If you had to choose between fighting in Europe or the Pacific
-
Hotrodder — 9 years ago(May 13, 2016 06:29 AM)
by nickm2
Then again, I also got the impression that the Norwegians weren't particularly interesting in fighting the Germans either & the Germans had no cause to be overly harsh. There wasn't a 'transformative moment' in Norway like there was in Holland (the failed aftermath of Market Garden) that increased the punitive nature of the occupation.
Your post was a while ago, but I disagree, the Norwegian Resistance was quite active as the Wiki articles below will attest. Two vital contributions that are generally overlooked were the intelligence supplied to the Allies- of great help in organising the Arctic convoys to Murmansk and the movements of the Tirpitz. A somewhat simpler role, but just as vital was providing meteorological information, this in particular was of great help in organising Operation Overlord in predicting the weather over Northern France.
The Norwegians had to be careful taking a more aggressive role as Norway has- and still does- a relatively small population and reprisals could easily be made against the people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_resistance_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milorg
They also contributed Free Forces to the army, RAF and the Royal Navy and especially its merchant navy, almost all of which sailed to British ports when Norway capitulated.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing. -
nickm2 — 9 years ago(May 13, 2016 06:35 AM)
Much the same as the Dutch; I'm sure the Gestapo knew there was a widespread resistance movement in Holland but they did not crack down hard until after Market Garden. Maybe if Norway had an allied invasion force that got 'empowered' by the locals, German reaction would have been much harsher.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!? -
Yorick_Brown — 10 years ago(July 16, 2015 09:34 PM)
I do agree that fighting the Japanese in the Pacific theater was tougher than fighting the Nazis in the European theater's western front and in North Africa.
However, in the long run, the Nazis were more a more dangerous enemy and it was less certain that the allies would win there.
When the stars are the only things we share
Will you be there?
-Benjamin Francis Leftwich -
Balberith — 10 years ago(January 26, 2016 10:16 AM)
Exactly why Germany had to be defeated first! They were developing weapons that might have carried them to victory. The war against Germany was kind of like the "roast in the oven" whereas the war against Japan was the "fixings on the side".
"A real man would rather bow down to a strong woman than dominate a weak one" -
mhansen-25806 — 10 years ago(March 21, 2016 07:25 PM)
I'd like to have been a 20mm gunner aboard a carrier. I was in the Navy 1969-73, so am familiar with that service. No fox holes or K rations for me.
Although, if I paralleled my real career aboard ship, I would have been in the Weapons Department on an Essex class carrier working down in the magazines.
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra -
nickm2 — 10 years ago(March 21, 2016 08:57 PM)
You'd do more damage on the Bofors quad-40mm guns. So you rather turn the gun, load the beast or sit in the chair & stomp on the solenoid?
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!? -
yusomad — 9 years ago(May 08, 2016 04:49 PM)
The Japanese are like todays Islamic terrorists in the middle east. Barbaric, stuck in the past mentality, kamikaze/suicide attacks. Now the German Nazis, I can't think of anyone to compare too at this moment. Not looking at there evil faults, they did dress well and had class. I would choose fighting in Europe. Germans had nice architectural buildings.
Incredibly ignorant statement. The Nazis had "class" compared to the Japanese? So the Einsatzgruppen had class? The soldiers who brutalized civilian populations during the blitzkrieg had class? To say nothing of the camps.
Both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were barbaric and strikingly similar. Both were modern, industrialized nations who were already World powers since before the first World War who embarked on imperialist expansion based partly on an ideology of racial superiority.
Of course, there were many German and Japanese soldiers who were basically fine peoplesimply fighting for their country or fighting because they were forced to. Unfortunately, far too many were fully indoctrinated and believed in their regime's work. -
chas437 — 9 years ago(May 31, 2016 08:11 AM)
Good points. Although I would say the Germans were much more effective fighters, better tactics, more advanced weaponry. Americans lost about 3 times as many soldiers in the ETO. Americans had a kill ratio of over 20-1 against the Japanese.
But for some reason, I would have rather fought in Europe. I think those who fought in the Pacific were even more mentally scarred. Being stationed in hot, wet jungle for weeks at a time is worse than bitter cold, IMO.