Less interest in the Pacific?

That is a pretty good comparison. It was also (as you mention), not an ongoing battle after battle, air-war, coupled with sea-war, coupled with land-war. It was sort of fits and starts and using names which most westerners went "huh?" when they heard the name of the battle or island, or whatever.

Remote and exotic in both sound and locale, hard for "joe-six-pack" to grasp, and none of his ancestors came from any place like that!

 

And the distances involved were vast and the army-navy-aaf had to cooperate whether they liked it or not.

 

Still, how? The Americans can produce their fleet with indigenous material, no importing needed. No shipyards needing to be built. No oil needing to be found and conquered. Just HOW is the puny little IJN (compared to the USN even after Midway as a loss) going to accomplish "controls the Pacific"? Germany won't do any better than they did historically, since when the Pacific Fleet was temporarialy hindered, the USN transferred a great number of major warships to the Pacific anyway. That would still happen, and they would be joined (as the were) by new and better USN ships all through 1942-45.

You are just not going to make this work.

 

Back to the original question, I think the lack of significant Japanese tanks takes many people's interest away from the Pacific Theater. Whether true or false, the European Theater (and Eastern Front) always had the movie images of sweeping tank attack and great tank battles in the desert, the hedgerows, or on the steppes.

 

This is rather O/T for which apologies, and I'm in no way meaning to sound flippant - but that's a very good summing-up of Malick's 'The Thin Red Line'. Made me wonder if that was the effect the director was aiming for in that much-argued-over movie....

 

Yes, we did get sidetracked.

Perhaps one of the reasons the ETO seems more popular, was cultural. Most of the US traces it's roots to somewhere in Europe.

 

I also think that the Pacific theatre gets less attention. I believe that there's more than one reason for this and that these reasons are not so easy to point out.
In my opinion one of these reasons is the simple fact that less movies (and today also videogames) are made who deal with the subject. I mean lets face it, most people at first become interested about WW2 through movies. The reason why the Pacific is less attractive to filmmakers is in my opinion that such movies are most likely less commercially successful simply because over here in Europe only very few people personally are connected with the Pacific and are naturally less interested in it.
I also have the impression that there has been no real reconcillation between Japan and the other involved Nations and that the whole subject therefore is considered more of a taboo and a "hot Iron", but I must admit that I'm not so good informed about this issue.
Maybe when the Pacific BOB comes out this will change. (and if it will be translated of course)

Grüße
Philipp

 

Interestingly, the most of the movies made in the US during WWII, were about the Pacific War:

Flying Tigers
Bombardier
Air Force
Wake Island
Task Force
Destination Tokyo
Sun Silent Run Deep
They Were Expenable
Back to Bataan
Sands of Iwo Jima
etc.......

 

Maybe Europeans are more interested in "the War in Europe" and the geographic knowlegde of most people is limited, finding on a map SAipan,Iwo Jima,Guadalcanal ,Leyte, Midway ......

 

Don't bet the ranch on that one.

 

I will second that Jaeger. I find The Indian Ocean and the Pacific and the bits in between really absorbing on Google Earth. Probably because I will never have the chance to visit them.

 

If I'm going to pick a reason, it would be this one. As simple as that.

The two theaters are apples and oranges to compare. They both have their own compelling and fascinating aspects. If someone's more interested in one more than the other, it may be more out of personal affinity to the location of battle or the branch of service that fought there, or even the nature of the weaponry used.

In Europe, most of the fighting happened in places that people have visited or can visit -- Or may have family or know someone from. In the Pacific, a lot of massive fleet battles happened in the oceans and islands that nobody hails from.

Prior to this thread I didn't even know that ETO is more popular than the PTO. I myself don't favor one over the other. I do have a favorite campaign which happens to be in the PTO, Bataan. But interest in Bataan doesn't mean I don't care about Bastogne.

 

Bit insulting that one.....Now point me to Afghanistan on your map theres a good fellow.

