Germany first

Can you re post his argument?  I am not sure if he is saying we send more of our forces to fight Japan than Germany?

If this is his argument he is wrong.

Just tell him to make a search for the Plan Dog memo or the Arcadia conference between Churchill and Roosevelt at the end of 1941.

You can also find a detailed description (from the US Army Historical Series) of this period here:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/AMH/AMH-20.html

Approximately 70%-75% of US war production went against Germany during WW2.

Approximately 70%-75% of US war production went against Germany during WW2.

I read that the Pacific never got more than 18% (And averaged less usually 15% or so) of US military/economic output. Some went to Russia and Britain and some was used on domestic defense needs.

Don’t get me wrong I don’t dislike the Japanese and give them credit for being willing to fight impossible odds but…

can you imagine if the Pacific got 75 %, the Japs would have been plowed under

It is very obvious that the japs could invade parts of siberia, but they didn’t have a strong land army, as compared to the navy, which was almost as good as the US, except much smaller.
But it would take a long time for the Japanese army to get deep into Russia/Siberia. The japs would have the same problem as the Germans, too long supply lines, and that defending was easier than attacking.

I think I know what this other guy meant and tried to explain to you/ the reader…He wasn’t incorrect when he stated that the U.S spend more effort , energie and resources into the pacific…The Staff of United States Army figured out before D-Day that the possibil number of casulties in Europe from the beginning of invasion in Normandy to Berlin would be 250.000 American Soldiers !! Those numbers were wrong…they lost those casulties in the 13 Phase long Invasion campagne!..The U.S were not that interrested in the European theatre anyway because the main focus was the Pacific…
@balungaloaf:

@Imperious:

Can you re post his argument?  I am not sure if he is saying we send more of our forces to fight Japan than Germany?

If this is his argument he is wrong.

Yeah like what 10 miles into the wasteland?To what political or strategic gain?

The whole point of this coming up from wondering “Why did Japan attack the U.S. instead of going after Russia?” I think it’s pretty damn clear at this point why.

Unfeasible/impossible to get an army in the 40’s through Siberia militarily and for any strategic gain.

i aruged about the japanese/russia spats before the war where japan got handled.  he was trying to make it sound that there was nothing in siberia.  i was arguing the japs wanted the resources.  they decided to get the resources in south pacific instead.

and this

Yeah that’s cool and all but agreeing to fighting “Germany First” was completely on paper. If you look at the statistics and secret plans of the time we were spending much more equipment and time on Japan for most of the war

i’m pretty sure much more equipment went to fighting hitler.  via lendlease to uk and ussr and america’s own military strength

Yes it would have been posibil to invade Russia from Siberia but it all depends on who and how’s !!!…nobody would have thought that germany pulled a trick on france a couple of time and be successful?!! I agree w. Subotai
@Subotai:

It is very obvious that the japs could invade parts of siberia, but they didn’t have a strong land army, as compared to the navy, which was almost as good as the US, except much smaller.
But it would take a long time for the Japanese army to get deep into Russia/Siberia. The japs would have the same problem as the Germans, too long supply lines, and that defending was easier than attacking.

Why Japan turned focus 180 deg?..any conspiracy theories outthere?.. :lol: :-D :lol: :?

the little moron still insists that it would be impossible for japan to invade eastern siberia b/c of terrain.

The only way it would have been possible was for Stalin to give them train tickets and even then they would not make it.

Japan did not have any modern logistics system and could hardly sustain much beyond the coastline and a few hundred miles of it. They would have been cut off easily. They could not even defeat France if they had their army in Germany in 1940. Japan was very backwards and not very modernized except for her navy. They did not invest their strength is army doctrine and land warfare because her power was in her navy like England. The Army was not adequate to even take out china and they had a 10 year start in 1931 and never got much closer to finishing the job in 1945. They even had their best army the Kuangtung army in Manchukuo and it didn’t do anything. IN 39 they got a bloody nose from the pathetic Soviets who were at their worst in 1939-40.

They were good at surprise and only that if the battle was of short duration. Wars of attrition was a great weakness for them.

@Imperious:

the little moron still insists that it would be impossible for japan to invade eastern siberia b/c of terrain.

The only way it would have been possible was for Stalin to give them train tickets and even then they would not make it.

Japan did not have any modern logistics system and could hardly sustain much beyond the coastline and a few hundred miles of it. They would have been cut off easily. They could not even defeat France if they had their army in Germany in 1940. Japan was very backwards and not very modernized except for her navy. They did not invest their strength is army doctrine and land warfare because her power was in her navy like England. The Army was not adequate to even take out china and they had a 10 year start in 1931 and never got much closer to finishing the job in 1945. They even had their best army the Kuangtung army in Manchukuo and it didn’t do anything. IN 39 they got a bloody nose from the pathetic Soviets who were at their worst in 1939-40.

