Most dangerous enemy

[EricGuitarJames]

The most dangerous enemy was ... an ally.


Unfortunately, the danger of their communist 'ally' wasn't recognised until immediately after the war.

Remember why WWII started? England and France declared war on Germany to protect Poland ... oops.

Do people here still believe in the myth of the Cold War?

Poland was just a pretext. The British and French military build up could not have been sustained much past mid-1940 otherwise they'd have sold out Poland the way they sold out Czechoslovakia.

[Fallschirmjager]

Neither one was a danger. Somewhere in 60 years they have glamorized the war into some sort of struggle. The United States once she entered the war was an unstopabble juggernaught. She only had to wish to do something and the axis powers feebly resisted but couldnt stop it. We so completly crushed all three of the major axis nations. Amphibious landings before the war were considered extremly risky. The United States conducted dozens of these and never failed in a single attempt.
The rest of our allies fought the axis powers to a standstill, and the the US came in and tipped the balaence into our favor.
We went from complete unprepardness, to shipping millions of men and equipment over the two largest oceans and they fought their way all the way to the enemies home territory. All of this was done in three and a half years. Not only did we win but we completly shattered two entire nations in the process. Neither one has had the stomach to enter another conflict since. We nearly wiped out one entire generation of young men in each of the two nations.
There never was any threat. When the Unites States entered the war it was simply a matter of time and how high the body count had to go until we won.

[EricGuitarJames]

So much for Allies then FJ.

That's just 'America wins war alone' BS[:@]

[Fallschirmjager]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

So much for Allies then FJ.

That's just 'America wins war alone' BS[:@]

I did mention the allies. The commonwealth fought the axis to a stalemate. England was capable of defending itself (and did so) but was never capable of going on the offensive to liberate the whole of Europe. Russia did more than its part in crushing Germany.
In the Pacific Anzac forces and again Britian were a great help in joining us to defeat Japan.
I am sorry for any misunderstanding. I did not mean to imply that we did not have help or to put it better, I did not mean to imply to mean that we did not come in to help those that had been fighting longer.
But I stand by what I sad earlier. Without us the commonwealth never would of been able to take the offensive. They were using every resource in defending themselves. America came in and decisivly tipped the balence in favor of the free world.
My apologies if I offended anyone.

[Belisarius]

ORIGINAL: lefty nutter

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

Dave, good post.

Just one question about the antiquity of Japanese thinking: why did they then manage to pioneer naval warfare by introduction of carriers as strike elements?

That was Yamamotos' brain-child.

edit: Just like to add that I too think Germany was the greater threat. If not to the US directly, but indirectly since a European continent under German control (and at war with the US) would not have been a good thing.

I really have to protest about Japan pioneering carrier strikes. I draw your attention to the raid on Taranto harbour by HMS Illustrious in November 1940. This raid persuaded Yamamoto of the potential for carrier strikes against naval targets and was used extensively in planning (e.g. modification of torpedos).

As for the question I think either could have represented a greater threat during the war depending on how the cards were dealt. But prior to hostilities, in terms of raw potential, Germany must surely have posed the greatest threat to the US. This wasn't really a direct threat (as in Panzerarmee Potomac) but rather in an indirect way. This was also the type of threat posed to the UK which was safe behind the Royal Navy in both World Wars yet chose to intervene for fear of what would happen after a German victory i.e. German hegemony over Europe, the Middle East and perhaps parts of Asia and Africa. A enlarged Germany with access to new resources could, over time, come to pose a direct threat.

I am aware that the Pearl Harbor raid is almost a carbon copy of the Taranto raid. Yamamoto stressed the importance of carriers long before 1940 though.

[lefty nutter]

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

ORIGINAL: lefty nutter

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

Dave, good post.

Just one question about the antiquity of Japanese thinking: why did they then manage to pioneer naval warfare by introduction of carriers as strike elements?

That was Yamamotos' brain-child.

edit: Just like to add that I too think Germany was the greater threat. If not to the US directly, but indirectly since a European continent under German control (and at war with the US) would not have been a good thing.

I really have to protest about Japan pioneering carrier strikes. I draw your attention to the raid on Taranto harbour by HMS Illustrious in November 1940. This raid persuaded Yamamoto of the potential for carrier strikes against naval targets and was used extensively in planning (e.g. modification of torpedos).

