Who Could Have Won WWII?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by RN7

I just can't agree with this statement. Germany was by far the most powerful Axis state, and what about the contribution of the Soviets to Allied victory. Also the Soviets didn't have half their army in the Far East for the duration of the war, they only redeployed large forces to Asia after the defeat of Germany.

The Pacific War was a sideshow in WW2 compared with the war in Europe, although it may not have felt that way to those who fought in it. China could barely arm its own army, and it made little headway against Japanese forces who occupied China for the duration of the war. The Japanese Army was also inferior in material, technology and tactics to the German Army, and its largest army in China was simply bulldozed by the Soviets in the last few weeks of the war.

A sideshow that diverted hundreds of ships, thousands of aircraft and tens of thousands of troops away from the ETO with the Chinese resisting the Japanese for eight years suffering something in the order of 10-20 million casualties. When you decide to kill off that many people, it takes a fair bit of your time and your troops to do it.

That Soviet army that bulldozed the Japanese forces in China, the one that had benefited from all those years of fighting the Germans, what did they face? The remnants of a nation on the edge of surrender. And as for half the Soviet army, I never said that half the Soviet army was deployed in Asia. What I said was "Troops that would have been free to tie up half the Soviet forces and keep them from being used against Germany.", it was a generalized statement meaning that the Soviets would have had another Front to fight on.

That poor little Chinese army managed to hold the Japanese up to the point where they both faced stalemate but in the process the Japanese invasion of China held up something like 4 million Japanese personnel. Four million.

The war in Asia began two years before the war in Europe but we're all taught that WW2 didn't start until the Germans invaded Poland.
The fact remains that if the Japanese had been able to overrun China and get to the borders of the Soviet Union in sufficient numbers, the Soviets would have had to divert troops away from the ETO.
The Chinese resistance to Japanese occupation helped to prevent that.
The vast majority of what we are taught about the war in the English speaking world is decidedly Euro- and Americano-centric with even historians paying scant attention to much of the war in Asia and specifically the Japanese campaigns against other Asian nations - as if whatever happened between Asians wasn't really important to anyone or anything.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

A sideshow that diverted hundreds of ships, thousands of aircraft and tens of thousands of troops away from the ETO with the Chinese resisting the Japanese for eight years suffering something in the order of 10-20 million casualties. When you decide to kill off that many people, it takes a fair bit of your time and your troops to do it.

You just cannot compare the level of warfare in Asia with that in Europe. In every statistic involving manpower, material and casualties the war in Europe was far bigger excluding the use of aircraft carriers and the use of atomic bombs. Chinese military deaths in WW2 were 3-3.75 million,. This figure is less than German military losses and perhaps one third of Soviet military losses.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

That Soviet army that bulldozed the Japanese forces in China, the one that had benefited from all those years of fighting the Germans, what did they face? The remnants of a nation on the edge of surrender. And as for half the Soviet army, I never said that half the Soviet army was deployed in Asia. What I said was "Troops that would have been free to tie up half the Soviet forces and keep them from being used against Germany.", it was a generalized statement meaning that the Soviets would have had another Front to fight on.

The Soviet Army beat the Japanese Army at Khalkhin Gol in Manchuria in 1939 with far inferior material than what they had in 1945. As a result of this battle the Japanese signed a neutrality pact with the USSR in April 1941 and the Japanese Army lost their influence over war planning to the Japanese Navy who favoured a Pacific War against the Western powers. The Japanese Army in China was and remained the most powerful of Japan's armies for the duration of the war. Chinese forces did not and were not capable of defeating it for the duration of the Second World War. The Soviets returned to Manchuria in 1945 after the Atomic bombing of Japan and they did the same again to the Japanese Army that they did in 1939 but on a much larger scale.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

That poor little Chinese army managed to hold the Japanese up to the point where they both faced stalemate but in the process the Japanese invasion of China held up something like 4 million Japanese personnel. Four million.