 

Than you also can say that the Western Front was irrelevent if you compare it with the Eastern Front. Between 75 and 80% of all Germans casualties were in East. The Allies didn't even have to do anything, sooner or later German will lose the War. Well I think that every battle counts. Some are more important than others but all of them led to victory. What if (I hate this phrase so much) Japanese had 10000 solders more on Iwo Jima or Okinawa. Of course, they will lose this islands anyway but what will be price, how many more lives will be lost. Only in Burma Japan lost 186000 death soldiers which is more then they suffer on Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima and Okinawa together (I take this from Wikipedia and Osprey so sorry if I'm wrong). China tied almost quarter of all Japanese divisions. And Russians smashed they army in Manchuria in just one and half week. Maybe this theaters were not so important like Central Pacific but you can't say that they not effect surrender of Japan. Maybe without them result will be same but also maybe price will be much higher. And if you ask solders who fought there they will probably say that for them Kokoda, Imphal, Kohima, Tarawa, Saipen or any other place was the "Hell on Earth". Bullet in Burma or China killed just same as those on Iwo Jima. And Japs were quite ready to fight until death on every place. Calling some theaters of war "sideshow" is quite insulting. Many good men died there. Don't say that their sacrifice is less worth.

 

It doesn't matter if the Japanese have more troops on Okinawa, Iwo or any other island. Eventually they lose. Every single time.

And not one of those islands had the ability to "bleed" the US into a pyrric victory.

Bravery, courage and sacrifice means nothing in the cold calculus of the war. Either the battles you are in contribute clearly to the defeat of your foe, or they dont.

 

And theres the bit I refer to as biting us on the bum....Omaha, Juno, Sword, Utah and Gold...All a bit of a sideshow to others in the big issue of things. That is a charge that can be laid at our door in much the same way by others. True or not.

 

Incorrect, as they were the entry way of the allies into the Western front. At that point, Germany was now fighting a true two front war. Once the allies busted out of Normandy, then everything going on in Italy was suspect. Once the US invaded southern France, then Italy DID become irrelevant.

Now think through your CBI theater and what impact a Japanese victory would have in the course of the war. Japan would need months if not years to exploit their victory. And in the meantime, the IJN is getting whittled down in the Solomons and when the US begins its steamroller offensive in the Central Pacific, there still wouldnt be Japanese air and naval units to stop them. And dont tell me that the troops from CBI will be sent to reinforce those islands, because they have to remain in India/China as occupation units.

As I said, there is no doubt about the bravery of the troops fighting there. But they after mid 1943, they were fighting for political reasons and not for a sound military rationale.

And remember one thing .... if Japan could barely support its units in NG and the Solomons in 1943, what makes you think they could support even larger units made up of CBI forces? As I have said before, the war in the Pacific was a maritime fight. Its the ability to support your troops in far flung locations that dictates the size and effectiveness of your forces.

 

IMHO there is no such thing as a "sideshow". While many on here may claim the CBI was a sideshow or any other area of the war. the cold fact is that those men were needed in the grand scheme of things. The Allies have to meet the Japanese head on in whatever theater they present themselves. Or the Germans. There is no pacifism in war.

 

You just dont get this Syscom..Its not whether some theatre or other was a sideshow or not...Its the perception that a theatre was...Shouting incorrect is of no value. Especially since it is incorrect. What you need to address is the view of others who may think so. Russians will and do look at our effort as being a sideshow. There you have it...Hindsight at its best. We know differently...Try convincing Millions of Russians. The same holds true for some where the Pacific is mentioned obviously. Or the thread would not have been started or still ongoing.

Shouting incorrect is a knee jerk reaction to a perception. You lose in the numbers game.

 

I didn't talking about eventually Japanese occupation forces in India or in Burma. In 1944 there was 5 Japanese divisions in Burma and only year later there ware 10 divisions because allies offensives. After China, CBI was the only place were significant number of Japanese troops were involved in fighting.