As for the question I think either could have represented a greater threat during the war depending on how the cards were dealt. But prior to hostilities, in terms of raw potential, Germany must surely have posed the greatest threat to the US. This wasn't really a direct threat (as in Panzerarmee Potomac) but rather in an indirect way. This was also the type of threat posed to the UK which was safe behind the Royal Navy in both World Wars yet chose to intervene for fear of what would happen after a German victory i.e. German hegemony over Europe, the Middle East and perhaps parts of Asia and Africa. A enlarged Germany with access to new resources could, over time, come to pose a direct threat.

I am aware that the Pearl Harbor raid is almost a carbon copy of the Taranto raid. Yamamoto stressed the importance of carriers long before 1940 though.

Quite. Still, Japan did not pioneer carriers as strike elements as several other countries had realised the possibilities. Yamamoto may have stressed the importance of carriers long before 1940 but so did many others. Don't forget that the RN was using carrier-borne aircraft to attack land targets in 1918! The Taranto raid opened Yamamoto's eyes to the possibility of hitting naval assets in harbour when previously they were thought to be safe given torpedo nets, shallow water and other such defensive meaures.

I would also argue that Japanese carriers were not sufficiently armoured but that is for another discussion.

[TheGreek]

Germany was much the more dangerous enemy. The Japanese industrial base was puny compared to Germany. The US only applied about 30% of its war production to the Pacific Theater and even this 30% completely overwhelmed the Japanese with ships, airplanes, etc. The Japanese completed very few major warships that were not already under construction at the start of the war. Their aircraft production was also much less than the aircraft the US sent to the Pacific. In addition, the Japanese never produced sufficient pilots. While the initial Japanese armed forces were well trained and powerful, they were a brittle instrument that could not sustain a prolonged conflict and were quite vulnerable to a war of attrition. All those resources in the Dutch East Indies and the Phillipines had to be transported to Japan and the US submarine force destroyed much of the Japanes merchant fleet.

As far as bringing the war to US shores, the Japanese were capable of launching carrier raids, but while they probably could land troops on the US shoreline, they could never have supplied them with their small merchant fleet. Inability to supply their garrisons in the Aleutians was the prime reason for their withdrawal. If they could not supply these garrisons, how could they have supplied a force large enough to be dangerous to the US West Coast? Lack of supply was also a reason why the Japanese never seriously considered invading Hawaii.

[Kung Karl]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

Neither one was a danger. Somewhere in 60 years they have glamorized the war into some sort of struggle. The United States once she entered the war was an unstopabble juggernaught. She only had to wish to do something and the axis powers feebly resisted but couldnt stop it. We so completly crushed all three of the major axis nations. Amphibious landings before the war were considered extremly risky. The United States conducted dozens of these and never failed in a single attempt.
The rest of our allies fought the axis powers to a standstill, and the the US came in and tipped the balaence into our favor.
We went from complete unprepardness, to shipping millions of men and equipment over the two largest oceans and they fought their way all the way to the enemies home territory. All of this was done in three and a half years. Not only did we win but we completly shattered two entire nations in the process. Neither one has had the stomach to enter another conflict since. We nearly wiped out one entire generation of young men in each of the two nations.
There never was any threat. When the Unites States entered the war it was simply a matter of time and how high the body count had to go until we won.

Germany was defeated by the Soviet Union! Japan was defeated by the USA! It is as simple as that. USA had nothing to do with the defeat of Germany. Ok, it shortened the war by a couple of months. The real accomplishment by the USA was saving Western Europe from the Soviet Union.

If someone disagree please tell me how the Germans could have won the war if the allies hadn't landed in Normandie? Simple answer, they couldn't. Even if D-Day never had happaend the outcome for Germany had been the same.

Further, if Germany had defeated the Soviet Union the US soldiers would never had sat their foot on mainland Europe. Think about it, western europe was defended by MOSTLY low quality units. If the entire Waffen SS had meet the allies supported by the Luftwaffe then D-Day would have been a disaster. There is no way an invasion of Europe could be succesfull without the eastern front binding the entire German army.

[Losqualo]

ORIGINAL: Kung Karl
...
If someone disagree please tell me how the Germans could have won the war if the allies hadn't landed in Normandie? Simple answer, they couldn't. Even if D-Day never had happaend the outcome for Germany had been the same.
...

I don't want to say that I disagree completely, but that argument is a bit too simple.
Don't forget the American landings in North Africa, Sicily and Italy. That landings also bound German troops that had to be withdrawn from the eastern front.
There were many Germal generals that wanted peace with Britain and America to concentrate on Russia because they saw a chance to defeat Russia.
Again, I dont want to say you're wrong, but concentrating on D-Day alone is just too simple.

