the western allies. Regarding Japanese fighting spirit. Yes, I believe the individual Japanese soldier was superior to the average German and would put my money on any division of Imperial Japanese Marines against any Wermacht or Waffen SS division any day of the week. Remember that MacArthur's strategic masterstroke in New Guinea was bypassing and isolating the bulk of Japanese forces there cutting off their lines of supply rather than engaging them. When Allied forces engaged the Japanese, pound-for-pound and man-for-man, they were the most formidable opponents we have ever faced.

Response to point 2:

Japanese technology may have been inferior in some respects but not all. The Zero was a superb fighter for it's time. The Japanese carriers and naval forces were a match one-on-one with anything the the US or Britain could field. Their Long-Lance torpedoes were the best in the war. While it's true that Most Japanese units were poorly equipped in Armor and their light infantry weapons, thank god for that. Had the Japanese possessed anything approaching German technology, they could have quite easily won the Pacific war. To Bowdlerize Hitler: give me German technology, American industrial output and the Japanese soldier and I will conquer the world.

One last point. Around the time of the first Gulf War there was much talk of Japanese rearmament. When asked about the topic, Lee Kwan Yew, President of Singapore said,

"Letting the Japanese rearm would be like giving liqueor chocolates to an alchoholic."

Stuka_G10
05-12-2006, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dunkelgrun:
Walmington-on-Sea.

Byeeeeee! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, warmington-on-sea.

(sig)

joeap
05-13-2006, 03:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shinden1974:

...

dent my pride? my grandpa and great grandpa were captured in the philippines they fought and survived. The defied the japanese until the americans came, and thank god for that. Our Marines fought Island to Island, taking heavy losses picking up each others bodies and dragging their dead buddies back home as they fell. We won some of the bloodiest battles in this nations history and our story will be told and retold with honor and pride forever...

and you think you can dent my pride in that? You're not even worthy to step on our ****! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great post Shinden. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif