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.

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.

tough choice,but the cold winters of Europe would do me in.

I get your points, but on the 20mm, it would just be me shooting.
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra

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!?

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

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"

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

This message has been deleted.

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!?

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.

If I had to choose I would got to Europe. At least there is civilization nearby. Those south Pacific jungles are sweltering hot and full of spiders, snakes, and God knows that else.

I am a soldier 14 years now :).
I'd say Europe, and the way things are going with Ukraine - - - I just hope, that the Russian bear isn't utterly pissed off, and just swipes across Europe, not just Ukraine. . . .
Pacific, no way . . . Too hot for me :).

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.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

The British armed forces of WW2 have many memorials put up by the French to them. I don't recall seeing any memorials to the Waffen SS or any other units of the German forces.
Believe it or not there are even Waffen SS graves in France.
The Germans were the invaders and occupiers (even though it was the French who declared war on Germany first)so of course the French, who were rather soundly beaten by the German army and SS by the way, wanted them gone. That's normal. Who wouldn't?
However, that doesn't change the
FACT
that the RAF killed more French civilians in Normandy in summer 1944 than the Waffen SS did.and that would be a real eye opener to many who were previously unaware of this.
You just(rightly) castigated a poster for his stereotypical view of the Japanese so all I did was point out that it wasn't the norm for the Waffen SS to do what the cliche and stereotype says most of them did. They weren't mostly baby eating Jew slayers.
In France in 1944 there were the best part of 100,000 Waffen SS men there and it wasn't the norm to carry out Oradour-sur-Glanes. Less than 1% of Waffen SS troopers carried out atrocities in France in 1944. Even Oradour, as evil as it was, was a reprisal against brutal resistance activities..a reprisal that actually worked.
The German Army has always been harsh to civilians historically,
I would suppose some, in places like India and Ireland and Vietnam and Iraq etc would say that about the British and US army too.
My father lived under German occupation in Norway and considering the Norwegians were considered fellow Aryans they were still treated pretty harshly
In "the main" they were not. This is why the death total in Norway was so low.
and hostages were taken and executed, people arrested for even minor infractions.
Less than 10,000 Norwegians died in WW2 despite 5 years of German occupation and that includes all war dead too. Less than 7,000 Norwegian civilians were killedand there were over 400,000 German troops stationed in Norway for years. The number includes resistance forces and others against the German occupying forces. It is not a large number when you consider the context of WW2 as a whole. In 5 years of German occupation it is roughly the same number as French civilians who were wiped out in Caen, Normandy by the RAF in just a few weeks.
Also, more Norwegians willingly volunteered to join the Waffen SS than were killed by German occupation forces. It therefore was just as "normal" for a Norwegian to join the Waffen SS as it was for a Norwegien to be killed by German occupation forces.but I wouldnt go around saying the Norwegiens were fans of the Waffen SS.

The British armed forces of WW2 have many memorials put up by the French to them. I don't recall seeing any memorials to the Waffen SS or any other units of the German forces. I wonder why that is? Ask the French and most consider the casualties inflicted by the Allies to be a price well worth paying- if sad and regrettable- for their liberation, they know it was a necessary evil.
The German Army has always been harsh to civilians historically, WW2 wasn't the only conflict where they're been brutal, their reputation goes back to Napoleonic times, through the Franco-Prussian War to WW1. The German military simply considered civilians to be expendable expecially in any territories occupied by them.
My father lived under German occupation in Norway and considering the Norwegians were considered fellow Aryans they were still treated pretty harshly and hostages were taken and executed, people arrested for even minor infractions. A sentence of death was imposed on a huge number of crimes against the occupying forces and I'm not talking about the resistance here, but would be considered petty actions. Even merely touching a Geman soldier could be construed as assault and a possible death sentence imposed.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

The Germans were far better soldiers than the Japanese ever were, you'd have a far better chance of being killed by them too. The Nazis were barbaric too, their mentality is cloiser to medieval methods of war rather than a modern one- ie savagery towards civilians and prisoners.
But even the vast majority of 'Nazi' soldiers (i.e Waffen SS) didnt go around killing civilians and prisoners.
Distasteful fact. The RAF wiped out many times more French civilians in Normandy than the 6 Waffen SS divisions combined did.and there was the best part of 100,000 Waffen SS troops in Normandy in summer 1944. Over 99% of them
didn't
commit atrocities there.

The Germans were far better soldiers than the Japanese ever were, you'd have a far better chance of being killed by them too. The Nazis were barbaric too, their mentality is cloiser to medieval methods of war rather than a modern one- ie savagery towards civilians and prisoners.
And you're being very racist- not all Japanese were barbaric and stuck in the past, many were highly educated and aware of the modern world, but they also lived in a dictatorship and were culturally bound by tradition and pride even when they realised it was futile. Many kamikazis wrote home bitterly regretting what they had to do, not wanting to die and knowing that it was actually pointless but did so not to bring shame on their family. Dismissing the Japanese as mindless automatons shows American propaganda from WW2 was perhaps too effective. Perhaps you think they all had glasses and buck teeth too? Like in the WW2 Bugs Bunny cartoons?
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

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.

What always got me was the fact that, prior to dropping the bombs on Japan, the veterans of both theaters of war had to deal with the fact that they were going to have to invade the country. I can't even begin to imagine what went through those guys' minds, especially someone who survived from D-Day Normandy and onwards, to then have your superiors tell you that you were about to be shipped off to the Pacific. Or a Marine that had gone through the horrors of fighting the Japanese only to realize that every man, woman and child would be taking up arms against them on their home soil.
"Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see."

But the jungle and the rain and malaria and other diseases.
Hyperthermia is a very real problem and harder to deal with when there is no air conditioning. Heating a shelter, on the other hand, is a great deal easier and if one has good winter clothing, one can be protected from cold easier than from heat. Tropical diseases were also a serious issue, including fungal infections.
Nuclear bombs didn't fall on Japan and not Europe for nothing!
That they weren't ready until three months after Germany surrendered probably played the biggest role there.

Interesting points! The freezing weather caused many frostbite and worse situations. I was going to say Pacific because Europe was more familiar to everyone and you got to fight Hitler! But the jungle and the rain and malaria and other diseases. And The Pacific shows how intent the Japanese soldiers were. Nuclear bombs didn't fall on Japan and not Europe for nothing!

I'd take fighting in the Pacific any day. Bastogne and the freezing weather would have broke me mentally (I'm not a cold weather person at all). I actually preform better mentally and physical in the heat.
Live for nothing, or die for something, your call.

Two sides of the same coin but with different risks.
The European battles lasted longer so you'd assume there was a greater likelihood of being captured. The Pacific battles were generally shorter and sharper and by mid-1942, it was one-way travel only.