The Pacific Front of WW2 was the greatest naval war in human history

Yeah, but destroying the Italians whilst only having biplanes vs the Regia Aeronautica.

Also, what was at stake with Malta etc.

The outcome of the Battle for the Med. and the Atlantic was more crucial to the war than the pacific.

>The outcome of the Battle for the Med. and the Atlantic was more crucial to the war in Europe than the pacific.
FTFY. There's a reason VE day and VJ day were months apart.

>implying beating the Japanese in Asia meant shit

What is winning the war against Japan?

>He thinks the Pacific was a major theatre and not just a sideshow

How would a non-total victory or defeat for the Allies in the pacific changed them in any significant way, as opposed to a different outcome in Europe? What was at stake in Europe was orders of magnitude more important than the colonial conflict in the Far East.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Ecnomus

>Yeah, but destroying the Italians whilst only having biplanes vs the Regia Aeronautica.
Except the British didn't pit biplanes against the Regia Aeronautica, they pitted them against ships with poor Anti-Air capabilities because their biplanes were torpedo bombers. The Swordfish was good, but I don't get what's up with Bongs trying to play up its importance. The British did not obviously send their biplanes to fight the Italians' airforce in air to air.

>The outcome of the Battle for the Med. and the Atlantic was more crucial to the war than the pacific
Maybe to the European theater, and I wouldn't even say it was crucial considering that the Soviets did the backbone of the work. All the Mediterranean did was give the British an opening to the North African front to dick around in.

It's a pretty Eurocentric view to claim that the Battle of the Mediterranean was more crucial to the war than the Pacific considering the Pacific War was the main instrumental theater against Japan that caused their surrender.

>eurocentric

Almost had me

Considering the Japanese was the main Axis force in Asia that conquered parts of China and most of Southeast Asia, I would say yes that beating Japan meant shit.

Well the liberation of China and the other tons of Southeastern Asian countries were pretty important at stake too.

Prove me wrong. The direct quote is
>The outcome of the Battle for the Med. and the Atlantic was more crucial to the war than the pacific.

Which is a pretty fucking stupid thing to say considering they were in different theaters of war.

It's not hard to understand the Europe was the main theater, winning in Europe was way more important than the pacific, which was an afterthough to everyone except the americans.

>Mfw the Pacific islanders kill themselves rather than deal with Americans gloating about how they saved them from the Japs.

Europe was the main theater to Europeans. So of course they wouldn't care about the Pacific. But for people in the Pacific, the Pacific War was more important to them. Hence, why it's pretty Eurocentric to say one war is more important than the other.

But aside from that, claiming that one aspect from one theater of war is more important than another aspect from a different theater of war is still fucking stupid which is what I was disputing when comparing the Battle of the Mediterranean to the Pacific.

>Mfw the Pacific islanders kill themselves rather than deal with Americans gloating about how they saved them from the Japs.
Considering how much Southeast Asia loves the US, I'd say the US did really well in the Pacific.

The US could have been beaten in the Pacific and it wouldn't have made a difference, once the proper war (i.e, WW2, the European (main) theater) was finished the Soviets would have either turned their attention to the Japs and defeated them, or just not bothered.

Either way, it wouldn't affect the world today much except maybe a more Russophilic Japan.

If the war in Europe was lost however...

>The US could have been beaten in the Pacific and it wouldn't have made a difference, once the proper war (i.e, WW2, the European (main) theater) was finished the Soviets would have either turned their attention to the Japs and defeated them, or just not bothered.

>Either way, it wouldn't affect the world today much except maybe a more Russophilic Japan.

How the fuck are the Soviets going to beat Japan with their nonexistent Navy? They could probably take back mainland China but how are they going to do anything about their Pacific holdings?

>If the war in Europe was lost however...
If the war was lost in Europe, it wouldn't have made a difference towards the Pacific. What the fuck is Germany going to do to affect the Pacific if they can't even get there with their shitty Navy against the RN and USN?

>All European empires would be gone

>Russia now defeated removing anyone capable of fighting Japan.

No difference to the Pacific at all mate.

Also once the ruskies btfo the japs out of China they would most likely come to some sort of favourable peace arrangement, like I said they don't need a total victory.

Ecnomus REEEEEEE

Basically defeat in Europe would have changed the face of the East as well as the West, practically the whole world, whereas defeat in the Pacific would only really change the Pacific.

>All European empires would be gone

>Russia now defeated removing anyone capable of fighting Japan.
You're forgetting the US.

We're talking about 2 different scenarios here. You're assuming that the US is also going to lose the Pacific if Germany wins in Europe.

Even if the European theater was lost, Japan was still going to get steamrolled by the US no matter what. The USN made up 70% of the world's naval tonnage by the end of the war. There was no way they were losing the Pacific.

We're talking about what-ifs though, there was no way the British Empire was going to lose the BotA or the BotM.

the European powers on the Allied side had extensive holdings in east and south asia that certainly were extremely important to them and the power, wealth and prestige of their nations so I'm not sure I'd call that theatre an "afterthought" to them

...

It wasn't a threat to their very existence though, if the Japs captured your colonies, yeah that's bad but at least your home citizens won't get exterminated by the germs.

not sure you can make that assumption as there's no plausible scenario I can think of in which the Germans are able, without years of extensive preparation, to overcome the British at sea and stage the actual invasion required in order to install a puppet regime

Maybe if America were swallowed by the sea, but they were more than enough to prevent the Germans from ever getting the better of Britain, until a favorable peace is concluded

I know we're talking about what-ifs. But your claim was that the European theater would have had way more of an impact on the Pacific than the Pacific did on Europe.

You were like, if the US loses in the Pacific, then it doesn't really impact anything else.

So now we're talking about vice-versa. We're talking about if Europe is lost, how would it affect the Pacific? And I say it wouldn't. If we're still thinking that the Pacific is independent of the European theater, then the US would still have won the Pacific by themselves because of their massive naval output. So let's say Germany won Europe, cool. How are they going to influence the Pacific when they couldn't even into logistics outside of Europe into Russia. How are they going to influence the Pacific with their all Uboat fleet and the fact that the US has hundreds and thousands of Destroyers and Corvettes for ASW?

see

Do you know how to count?

Yes.

See >The USN made up 70% of the world's naval tonnage by the end of the war.
That's more than everyone combined.

This is also assuming that the British aren't going to be reluctant to lend them their Navy or sink it themselves. Or if the US don't sink their navy themselves like the British did the French Navy when it became Vichy-France.

Weird. Then I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Japan fights on a more or less even footing against the U.S. If you have a "Vichy Britain".

it's the problem with these thought exercisizes, there is no plausible scenario in which the overwhelming materiel, manpower and technological advantage of the US is not decisive in any theatre given enough time

Even if the RN went over to the Germans intact, it would, in time, be ground to powder by the USN. Japan's defeat was inevitable, and once they were done, the full might of that advantage swings to Europe, control of the seas and skies are wrested, invasion stages, etc etc

Japs can now supply their troops and focus on mainland asia rather than the pacific islands, plus they now have access to resources which they sorely lacked.

Think of the fight the Japs put up without these advantages. While it might not lead to Jap victory it certainly doesn't lead to unconditional surrender (unless the US still gets the A-bomb, which it would now take several more years to develop without the British research).

Except that the US island hopped their way to Japan's doorstep through the Pacific Islands. If you can't beat them on the sea, then the US is still going to reach the home islands and ground Japan into dust with bombing. Remember that US firebombing killed way more than the atomic bombs did.

Japan already got its resources during the early parts of 1942 when it already conquered all of Southeast Asia. I don't know how much more resources they're going to get out of India when their supply lines and logistics sucked balls.

So again, this guy put it pretty well. >there is no plausible scenario in which the overwhelming materiel, manpower and technological advantage of the US is not decisive in any theatre

>Japs can now supply their troops and focus on mainland asia rather than the pacific islands,
No, they'll still have to fend off that colossal U.S. fleet coming westwards out of Hawaii.

>plus they now have access to resources which they sorely lacked.
Why would "Vichy Britain" give Japan free shit? If anything, they'd be giving Germany free shit.

>Think of the fight the Japs put up without these advantages.
1) The advantages don't exist.
2) It wouldn't matter. Japan had a smaller pre-war economy than France. It was outproduced by the U.S. by a margin of about 8:1 with the U.S. diverting enormous production to the ETO and MTO.

>While it might not lead to Jap victory it certainly doesn't lead to unconditional surrender
Yes it does. You're just extremely stupid, and as I surmised, have either never familiarized yourself with WW2 data, and/or simply cannot count.

> which it would now take several more years to develop without the British research)
Like so. British research was miniscule, and their atomic program simply got absorbed into the Manhattan project.

Why are you even humoring him? A Britain defeated by Germany isn't just going to hand over India to Japan. Japan isn't strong enough to take it, because they don't have another 3-4 MILLION troops lying around, which is what they'd need to take an offensive posture against the colossal force in India, and supply it far inland, which they had trouble doing against China. It's just retarded wank.

It doesn't change my original point that Europe was the most important theater though, I wasn't really interested in who would win between Japan and the US desu.

Unrelated, does Veeky Forums automatically add 'desu' sometimes?

I really don't remember typing that and I didn't intend to.

But you did exaggerate its importance. You were like "it doesn't matter what happens in the Pacific because it wouldn't affect Europe. But if Germany won the European theater, then things would change in the Pacific."

It would affect the pacific though, the European colonies would be gone, India possibly not under British control etc. Even if the US won those colonies back I doubt they would return them to their colonial masters.

The only way the pacific would effect Europe would be US troop numbers available to fight, and I don't think even more US troops would have made a difference desu.

OK it does add desu, I am definitely sure I never typed it that time.

I was really responding to the author of "t-b-h" gets turned into "desu".

I'm rapidly losing track of who said what to whom, but whomever claimed that the European stuff had a limited impact on the Pacific stuff is right. Even in a world where Germany is absolute master of Europe and forces a client government into Britian (somehow), doesn't mean that suddenly, everything the British have is turned over into Japanese ships, guns, planes, etc. At BEST, you get a Vichy style commitment, i.e. nothing except passive defense if the U.S. tries to invade British possessions in the Pacific like Raboul. It won't be anything even close to what would be necessary to give Japan a chance, which by the way won't happen even if Britian somehow enthusiastically becomes a Japanese ally.

00 and 64 were both me, and thanks for that info.

>64

*614

>It would affect the pacific though, the European colonies would be gone,
Why would you assume this?

>India possibly not under British control etc
Again, why are you just making shit up?

>. Even if the US won those colonies back I doubt they would return them to their colonial masters.
You know who they definitely wouldn't be turning them over to? The fucking Japanese.

>The only way the pacific would effect Europe would be US troop numbers available to fight, and I don't think even more US troops would have made a difference desu.
On that score, one big and simple thing you could do is affect how much Lend-Lease gets to the USSR, see pic related.

Territories, colonies, and possessions-wise it would affect the Pacific(not that the Pacific wasn't already affected since Japan pretty much took most of the colonies except India). But militarily, the outcome of the European theater would have no effect on the outcome on the Pacific.

We can go on a tangent of what-ifs like this whole thread has been doing. We could say that if Japan won the Pacific, they would have attacked the Soviet Union and force the Soviets into a 2 front war and could alter the European theater and all that jazz.

But the point is, is that sure, you can say that the Pacific had no impact on the European theater. But conversely, I can say that the outcome of the European theater would have had no impact on the Pacific Theater.

>Why would you assume this?
Home nations subjugated by Germany. How can you keep a colony when you yourself are defeated?

>Again, why are you just making shit up
India would either declare independence or like you say Vichy style at best, where it is basically a jap ally.

>You know who they definitely wouldn't be turning them over to? The fucking Japanese.
It's very US-centric to assume that the Pacific is just a theater of war between the US and Japs, a change is a change.

>On that score, one big and simple thing you could do is affect how much Lend-Lease gets to the USSR, see pic related.
How would that affect it? Genuinely curious, it seems from that pic that most of the shipments arrived.

hownew.ru

Fairly

>Home nations subjugated by Germany. How can you keep a colony when you yourself are defeated?
The same way Vichy historically did with Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Syria, Senegal, Gabon, Indo-China, their possessions in the Caribbean, New Caledonia, and the Marquesas islands. These places actually have local governments with troops under their command, sometimes a lot of troops (Vichy Syria had about 45,000 men under arms at the time of the 1941 British attack) which don't suddenly vanish like in some video game. In each case, Vichy held control until an outside force came in with an army; sometimes a very large army, such as in the Torch landings.

>India would either declare independence
Why? You have literally over a MILLION troops waving British flags, who aren't just going to sit there and do nothing.
>or like you say Vichy style at best, where it is basically a jap ally.
No it fucking isn't "basically a jap ally". It is a reluctant GERMAN chattel, and sometimes not even that. That is several degrees of separation from helping the Japanese.

>It's very US-centric to assume that the Pacific is just a theater of war between the US and Japs, a change is a change.
And an irrelevant change is still irrelevant. To be honest, I don't even know why you brought up how the U.S. would win those colonies back and if so whether they'd turn them over to the original powers. The U.S> is quite capable of smashing and even occupying Japan without going anywhere near India.

>How would that affect it? Genuinely curious, it seems from that pic that most of the shipments arrived.
I'm shocked. I think I have literally seen the stupidest comment ever posted on Veeky Forums. Look at the fucking numbers. Over 40% of LL by weight goes through Vladivostok. If you knock out the U.S. naval presence in the Pacific, you don't get any of that. It is so blatantly and incredibly obvious from just looking at those big thick arrows and the numbers on top.

Crash course then:

as said, t-b-h=desu

s-m-h=baka

f-a-m=senpai

This is your first and last spoonfeeding. Any other questions you have can be answered by either lurking (which means reading threads without posting in them) or using the power of the internet to look it up like a rational human being.

>I'm shocked. I think I have literally seen the stupidest comment ever posted on Veeky Forums. Look at the fucking numbers. Over 40% of LL by weight goes through Vladivostok. If you knock out the U.S. naval presence in the Pacific, you don't get any of that. It is so blatantly and incredibly obvious from just looking at those big thick arrows and the numbers on top.

Lol, I thought you were saying a US victory would increase the lend-lease arrival rates. Obviously Japanese victory would decrease it.

Cheers, although I don't see how lurking (which I've been doing for a while) would teach me anything about word changes.

Thanks though

The ocean was, because the Portuguese controlled key resupply bases and choke points. I'm talking in terms of a single war though, rather than in longer-term political dominance. Sure previously you had pitched naval battles that by decimating fleets and bases could change "control" of an ocean, but the time lag for passages between ports was long enough that the running strategy didnt have didn't have the same element of "our southern flank is collapsing" in strategically maneuverable action time where flanks and feignts were thousands of miles long.

More generally, modern/post WW2 naval warfare really operates on a different scale. E.g. in the Atlantic you move from worrying about choke points like the English Channel and the Kattegat to using the whole GIUK gap as a maneuver space. The long range detection, seakeepong and resupply abilities are finally there to monitor whole stretches of ocean.