Allies of Germany

[C-2]

I'd rather say"too late" :roll:
Btw,what's the avatar?
cheers!

[boonicootza]

Romania.
and just for the precious oil...

[Bernard Miclescu]

I chose Italy. The relationship between Germany and Italy started very early, and I think that Mussolini's attitude towards Germany and his chancelor in the "Societé des Nations" helpped Hitler to be stronger and stronger in Europe. I think Mussolini was a true Ally, unfortunately most of the Italiens were against the war.

At least for Romania the politicians were obliged to became a so called "ally" of Germany trying not to become a satellite state, or even a conquerred country. I don't forget that the only dream of the Romanians was the "big Romania". So they fought for this dream either with Germany either against it.

And a fact: I think it is a similitude between the North Italian republic of 1943/1945 and Hungary 1944/1945 both were occupied by german forces so they struggled till the end.

Yours,
Bernard

[Geto-Dacul]

B. Miclescu wrote :

QUOTE

So they fought for this dream either with Germany either against it.

Very idealistic ; it was impossible to re-create a Greater Romania by fighting with the Soviets against the Germans. Germany had no territorial claim on Romania.
There was no hope for Greater Romania ; only for N.Transylvania.

Getu'

[Korne]

I have chosen Japan. If they had attacked the Soviet Union instead of the United States, they would have changed the outcome of the war (no other Axis country would have been able to do that).
Even if they made huge mistakes, they were the most powerful and loyal German ally.

[dragos]

If we refer strictly to European theater, on the Eastern Front the second Axis army as strength, casualties and operations involved, after Germany, was Romania. I am a supporter of the idea that the fate of the war was decided on the Eastern Front.

QUOTE

And a fact: I think it is a similitude between the North Italian republic of 1943/1945 and Hungary 1944/1945 both were occupied by german forces so they struggled till the end.

It is ironically that even if only a part of Italian people supported United Nations, Italy was considered a co-beligerant state at the end of the war, while Romania, fully commited against Axis, was refused this status. But we can say this is the price for our contribution on the Eastern Front.

[Victor]

QUOTE

If they had attacked the Soviet Union instead of the United States, they would have changed the outcome of the war (no other Axis country would have been able to do that).

Sure and in the same time sacrifice the feeble chances they had at establishing their Empire at the expense of the UK and USA. :roll:

QUOTE

Even if they made huge mistakes, they were the most powerful and loyal German ally.

That is the problem. They did not actually act as allies.

[Bernard Miclescu]

QUOTE

If we refer strictly to European theater, on the Eastern Front the second Axis army as strength, casualties and operations involved, after Germany, was Romania. I am a supporter of the idea that the fate of the war was decided on the Eastern Front.

Of course, I agree with You for this point.

For the other point, Stalin knew that the Romanian people was for democracy and he never accepted Romania like "winner" like Yougoslavia for exemple. I even dare telling that the difference between Italy and Romania after the war is the difference between URSS and US&UK policy. It was the fate, fate that Churchill didn't knew better Romania and its potential. Not speaking about Roosvelt.

Yours,
BM

[mihai]

>Mr,inahurry

QUOTE

fighting an almost independent war.

It's wrong,Because Japan didn't conquest by anyone.
Please tell me the means of the word "independence war"?

[Bernard Miclescu]

independence war = making real the dream of centuries that one day Japan will be the Asia 's "boss" ???

BM

[Korne]

QUOTE

QUOTE If they had attacked the Soviet Union instead of the United States, they would have changed the outcome of the war (no other Axis country would have been able to do that). Sure and in the same time sacrifice the feeble chances they had at establishing their Empire at the expense of the UK and USA. :roll:

Their chances weren't feeble. If Japan hadn't acted harsher and more ruthless in the occupied territories than their Western predecessors and had granted more freedom to the peoples in these territories, they would have succeeded in establishing a sphere of influence in South-East Asia. It is the same mistake the Germans made in Europe by conducting an extermination policy vis-á-vis the so-called "inferior peoples" (let's not forget that the German troops were welcomed in 1941 by the Ukrainian peasants holding crosses, but soon they changed their mind).

QUOTE

QUOTE Even if they made huge mistakes, they were the most powerful and loyal German ally. That is the problem. They did not actually act as allies.

There is a difference between being an ally and a satellite. An ally would put its national interests first. This is what Japan did in 1941 and Romania in 1941 and 1944.
The main Japanese goal was to secure a constant flow of resources so badly needed by the Japanese industry. This was the reason why Japan chose to attack the US instead of the Soviet Union in 1941 (among other, such as the defeat of the Kwantung Army in the 1938 border skirmishes with the Soviets and the threat posed by the Chinese troops), which proved to be a bad decision on long term.
I have to rephrase my previous statement, and namely "Japan was [..] the most loyal ally". Loyalty goes as long as it serves the national interests. But Japan was Germany's most powerful ally (militarily speaking). Too bad (for both of them) that they didn't coordinate their actions and strategies.

[Victor]

QUOTE

Their chances weren't feeble. If Japan hadn't acted harsher and more ruthless in the occupied territories than their Western predecessors and had granted more freedom to the peoples in these territories, they would have succeeded in establishing a sphere of influence in South-East Asia.

No. Their chances were minimal. In order to maintain such an empire, they would need a powerful Navy that could have kept the US Navy at bay. You cannot enforce your power on an ocean, without a navy. The war in the Pacific was won on the sea.

QUOTE

There is a difference between being an ally and a satellite. An ally would put its national interests first. This is what Japan did in 1941 and Romania in 1941 and 1944.

Allies still need to collaborate in some way to actually be called allies. Bringing the US officially into the war was not the help Germany needed.

[Korne]

QUOTE

No. Their chances were minimal. In order to maintain such an empire, they would need a powerful Navy that could have kept the US Navy at bay. You cannot enforce your power on an ocean, without a navy. The war in the Pacific was won on the sea.

That's true, the war in the Pacific was won at sea. But I wouldn't say Japan's chances were minimal and their Navy not powerful. It took the US almost 4 years (and two A-Bombs) to make the Japanese kneel.
If the Japanese had had the peoples of South-East Asia on their side (and hadn't acted as an empire), the Allies would have faced a war of attrition.
However, speculating is pointless here. The Japanese gambled and lost.

QUOTE

Allies still need to collaborate in some way to actually be called allies. Bringing the US officially into the war was not the help Germany needed.

The US would have entered the war on the British side sooner or later.
De jure Japan was Germany's ally. It is arguable, as you pointed out, if they can be considered a de facto ally as well (maybe a subject for a new topic? :wink: )
On the other hand, Germany was not a better ally - Hitler didn't inform Japan of the Barbarossa plan either. However, after the attack on Pear Harbor, Hitler hurried (on 8th of December) to order the Kriegsmarine to open fire on US warships and the declaration of war on US followed shortly (on 11th of December). In fact, Hitler acknowledged that a situation of war had already been created by actions of the United States.

[Victor]

QUOTE

That's true, the war in the Pacific was won at sea. But I wouldn't say Japan's chances were minimal and their Navy not powerful. It took the US almost 4 years (and two A-Bombs) to make the Japanese kneel.   If the Japanese had had the peoples of South-East Asia on their side (and hadn't acted as an empire), the Allies would have faced a war of attrition

The fact that the Japanese were very resilient does not mean their chances were more than minimal. The 4 years are in fact about 2. After the Japanese lost the strategic initiative and most of their naval power it did not matter that they held on to that or that island. SE Asia was not the main battlefield of the war, so having the Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, Thais etc on their side would not actually help them too much.

[dead-cat]

QUOTE

No. Their chances were minimal. In order to maintain such an empire, they would need a powerful Navy that could have kept the US Navy at bay.

1941 roster:

CVs: 7
BBs: 11 (counting the Kongos as BB here)
CAs: 18
CLs: 20 (counting the Tenryu class as well)
DDs: 79

why didn't the japanese use the Yamatos and more than 2 of their Kongos in support of their troops at Guadalcanal. one shore bombardament by 2 Kongos took Henderson Field out of action for quite a few days and wrecked most airplanes, especially since only the Washington, North and South Dakotas were available and even that later in dec. '42 if i remember well?
why no more CA support and the extensive use of DDs?

well the answer is fuel. ALL japanese operations during WW2 were affected by rigid fuel consumption quotas, because the japanese fleet consumed more fuel than reached japan every month. thus, the navy could not be as effective as it should, especially since patrolling had to be kept at a minimum level, much to the delight of american submarines.