Who were tougher soldiers in WW2: Germans or Japanese?

Wolf's lair wrote:

Both German and Japanese soldiers fought in absolute atrocious conditions, conditions that many soldiers in the armies of today would mutiny over. This is most likely due to ideology and general toughness. The Germans had to protect Europe from Communism that was their drive.

The Japanese I'm not too sure on, the pacific theatre is something I'm not too knowledgeable on. I don't want to quote history channel rubbish because I only use reliable sources.

What was the Japanese motivation that achieved such bravery in the battlefield?

So when they were fighting, who were they fighting? And why do you think the conditions for one were better or worse than the other?

Charles Bukowski wrote:

Germany historically has always had the best army (WW2 and prior), top to bottom. Leadership, rank and file, discipline, tactics, strategy, logistics, etc.

Japan had the most brainwashed soldiers. Never surrender. Die before surrender. That was the culture. That's why we had to drop two freaking nukes on them before they gave up. Damn!

If Germany always had the best Military from top to bottom, how come they lost both World Wars?

Answer: They bit off more than they could chew. They were stronger than their foes in the beginning but couldn't seal the deal after Hitler declared war on America. It seems their leadership, tactics and strategy weren't prepared for a long and total war. The Japanese were guilty of the same.

HappyJack wrote:

Charles Bukowski wrote:

Germany historically has always had the best army (WW2 and prior), top to bottom. Leadership, rank and file, discipline, tactics, strategy, logistics, etc.

Japan had the most brainwashed soldiers. Never surrender. Die before surrender. That was the culture. That's why we had to drop two freaking nukes on them before they gave up. Damn!

If Germany always had the best Military from top to bottom, how come they lost both World Wars?

.

I'm glad you asked that question.

The answer is: it took the whole world to beat them, including the vast resources of the USA. DUH!!

Okay. Every nation had cowards and every nation had heroes. They had men with conviction, men who were cruel. All men are essentially tough when armed. So, the correct answer is all men.

A better question would of been the most efficient fighting men. Which various across each theatre and timeframe. Did you know the US first foray into battle in Africa resulted in a humiliating defeat and almost half the troops experiencing some form of battle shock. Read about it. They performed embarrassingly bad. And later in the war in both theatres, they performed with grit and heroism abound.

/thread.

General Lloyd Ralston Fredendall was the general who got his butt kicked by Field Marshal Erwin Rommel at the Kasserine Pass.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower relieved General Fredendall and replaced him with General George S. Patton, Jr. This was a major turning point for the morale for the American fighting forces in Africa who went on to victory there and in Sicaily and Italy. Although Italy was a blood bath for all, Americans and Allies and Germans and Italians.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

[quote]DanM wrote:

Japanese holdouts who did not surrender until the 1970s.

https://historyofyesterday.com/never-surrender-they-fought-in-world-war-ii-for-japan-until-the-1970s-a557eb929c05

These guys were like the Trumpers today who refuse to admit that their Orange Boy lost.

You think there is zero chance the election was stolen?

Charles Bukowski wrote:

HappyJack wrote:

If Germany always had the best Military from top to bottom, how come they lost both World Wars?

.

I'm glad you asked that question.

The answer is: it took the whole world to beat them, including the vast resources of the USA. DUH!!

Admiral Yamamoto was a military attache for Japan posted in Washington D.C. During his tenure he traveled across America and took note our of industrial capacity. He was impressed.

Upon returning to Japan and beginning to hear the drum beats to war he informed his superiors of what he observed in America and warned them Japan could not win a long war with America. The Emperor and High Command were arrogant and thought they could win the war in 6-12 months.

The German Admiralty warned Hitler the navy needed until 1944/45 to have enough ships to fight a world war. Hitler knew better and cast their advice aside.

Japan and German leadership was very arrogant. And while it's true it took the whole world to defeat them it was because those two countries were geared up for war while the rest of the world was still recovering from the Great Depression.

When the wars began there was no one able to stop them immediately. They then occupied large parts of Europe and Asia.

So yes it took the whole world to beat them because they were all over the whole world.

usual garbage wrote:

German soldiers murdered a lot of civilians. That makes them very cowardly. Probably the most cowardly of any soldiers in the last century.

Members of the Soviet Army reportedly raped around 2,000,000 German women near the end and after WWII was already over. The Soviets also murdered quite a few civilians and notoriously murdered 22,000 Polish police officers (civilians) in 1940 and then later tried to get the Nazis to take the blame for this during the Nuremberg Trials. If you want to talk cowardly, that is pretty cowardly to execute police officers and then blame someone else for it.

Also, you may not know this (I only found out about it fairly recently), but the Allies acutely killed close to 70,000 civilians in France during WWII through bombing campaigns. The British also killed a couple hundred thousand civilians in Dresden near the end of WWII during an intense carpet bombing raid.

Wowswees wrote:

Okay. Every nation had cowards and every nation had heroes. They had men with conviction, men who were cruel. All men are essentially tough when armed. So, the correct answer is all men.

A better question would of been the most efficient fighting men. Which various across each theatre and timeframe. Did you know the US first foray into battle in Africa resulted in a humiliating defeat and almost half the troops experiencing some form of battle shock. Read about it. They performed embarrassingly bad. And later in the war in both theatres, they performed with grit and heroism abound.

/thread.

Not thread. The medical term, "Shell Shock, " is not a general description of a psychological condition, as we know now and didn't know during WW2 because there were not 3 dimensional multi-color m.r.i. in 1942 or 1943. Chronic fatigue, emotionally disturbed and military personnel who suffered from contra cue effect, a traumatic brain injury, all may have been labeled as shell shock or battle fatigue at that time. When a 155mm tank round explodes next to or near military personnel, contra cue effect is expected. Today, T.B.I. are separate from other issues. During n. Africa campaign, T.B.I. could not always be diagnosed.

