Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Germany with absolutely no room for error.

Germany was considered first priority for good reason, they had the greatest chance to do the greatest harm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

Japan.

Germany wouldn't have declared war so readily if not for them.

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior

quote:

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

Japan.

Germany wouldn't have declared war so readily if not for them.

An interesting perspective that only an American could have...

quote:

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

The Japanese were the only ones to land troops on US territory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

...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?
...

Losqualo's Homepage

quote:

ORIGINAL: CCB

Who do you consider was America's most dangerous enemy of WW2 - Germany or Japan?

I say Japan because they had a vastly larger more potent navy than the Germans. And Japan inflicted more death and destruction on the US than Germany.

quote:

ORIGINAL: riverbravo

Had the russians not been knocking on Hitlers door and the Germans posed any real threat whats so ever to the US they would have gotten this.....

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

So much for Allies then FJ.

That's just 'America wins war alone' BS

quote:

ORIGINAL: lefty nutter

quote:

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.

Got StuG?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

quote:

ORIGINAL: lefty nutter

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.
...

Losqualo's Homepage

quote:

ORIGINAL: Losqualo

quote:

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.