Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Were Japanese so Inferior US would have won a 1-Front War in 6 Months without Germany

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Were Japanese so Inferior US would have won a 1-Front War in 6 Months without Germany

    My US History Teacher stated that in WW2 when we reach the part about USSR fighting Nazi Germany that the Germans faced such a problem when the Americans entered a War because they were forced into a 2-front War.

    She added that not even the United States thought it could fight a 2-Front War despite all of its resources and the fact its enemies were an ENTIRE OCEAN away so the US spent most of its efforts fighting the Germans until they were defeated and then they would concentrate all their efforts on Japan.

    I seen this cited in various sites and books before I took this class. In fact out of this came the theory that had Germany not declared War on the United States, the United States would muster all of its resources to take on Japan alone and the entire War in the Pacific Front would have ended within 6 months. That the only reason the Japanese succeeded initially in the War was that the Americans were too busy spending their most important resources and equipment fighting the Germans.

    So since they were able to beat the Japanese just using what minimal resources they had during the actual Pacific Front of WW2, many conclude that the Americans would have at most taken a year to beat the Japanese if the War was only between them with no involvement in the European Front.

    What do you think?

  • #2
    Whoever wrote that needs to look up how long it takes to build an aircraft carrier, or a Battleship, or a Division.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
      Whoever wrote that needs to look up how long it takes to build an aircraft carrier, or a Battleship, or a Division.
      Then multiple those by several to scores.
      Plus train pilots/aircrews and shape into groups and wings, etc.
      Then get together the logistics/supply/transport.

      Just getting started ...
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
      “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
      Present Current Events are the Future's History

      Comment


      • #4
        What I recall is that fighting Germany first was a political decision. Despite the intention to fight Germany first and hold in the Pacific, the US was still able to go on the offensive in both theaters by 43.
        45B10 1986-91

        Comment


        • #5
          9 pregnant women won't get you a baby in 1 month.
          Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
          And sorry I could not travel both
          And be one traveler, long I stood
          ...
          Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
          I took the one less traveled by,
          And that has made all the difference.

          Comment


          • #6
            Less a political decision than one driven by strategic necessity. Germany was a larger threat to US national interests and economic power.
            The Purist

            Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

            Comment


            • #7
              Soon after Germany declared war on the US, and maybe before that point, FDR and Churchill had come to the agreement that the majority of our effort would go to Europe first. Great Britain was in dire straits at that point. We had to ensure that Great Britain didn't fall. If it had been conquered by Germany I'm not sure we would ever have been able to liberate them.

              Japan and Germany both were way to far ahead of us in war preparedness for us to have caught up with them in 6 months, or a year. It took as almost one year to muster up enough forces to be able to invade North Africa. So you can assume it would've taken at least that long to have done the same in the Pacific.

              We did beat the Japanese with only about 1/3 of our forces. But it took us years to create the forces used to accomplish that.

              Comment


              • #8
                Strange that you ran into so many people that got it wrong. The US could not send troops and ships across the Pacific much faster than what was sent. The Pacific actually got most of the resources sent out in 1940-41. They went to Australia and several South Pacific Islands. MacArthur was getting major levels of equipment and some troops before December 7th. A lot of it ended up in Australia or Java.

                Pruitt
                Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Pisces Adonis View Post
                  My US History Teacher stated that in WW2 when we reach the part about USSR fighting Nazi Germany that the Germans faced such a problem when the Americans entered a War because they were forced into a 2-front War.

                  She added that not even the United States thought it could fight a 2-Front War despite all of its resources and the fact its enemies were an ENTIRE OCEAN away so the US spent most of its efforts fighting the Germans until they were defeated and then they would concentrate all their efforts on Japan.

                  I seen this cited in various sites and books before I took this class. In fact out of this came the theory that had Germany not declared War on the United States, the United States would muster all of its resources to take on Japan alone and the entire War in the Pacific Front would have ended within 6 months. That the only reason the Japanese succeeded initially in the War was that the Americans were too busy spending their most important resources and equipment fighting the Germans.