Yeah. More a term for those that use it generically, but basically to underline the pis****g and shi****g that many of the GI’s resorted to haven been so green and terrified…

Funny that it was the British tanks that went into reverse all the way to Dunkirk at the start of the war - then they left on the Beaches for the Germans ….

Italians had the Romans in their history who basically defeated everyone ...

Ridgemont high wrote:

Funny that it was the British tanks that went into reverse all the way to Dunkirk at the start of the war - then they left on the Beaches for the Germans ….

Italians had the Romans in their history who basically defeated everyone ...

The Brits did enough to help evacuate 300,000 people from a surrounded position. The Germans outplayed the allies strategically. You should read a few books about the invasion of France. The allies expected the assault to come mainly in the north, it didn’t.

Like stated earlier - all soldiers have the scope to be tough/brave or cowardice. They are after all, all

Human.

Wowswees wrote:

See Papa Joe Stalin wrote:

Not thread. The medical term, "Shell Shock, " is not a general description of a psychological condition, as we know now and didn't know during WW2 because there were not 3 dimensional multi-color m.r.i. in 1942 or 1943. Chronic fatigue, emotionally disturbed and military personnel who suffered from contra cue effect, a traumatic brain injury, all may have been labeled as shell shock or battle fatigue at that time. When a 155mm tank round explodes next to or near military personnel, contra cue effect is expected. Today, T.B.I. are separate from other issues. During n. Africa campaign, T.B.I. could not always be diagnosed.

Yeah. More a term for those that use it generically, but basically to underline the pis****g and shi****g that many of the GI’s resorted to haven been so green and terrified…

U.S. military troops, 1942 & 1943 were no more green the usual. The term infantry actually means child soldier. U.S. has always sent teenagers into combat, still do. Field Marshal Rommel was a brilliant combat officer. From film Patton it is stated U.S. troops were weak and afraid. U.S. combat officers on the ground pre-Patton in north Africa were not as smart as Field Marshal Rommel. I do not like officers blaming enlisted men for officer failures. Officers lost to Rommel, not afraid or weak enlisted men.

Student of History wrote:

Wolf's lair wrote:

Both German and Japanese soldiers fought in absolute atrocious conditions, conditions that many soldiers in the armies of today would mutiny over. This is most likely due to ideology and general toughness. The Germans had to protect Europe from Communism that was their drive.

The Japanese I'm not too sure on, the pacific theatre is something I'm not too knowledgeable on. I don't want to quote history channel rubbish because I only use reliable sources.

What was the Japanese motivation that achieved such bravery in the battlefield?

So the Germans protecting Europe from Communism drove them to invade France? Pretty sure they made a turn in the wrong direction on that one. While Hitler hated Bolshevism I'm pretty sure there were some other motives. The holocaust was not driven by a hatred of Communism.

Germany did actually suffer a number of Red takeovers which were only narrowly fought off.

France was within an ace of going Communist. Italy and Spain the same. Much of Eastern Europe too. Even Britain suffered from a great deal of Communist led unrest.

There can be no doubt that were it not for Germany, the whole of Europe would have been Communist by 1945.

Italian, French, and English soldiers were the toughest. They didn't start any battles. They sandbagged and let the US G.I.s do all the dying for them.

HappyJack wrote:

Charles Bukowski wrote:

Germany historically has always had the best army (WW2 and prior), top to bottom. Leadership, rank and file, discipline, tactics, strategy, logistics, etc.

Japan had the most brainwashed soldiers. Never surrender. Die before surrender. That was the culture. That's why we had to drop two freaking nukes on them before they gave up. Damn!

If Germany always had the best Military from top to bottom, how come they lost both World Wars?

Answer: They bit off more than they could chew. They were stronger than their foes in the beginning but couldn't seal the deal after Hitler declared war on America. It seems their leadership, tactics and strategy weren't prepared for a long and total war. The Japanese were guilty of the same.

Germany had to declare War on The USA in WW2 as part of their treaty to help Japan, if Japan was at War with the USA, Just like if China tries to take back Taiwan, The USA has to go to War with China, There is NO CHOICE, We have a Treaty that says we must and if we did not Honor it, we would lose all Credibility with other Countries and Japan would be able To build its Military as Strong as Possible including Nukes, But China wont Invade Taiwan as they know the USA Military would quickly wipe them out. So nothing to worry about, in spite of reports they fly Planes over Taiwan Airspace, they wont try anything major as they know The USA has a Far Superior Military and it would not go well for China.

Thank you straight from U.S. State Department Mr. D.B. U.S. is not going to war over Taiwan. U.S. cannot defeat China. You talk about losing credibility. Losing to China would be a loss of credibility. All out war and you know what that means versus China is not worth it. Less than all out war against China is also not worth it.

Sorry Doug, but the treaty that Japan had with Germany only went into effect if in this case the USA had attacked Japan first. That didn't occur. So that treaty wasn't applicable. Hitler was hoping that Japan would be reciprocal and declare war on the Soviet Union. Japan was being neutral in regards to German/Soviet war and did not oblige. Der Führer made another "nail in your coffin" mistake.

See Papa Joe Stalin wrote:

When a 155mm tank round explodes next to or near military personnel, contra cue effect is expected.

Shouldn't there be some kind of helmet to deal with those shock waves? Like one with springs inside so the outside gets shook and the inside stays still.