There is a simple fact about World War 2 that very rarely gets stated. While those brave men who fought the war in Euro
-
joekinplaya — 11 years ago(April 04, 2014 01:54 PM)
Wow great response. I too am similar in saying I would prefer fighting in Europe than in the Pacific, island-hopping but it's true. It's hard to say which is worse than the other because chances are you and I would be the dead ones if we fought and if you die, it really doesn't matter which you'd prefer. With that said, Russia IS definitely the worst. Russia and Japan. To understand Japanese perspective you should really watch Letters from Iwo Jima where the Japanese soldiers defending Iwo Jima were ordered to kill themselves in honor if they should lose ground to the Americans. The main character, a drafted civilian who doesn't want to fight really and wants to surrender, is partnered up with a soldier from the Imperial Army who was I guess demoted for trying to save a civilian from being abused by the Imperial Army and was sent to Iwo Jima to die. The entire time their officers except the General I think, was telling them to kill themselves.
Ironically by the end of it all, the main character survived but I don't think that's the case in real life.
Whereas in Russian front, you either get shot by your enemies or shot by your officers. I think it was like 1/3 of you have guns and the 2/3 were like meat shield or carried ammo. If you tried to run, you'd get shot by your officers. It's like you might as well just shoot me before even deploying for battle. At least it'll be quicker. -
joetigersfan — 12 years ago(May 13, 2013 09:17 PM)
MH,
Thank you for your service. If you wouldn't mind me bending your ear with a bunch of questions, please send me a personal message where I will give you my personal email. If not, I understand. No hard feelings. Again, thank you for your service and God bless the greatest generation. -
dvician — 12 years ago(June 20, 2013 04:05 PM)
My high school history teacher was in the Navy during the Korean War.
Everything in world history could be summed up by something that happened to him either:- on that ship (a medical ship, kind of like a floating MASH)
- During a baseball game (he was the HS team coach)
- Driver's Ed student (he taught driver's ed)
For instance, "Louis the 16th would wander around the palace like Bill there wanders around in left field, without a care in the world"
It was quite entertaining actually, even though he was trying to be a mean SOB.
The point being, whenever the Korean War was used as an example, he would make the statement that he was so so very lucky to be placed on that ship, away from the fighting. But being a medical ship, he saw what that fighting did to the body. He said many many times "if you have a choice between being drafted for a year or enlisting for three, join the Navy, there are things that can kill you quickly on a ship, but the odds are well in your favor. Get drafted and you will be sorry"
-
LawDog-86 — 12 years ago(September 13, 2013 07:38 PM)
European for sure. These are the survival rates of POW's in each theater of war Actually the death rates I guess, they show the % of captured troops that did not survive:
Russians held by Germans: 57.5%
Germans held by Russians: 35.8%
Americans held by Japanese: 33.0%
Germans held by Eastern Europeans: 32.9%
British/Americans held by Japanese: 24.8%
British held by Germans: 3.5%
Germans held by French: 2.58%
Germans held by Americans: 0.15%
Germans held by British: 0.03%
The likelihood of surviving if you were captured by the Germans was much higher than if captured by the Japanese. Remember, Germany, Britian, France, and America were all signee's of the Geneva Convention. The USSR and Japan were not. Also, the Allies exchanged many POW's with Germany throughout the war whereas this was much rarer in the Pacific.
Here's an interesting study on rank in POW camps: https://www2.bc.edu/~pontiff/Documents/POW Working January 2012 MS Forthcoming.pdf -
jd-276 — 12 years ago(September 16, 2013 05:20 AM)
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. -
bomarl1969 — 12 years ago(October 30, 2013 11:26 AM)
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. -
Niv-1 — 12 years ago(November 09, 2013 04:49 PM)
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!
-
R011DaveAAA — 12 years ago(November 10, 2013 09:10 PM)
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. -
mistamajestyk — 12 years ago(December 12, 2013 05:24 PM)
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." -
gravelandx88 — 11 years ago(May 18, 2014 07:27 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. -
Hotrodder — 11 years ago(May 19, 2014 04:42 AM)
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. -
BuddyLove63 — 11 years ago(May 21, 2014 04:30 AM)
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. -
Hotrodder — 11 years ago(May 22, 2014 08:25 AM)
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. -
BuddyLove63 — 11 years ago(May 29, 2014 01:42 AM)
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. -
nickm2 — 11 years ago(May 29, 2014 08:43 AM)
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!? -
praetorian-titus — 11 years ago(July 14, 2014 12:28 PM)
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 :).