                  So since they were able to beat the Japanese just using what minimal resources they had during the actual Pacific Front of WW2, many conclude that the Americans would have at most taken a year to beat the Japanese if the War was only between them with no involvement in the European Front.

                  What do you think?
                  Your teacher is wrong. The needed Allied military base infrastructure to support US and Allied offensive moves throughout the south Pacific did not yet exist in the timeline she suggested. US Military shipping of supplies and troop movements received top priority treatment over the needs of Europe in the weeks and months immediately following Pearl Harbor.
                  "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                    Whoever wrote that needs to look up how long it takes to build an aircraft carrier, or a Battleship, or a Division.
                    That's about the score. It would have taken the US to 43 or 44 to win simply to build the navy and bases overseas to beat Japan.

                    I would also postulate without a European war to distract the US and lend-lease at the same production rates except not going to Europe the Philippines wouldn't have fallen. With a faster build up there would have been 2 full US infantry divisions on Luzon, 2 M3 light, 1 M3 Lee and 3 M3 MGC (75mm on halftrack) battalions in there along with more field artillery, coast defense guns, and about twice the aircraft including some P-38 and P-39's along with alot more B-17.

                    Japan threw what they could into taking the PI and it was barely sufficent with the original US forces. Heavily reinforced Japan loses. That would have been a big set back for them. Wake probably wouldn't have fallen as there would be more Marines and aircraft available to send there. That is minor but a set back none-the-less.

                    But, otherwise it would take 18 to 24 months minimum just to get the bases and forces in place for the advance across the Pacific. Holding the Philippines would have made a difference. Once the bases were in place another 12 months to advance to Japan and then bomb them into the stone age.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      the Western allied policy 'Germany first' is actually something of a myth

                      Originally posted by popuptarget View Post
                      What I recall is that fighting Germany first was a political decision. Despite the intention to fight Germany first and hold in the Pacific, the US was still able to go on the offensive in both theaters by 43.
                      As I outlined a couple of years ago in my post:
                      "Did the Western Allies pursue an essentially ‘Italy & Vichy France First’ policy from mid 1940-43?", just because the Western allies (essentially the US and UK) had a stated policy of defeating Germany first does not mean that in reality that was the policy they actually pursued.

                      I present the post again and ask you to consider the following:

                      "As with all lodestar posts no apologies for this resurrecting this ‘ole provocation from my University days of 35 years ago (lodestar glances at scribbled notes from 1973 -76, lodestar briefly considers the same, lodestar posts on the ACG Forum ……... part of what is known as … ‘the way of lodestar’).

                      Basically this interpretation of the Western Allied land war effort in the years after the fall of France in mid 1940 proposes that far from pursuing the stated policy of defeating ‘Germany first’ they in reality concentrated nearly all their endeavours on knocking out the Italian ‘paper tiger’ and Germany’s vassal Vichy.

                      Essentially, the argument runs that the western allies, that is the British Commonwealth from July 1940 up to late 1942 and then the UK/US alliance, while technically at war with Nazi Germany, took the easy option of fighting and defeating the above two secondary Axis powers.

                      For the Western allies the chief theatre of land operations for much of the above period was of course North Africa and operations were for the most part pursued against Italian or Vichy French Forces.

                      The western allies fought the Germans in North Africa it was true, but seen in perspective and in comparison to the titanic struggle in Soviet Russia (and what else are you going to compare it to?) the Germans forces supporting the Italians were miniscule until the last stages of the campaign. Most Axis troops in North Africa were of course Italian not German.

                      Granted the British also fought a short disastrous campaign in April 1941 against the Germans by trying to support the Greeks and a intense and for the Germans, costly battle for the island of Crete a month later.
                      However, from mid 1941 to mid 1943 when they invaded Sicily, their only direct effort in land warfare against Germany outside the very small campaign opposing Rommel in North Africa was a ‘day outing’ by 2nd Canadian Division to Dieppe in August of 1942.

                      Apart, then from battling the Germans who were supporting the Italians in North Africa, most allied land and surface naval war operations were directed against either Italy or Vichy France.
                      These operations included :
                      . Attacking elements of the Vichy French fleet in July 1940 at Mers-el Kebir in Algeria and Dakar, West Africa.