[Kung Karl]

ORIGINAL: Losqualo

ORIGINAL: Kung Karl
...
If someone disagree please tell me how the Germans could have won the war if the allies hadn't landed in Normandie? Simple answer, they couldn't. Even if D-Day never had happaend the outcome for Germany had been the same.
...

I don't want to say that I disagree completely, but that argument is a bit too simple.
Don't forget the American landings in North Africa, Sicily and Italy. That landings also bound German troops that had to be withdrawn from the eastern front.
There were many Germal generals that wanted peace with Britain and America to concentrate on Russia because they saw a chance to defeat Russia.
Again, I dont want to say you're wrong, but concentrating on D-Day alone is just too simple.

Clarification, my point was that Russia had been defeated. That would mean extra German troops to Italy. In that case Italy would not have fallen. Basically it would require millions and millions of americans to invade europe and even then it would not be a guarante for victory.

I don't think tha the USA would be interested in a production race with Germany controling the entire european continet. And if they got an advantage in such a race it wopuld take a lot of years to assemble an invasion force large enough to break an atlatic wall that has been improved for say 5 more years. A Luftwaffe fighting the USAF. If the Soviet union had fallen in 1941 the battle of atlatic could have been tipped in german favor as the main factor was the German lack of subs. After the defeat the of Russia there would be no such lack of subs when production would been geared toward subs and aircrafts needed to destroy Great Britain.

The price would simply be to high for the USA.

[Pippin]

Not to sound too extreme, but one could also argue that America's most dangerous enemy of WWII is herself. Take a moment to calculate how many americans died or got injured from any country during that era. Then tally up all the shooting incidences and the rest of it americans seem to be inflicting on each other on the streets etc. during our present peacetime...

While many lobyists were discussing the numerous casualities of the vietnam war for example, it certainly did not take long for the murder rate involving sidearms with just simple domestics in the US to catch up.

Seems to put things in an interresting perspective.

[Muzrub]

Overtime Germany.....

With control over Europe and eventually the Middle East, Germany would have had direct control over much of the worlds resources and would have become an economic powerhouse with enough cash to research any scientific project and with the lack of morals to use their knowledge without regard for others.
Much of the USA's growth is basd upon the resouces gained from the Middle East, look at the OPEC oil embargo of the 70's over the conflict in Israel. America was almost brought to a standstill and the economy was strained to breaking point.
In the long run Germany was the greatest villian and danger.
Without the Soviet Union Germany would have won, but the Soviets needed great quantities of material from the west in order to win. Without the Soviets the US/UK may have been able to force a peace with the threat of the A-bomb but this would have resulted with a possible German withdraw but the Nazi's would have remained in power and eventually would have created a bomb too, probably an ICBM.

National Socialism and the Hitler myth was the greater enemy- This had to be destroyed, wiped out and the earth salted. A Germany with godlike love for Hitler, resources, knowledge, military elan and lack of morals would have eventually either destroyed the US/UK in the future or forced the West's hand and wiped out everyone in a nuclear disaster.

[CCB]

Thank you for your comments gentlemen. [:)]

[CCB]

ORIGINAL: Muzrub
National Socialism and the Hitler myth was the greater enemy- This had to be destroyed, wiped out and the earth salted. A Germany with godlike love for Hitler, resources, knowledge, military elan and lack of morals would have eventually either destroyed the US/UK in the future or forced the West's hand and wiped out everyone in a nuclear disaster.

Fine point Muzrub. But do you feel that Germany was more of a threat to Australia than Japan? After all it wasn't Rommel that overran Malay and those weren't He111s that bombed Darwin. Comment?

[Frank W.]

germany was the more dangerous one without doubt.

but after the dünkirchen, stalingrad + north africa
catastrophes there was no hope for ger anymore.

the only way i could see would be that hitler + his cronies
were killed or arrested by more morale + inteligent german
people and then came to a agreement with the allies.

i doubt, that the soviets would agree to peace though even
under this conditions.

see my " desert reds" SPWAW H2H scen like it could
have been.....

[Blackhorse]

Most dangerous enemy? Neither / Both

Germany had far and away more effective "war making" powers than Japan. But it was defeated primarily on the Eastern Front by Russia (with a *lot* of help from the western Allies, in terms of both equipment provided, and other military operations; e.g. more Germans surrendered in Tunisia, than at Stalingrad). Even if Germany had managed to knock Russia out of the war, in the long run it would not have been a match for the combined military and economic might of the U.S. and the Commonwealth countries.

Had Germany and Japan coordinated their military campaigns . . . Japan attacking Russia in 1941, for example, instead of the US, and then coordinating a campaign to threaten British possessions from Southeast Asia to the Middle East . . . then there is some chance that they might have eventually been a threat to America. But it's hard to see how that could / would have played out.