The Chinese Army was actually bigger on paper than the Japanese Army so I presume that the four million figure includes the total of Japanese troops who were in China from 1937-45 and not at the one time. The Chinese Army was also chronically short of all war material and weapons, had more in common with a 19th Century army than a 20th Century one, and rarely defeated the Japanese. This is some feat considering the Japanese Army was woefully under-armed and un-mechanised compared with Allied, Soviet and German forces. The fact that the Japanese Army remained intact for so long was probably largely due to the fact that the Chinese were its main opponents outside of Allied island hopping in the Pacific were logistics and terrain restricted the Allies from using modern mechanised warfare against the Japanese. The Soviet did in 1945 and guess what happened.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

The war in Asia began two years before the war in Europe but we're all taught that WW2 didn't start until the Germans invaded Poland.
The fact remains that if the Japanese had been able to overrun China and get to the borders of the Soviet Union in sufficient numbers, the Soviets would have had to divert troops away from the ETO.
The Chinese resistance to Japanese occupation helped to prevent that.
The vast majority of what we are taught about the war in the English speaking world is decidedly Euro- and Americano-centric with even historians paying scant attention to much of the war in Asia and specifically the Japanese campaigns against other Asian nations - as if whatever happened between Asians wasn't really important to anyone or anything.

That would be after 1941 for America and the Soviet Union.

Also the Soviets were fighting the Japanese in China/Manchuria from 1935,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet...rder_conflicts

Japan signed a neutrality pact with the Soviets in 1939 and by and large observed it as they did not want to go to war with the Soviets even after the Germans invaded.

Every country has their own interpretation of history.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Who said anything about comparing the level of warfare in Asia to that in Europe?
It's blatantly obvious that a war in Asia with it's tropical climate, vast tracts of ocean with many scattered small land masses is going to be radically different to a war in the densely urbanized, temperate climate, singular land mass of Europe.

To relegate the war in the Pacific as nothing but a sideshow to the war in Europe ignores the strategic impact that the PTO had and further to that, it belittles or worse, denies, the strategic impact it had.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Who said anything about comparing the level of warfare in Asia to that in Europe?
It's blatantly obvious that a war in Asia with it's tropical climate, vast tracts of ocean with many scattered small land masses is going to be radically different to a war in the densely urbanized, temperate climate, singular land mass of Europe.

To relegate the war in the Pacific as nothing but a sideshow to the war in Europe ignores the strategic impact that the PTO had and further to that, it belittles or worse, denies, the strategic impact it had.

The war in Asia not the countries were a sideshow to the warfare in Europe were the dominant Axis threat was.

Offline for a week Good luck

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by RN7

The war in Asia not the countries were a sideshow to the warfare in Europe were the dominant Axis threat

Tell that to the millions of people from many, many nations who fought and died there. To imply it was nothing but a "sideshow" is downright insulting!

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Tell that to the millions of people from many, many nations who fought and died there. To imply it was nothing but a "sideshow" is downright insulting!

So more people lost their life on the Eastern Front alone between 1941 and 1945 than the whole of Asia between 1937 and 1945, but we should ignore that fact and not call the war in Asia a sideshow compared to events in Europe as some in Asian might find that insulting. How insulted would the Russians be?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

The war in Asia not the countries were a sideshow to the warfare in Europe were the dominant Axis threat was.

Threat to who? I don't understand this argument. It can only be valid from a very Eurocentric point of view.

Granted, the Japanese didn't ever really pose a serious threat to CONUS, but, without the USN to hold (and then push) them back, the rest of the Pacific world was in serious danger of Japanese conquest and domination. I'm that a vast majority of the billions of people in Asia would strenuously disagree with your "sideshow" assessment.

-

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Threat to who? I don't understand this argument. It can only be valid from a very Eurocentric point of view.

Granted, the Japanese didn't ever really pose a serious threat to CONUS, but, without the USN to hold (and then push) them back, the rest of the Pacific world was in serious danger of Japanese conquest and domination. I'm that a vast majority of the billions of people in Asia would strenuously disagree with your "sideshow" assessment.

-

Not a direct physical threat to America at the time perhaps but certainly a threat to everyone in Europe.

In 1941-45 who was Japan's opposition in Asia? China, the British and Dutch colonies and dominions and America across the Pacific Ocean.

In 1939-45 who was Germany's opposition, and were the forces assembled in the Far East against Japan comparable to those assembled against Germany.

Did Japan compare favourably in industrial and technological terms to Germany? Was the Japanese Army as well equipped or as large as the German Army? Did Japan engage in the industrial scale murder of millions of civilians in Asia? Did Japan field jet fighters and ballistic missiles in 1944?