                      . An attempt to secure Vichy controlled Dakar by British and Free French Forces in Sept 1940

                      . An invasion and occupation of Vichy controlled Syria and Lebanon in June 1941

                      . An invasion and occupation of Vichy controlled Madagascar in a campaign lasting from May to November 1942.

                      . Campaigns against Italian controlled Somalia and Ethiopia in 1941

                      . Naval battles in the Mediterranean against Italian Fleets in 1940-43.

                      . Operation Torch - the invasion of Vichy controlled Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia

                      . The Invasion of Sicily, held by mostly Italian forces in July 1943

                      All up methinks the western allies may be accused of dragging their feet so far as waging major land war against the supposed ‘first’ enemy Germany from 1941 to late 43.

                      It took the immensely powerful (and don’t kid yourselves the British Commonwealth and USA were, in comparison the Axis forces they actually did face – immensely powerful) Western democracies three years (Sept 1940 to Sept 1943) to defeat a much derided, supposedly pathetic Fascist Italy and even more dismal Vichy France.

                      Well gotta go now but I’ll sign off with a little something which pretty much sums me up:
                      “When lodestar does not post many peoples’ lives feel desolate and empty.
                      When lodestar posts many people find a fresh reason to go on living.
                      Over the years this has become known as ‘THE WAY OF LODESTAR” "

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Pisces Adonis View Post
                        My US History Teacher stated that in WW2 when we reach the part about USSR fighting Nazi Germany that the Germans faced such a problem when the Americans entered a War because they were forced into a 2-front War.

                        She added that not even the United States thought it could fight a 2-Front War despite all of its resources and the fact its enemies were an ENTIRE OCEAN away so the US spent most of its efforts fighting the Germans until they were defeated and then they would concentrate all their efforts on Japan.

                        I seen this cited in various sites and books before I took this class. In fact out of this came the theory that had Germany not declared War on the United States, the United States would muster all of its resources to take on Japan alone and the entire War in the Pacific Front would have ended within 6 months. That the only reason the Japanese succeeded initially in the War was that the Americans were too busy spending their most important resources and equipment fighting the Germans.

                        So since they were able to beat the Japanese just using what minimal resources they had during the actual Pacific Front of WW2, many conclude that the Americans would have at most taken a year to beat the Japanese if the War was only between them with no involvement in the European Front.

                        What do you think?
                        I am inclined to add this one to the stupid things thread!!! lcm1
                        'By Horse by Tram'.


                        I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                        " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          By the time of the Guadalcanal campaign the Americans already had superiority over the Japanese in most departments so it doesn't seem like the case of the US military failing to keep up due to committments in Europe.

                          "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
                          --Frederick II, King of Prussia

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by lcm1 View Post
                            I am inclined to add this one to the stupid things thread!!! lcm1
                            Not so fast there, old chap............never underestimate the Americans. A few field guns loaded on barges and submarines towing concrete supply canisters no later than May 42 would have sent the Japanese reeling back to their home islands.
                            Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

                            Prayers.

                            BoRG

                            http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MonsterZero View Post
                              By the time of the Guadalcanal campaign the Americans already had superiority over the Japanese in most departments so it doesn't seem like the case of the US military failing to keep up due to committments in Europe.
                              This is arguable, but academic. The insurmountable problem the US, and Britain had to deal with that year & the next was not enough cargo ships to move everything needed from the western hemisphere to the battle. Supply line running halfway around the globe crated a problem incomprehensible to Eurasian leaders, and to many folks these days.

                              At the start of the Guadalcanal campaign the US was hard pressed to place three combat ready infantry/marine divisions in the South Pacific. The US 5th Air Force based in Australia was unable to keep its handful of bomber groups at or near full strength because of parts shortages. On the opposite side of the globe operation Bolero had to be extended far beyond the original target, the invasion of Europe postphoned, and the ability to execute the Gymnast & Torch operations debated - all due to lack of cargo ships.

                              Meanwhile some thirty ground combat divisions & as many air wings started another training cycle in the US while the awaited transport.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X