If you had to choose between fighting in Europe or the Pacific
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Pacific
joetigersfan — 12 years ago(May 06, 2013 11:02 AM)
There is a simple fact about World War 2 that very rarely gets stated. While those brave men who fought the war in Europe seem to get most of the glory, I think it would have been a lot tougher fighting the Japs in the Pacific. Please don't misunderstand me. In no way am I saying that fighting Nazi Germany was a cake walk. In no way am I saying that the Europe guys weren't brave or deserving of our appreciation and reverence. Not at all. But if you had to choose, I think we would all choose to fight the Germans in Europe. Fewer supplies and resources were devoted to the Pacific effort. In the Pacific, you are fighting heat, malaria, and countless other diseases. And the most daunting task was the ferocity and often downright barbarism of your enemy. The Japs were much more merciless, inhumane, and would "fight to the death." And God help you if you get taken prisoner.
Thoughts? -
murph24 — 12 years ago(May 09, 2013 08:53 AM)
There is a simple fact about World War 2 that very rarely gets stated. While those brave men who fought the war in Europe seem to get most of the glory, I think it would have been a lot tougher fighting the Japs in the Pacific.
I'm not sure that those who fought in Europe got "most of the glory." And there's a scene in
The Pacific
in which a cab driver, a Normandy veteran himself, refuses to take money from a veteran of the Pacific. As he puts it -
I might have jumped into Normandy but at least I got some liberties in London and Paris. You gyrenes, you got nothing but jungle rot and malaria."
To me, choosing between fighting in Europe and the Pacific is a bit like choosing between cancer and a brain tumor. The two conflicts were absolutely brutal for those who fought in them, and veterans of both had to cope with nightmarish flashbacks, PTSD, and alcoholism. Suicide rates were high for all veterans, no matter where they served.
But based on what I've read, fighting on the Russian front might have been the most horrifying experience of all. One thing's for sure - "War is Hell" isn't an empty cliche; it's a description that, unfortunately, is only
too
accurate. -
joetigersfan — 12 years ago(May 09, 2013 01:43 PM)
I'm completely acknowledge that both would be hell. Cancer and a brain tumor. I just feel that in the Pacific, you are fighting a more barbaric enemy, in more unfamiliar terrain, not to mention diseases and sea sickness, AND you were given less support from Washington.
-
murph24 — 12 years ago(May 11, 2013 02:37 AM)
There's no question that fighting the Japanese, who lived by the
Bushido
code and fought past the point of logic or reason, presented an almost overwhelming challenge for Americans in the Pacific. But I simply can't say the Americans landing on Omaha Beach had it any easier. Nor did the Americans fighting in the Vosges Mountains, the Hrtgen Forest and the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge (to take just three examples). And there's no question that American soldiers massacred at Malmedy discovered that Germans could be just as brutal as the Japanese.
And many soldiers fighting in Europe felt just as cut off, supply-wise (and abandoned by Washington) as those in the Pacific. True, they didn't have to cope with tropical diseases; they had to deal with freezing temperatures and frostbite.
I don't know how any Americans fighting on the front lines during WWII endured what they did. If you felt you would have preferred Europe, than that's your opinion and it's perfectly valid. But there's no "right" or "wrong" answer here. As someone on this board previously pointed out,
both
theaters of war were absolute meat grinders. -
joetigersfan — 12 years ago(May 11, 2013 11:03 AM)
Agreed, sir. Both theaters WERE meat grinders. No question about it. But my question is, if you absolutely HAD to choose to fight in Europe or the Pacific, which would you choose? And remember, those are your only two choices.
-
crockett_john — 12 years ago(July 30, 2013 12:57 AM)
If I had to choose, I'd pick Europe, not because it was any easier (i don't think it was any easier). Looking at what happened at Bastogne, the battles look every bit as brutal as Saipan or Tarawa. I would choose Europe simply because it's Europe and not some crappy island chain like the Solomons or the Ryukyus.
-
allblacks-1 — 12 years ago(October 04, 2013 12:32 PM)
Have to agree with this.
And, speaking of the Eastern front, that probably was the most grueling experience for a soldier (I am Russian, so feel free to judge).
While metaphorically choosing where to fight in a war does sound like choosing between a rock and a hard place, imagine the experience on the eastern front (the pacific theatre is probably close though) - lack of food, proper clothing or supplies, harshest winters possible for everyone involved (I believe, both gen. MacArthur and marshal Zhukov said that Russian winter was a great and unaccounted enemy for the Germans) and most of the best and biggest enemy forces coming against you.
Fighting for your Homeland (the Russians) or for the land that you have no business or choice to fight for (the Germans), seeing no end to it - with everything going against you.
So I say I'd choose Europe. At least you have something to relate to and better weather. Though we haven't been there and hopefully will never be in those conditions.
So I say lets simply raise the glasses for the Greatest generation who gave us a chance to learn from their experiences and sacrifices, a chance to live our lives which we might haven't had if not for them, and a chance to create a better world for our children.
Cause, in all honesty, it's not for us to think what theatre of war was better to fight at - it is a must for us to honor and remember those who fought for us to have a chance to have this very conversation. And especially those who gave their lives for it - be it western, eastern or pacific fronts - those who might still rest, forgotten in the soil of France, Germany, Russia or any of the pacific islands where they've found their rest. -
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.