[Mangudai]

Maybe Japan could have taken Hawaii and some Aluetian islands, but there is no way they could establish a permanent foothold on the westcoast. Any invader of the US mainland would face the unpleasant fact that, as Hank Jr. states "them old boys was raised on shotguns". If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, perhaps it could have taken all China, India, SE Asia, and Australia [X(]. Given all that it would take decades at least before it could out produce the US.

If Hitler had been cautious he would have focused all his attention on Britian, before launching Barbarrossa. The Germans would have been able to drive the British out of North Africa, then sieze the oilfields of the Middle East. It might take two years or more to prepare the way for Sealion. Without help Britain could not stand forever. Then the Germans could launch Barbarrossa. Probably the Soviet forces would be a little stronger at this later time than they were at the historic beginning of Barbarossa, but it wouldn't matter. The Germans would be a lot stronger with better technology, secure oil supplies, a larger industrial base, and a single front. It might also have been possible to attack USSR from the south, which would make an excellent diversion if not a knockout. Russia would not have been able to win in this scenario.

At this point both Germany and Japan would realize that their forces were being stretched to the limit just holding terrain. If they decided to bully the US a little bit diplomatically, we probably would have done what they wanted. Probably neither of them would attempt to invade the US mainland. They might go somewhere in South America and establish basis there. If the Axis made it a priority, they could eventually build a fleet capable of invading the US given a decade or so. Then it would take years and years of bloody fighting. Eventually the Axis would fall apart because it would have too many rebellions going on all over the world.

If Germany got nukes, however, a supreme global victory is possible.

[Mangudai]

Had Germany and Japan coordinated their military campaigns . . . Japan attacking Russia in 1941, for example, instead of the US, and then coordinating a campaign to threaten British possessions from Southeast Asia to the Middle East . . . then there is some chance that they might have eventually been a threat to America. But it's hard to see how that could / would have played out.

It's interesting to think how this might have played out. Sure the Japs could take Vladivostok and then some, and then what would they do. It's a long walk to Moscow, with not enough goodies along the way. Imagine the Germans sending a message "We need you guys to commit a few million troops in Siberia so that we can take Moscow, etc."
Since the Jap tanks sucked, it probably would have been an infantry war with some trucks and horses, etc, and plenty of jap aircraft. The terrain is so remote that trench lines would not be a prominent feature, and concentrated artillery would have a minor role. Both Japs and Ruskies would feed the human meat grinder with little gained. Occasionally a new Russian tank would inflict serious losses, but the Russians would not have enough tanks to fully exploit this with Germany breathing down their neck. Japs would eventually get good at tank warfare, but the first couple years would be terrible.

This scenario could definitely tip the balance in favor of Germany, but I can't see how it would benefit Japan. How do you like the prospect of freezing to death in a land that was considered unhospitable even before the Ruskies scorched it? Or maybe the Japs would just take the Russian far east and then switch to a defensive posture, that is more plausible. Even then, Japan would have to postpone offensives in southern China, India, and Australia because too much of their army would be tied up. These three targets look much more appealing from the Japanese perspective.

[Muzrub]

Fine point Muzrub. But do you feel that Germany was more of a threat to Australia than Japan? After all it wasn't Rommel that overran Malay and those weren't He111s that bombed Darwin. Comment?

We had German ships laying mines off the Western Australian coast.....but thats another story.
The Japanese for Australia no doubt.
Australia could have survived the loss of Britain if we had another large friend to keep us under their wing, ie the US.
Without either the US or UK we would have been in trouble.
At the time though the Australian governemt considered the Japanese the greater threat and withdrew our troops from the middle east.

[Kraut]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

Neither one was a danger. Somewhere in 60 years they have glamorized the war into some sort of struggle. The United States once she entered the war was an unstopabble juggernaught. She only had to wish to do something and the axis powers feebly resisted but couldnt stop it.
...

We nearly wiped out one entire generation of young men in each of the two nations.
There never was any threat. When the Unites States entered the war it was simply a matter of time and how high the body count had to go until we won.

The Allied industrial capacity was six times the Axis powers' industrial capacity. America fought a rich man's war. Without American material support (lend and lease etc) the Soviet Union would have collapsed in '42 at the latest.

One interesting factor: The Nazi leadership thought in '41 that they basically already had won, so they actually reduced weapons production in the middle of the war.

Btw, Germany didn't lost that many soldiers fighting Americans, the vast majority was lost in the East.