They were good at surprise and only that if the battle was of short duration. Wars of attrition was a great weakness for them.

Imperious Leader is right. The vastness of the Siberia would have shallowed up the Japanese Army.

When they took Singapore in 1941 with full strength the infantry rode on bicycles and bluffed the British into surrender. They exhausted ammo and food and other supplies just marching from Indo China. They had no idea what logistical support meant and could never sustain long lines of supplies. They were jungle fighters and not snow fighters. The land of eastern Soviets was a natural barrier. I don’t think anybody would have been in any position to support a 5-6 thousand mile long logistical train and the enemy would have easily destroyed anything to facilitate movement/ resources.

Japan had no business in Russia. It offered nothing to them except one port ( Vladivostok)

If Japan could not defeat a backward country like China that still practiced things like foot binding for all women, thats the only indication you need to qualify their abilities. China had a untrained army with no modern equipment and still Japan fights her for 14 years and gets maybe a 5th of China proper. If they attacked Russia it would take about 60 years before they made even moderate progress.

The only allies they pushed out were in Philippines, Burma, and Malaya. one of these were token defenders, and the others were pinned into a corner with no room to fight. In open country Japan would melt like ice cream in hell.

I agree with IL’s post, but I’d just add that Japan’s intentions regarding China until 1941 (and even afterwards) were not to conquer China but to keep it weakened and to gain possession of strategic locations on the mainland. Most of China was simply not worth to conquer for Japan.

So the U.S would NOT have been able to invade Russia from Siberia IL?….

Look what happened in 1918-1920 ( Red Vs White) This was the allied attempt to fight the Reds in Siberia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Bear_Expedition

“However, these two fronts each became hundreds of miles long and were extremely narrow and difficult to supply, maintain and protect. By the end of October 1918, they were no longer able to maintain the offensive and acknowledging their fragile situation and the rapid onset of winter, the Allies began to adopt a defensive posture.”

We already did this and failed too. Its like invading Antarctica, except its thousands of miles of tundra and wilderness. Nothing can support an army over such distances without infrastructure. The problem is the territory in the far east is just as bad and farther from support.

Its kinda the same reason why Germany or Italy didn’t bother to fight in the Sahara proper and just fought along the coastline and never used the option of sending armies south to hook underneath. Its just not possible to sustain large armies. The Russians could easily bottleneck the enemy at choke-points where they took an easy route and made the ‘invasion’ a 50 year protracted event.

sounds fun men your staying in the army 50 years so we can take siberia.

so in your words you agree that an invasion is posibil according to my question, it is just how long any army would have been able to withstand the enemy, terretory and Siberian winter strenght ?!…we all agree that it was impossibil for japan to Invade Siberia but, I still think that there would have been ways for other countries in the '40-45’s but that is just a thought, I understand your points IL but explain to me:
@Imperious:

Its kinda the same reason why Germany or Italy didn’t bother to fight in the Sahara proper and just fought along the coastline and never used the option of sending armies south to hook underneath. Its just not possible to sustain large armies. The Russians could easily bottleneck the enemy at choke-points where they took an easy route and made the ‘invasion’ a 50 year protracted event.

of how much further south you are talking bout since I remember that Rommel sent groups further south and tried to cut off the BEF!?!… 8-)

of how much further south you are talking bout since I remember that Rommel sent groups further south and tried to cut off the BEF!?!… cool

I guess not far south enough based on the results. What i meant was something like 500 miles south of the coastline and it was not the BEF unless were talking France.

another example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression

At El Alamein Rommel could not make massive flanking movements because of this terrain. Obviously he could not even consider moving south of it to bypass it because his logistic train would be cut easily. IN our Soviet example, these thousands of miles of dense forests, rugged terrain, and many miles of tundra offered no suitable broad front for invasion. Most likely they would follow the trans Siberian rail-line which in many places was carved into mountains creating easy choke points for the Russians to wipe out Japanese on bikes and light tanks. Japan was not suited to fight in this terrain. These bogus Japanese tank drives we get in AA is pure fantasy. Japan had only a few divisions of armor anyway. Her army was designed for controlling small areas and garrison duty of same. In China just to hold what they had required their best army forces. To fight Russia and send a few divisions into the Soviet Far East would have no chance for success beyond that port city.

Certainly they would never make it to Moscow in any shape or form in the 20th century.

The area between Ural Mountains and the Pacific Coast of Russia is the largest continuous undeveloped  area in the world. For anyone to suggest that a large invading army could operate in combat situations in such a region is clueless to the real world. The mastermind of such an event would get first place in worse military disaster of the ages.

@Imperious:

They were jungle fighters and not snow fighters.

Actually, there is snow in Japan, there are no jungles in Japan. Japanese soliders did not receive any jungle training except on the job.

Guadalcanal was as terrible for them (perhaps even more so) as it was for us. The jungle was brutal on the Japanese soldiers.