Less interest in the Pacific?

Hey guys, it has become quite evident to me while studying WWII that the Pacific theater is clearly of a lesser interest to most people than the war in Europe. And it is often overlooked when discussing most important battles and timelines.

Viewing this timeline is what provoked me to make this thread:

World War II: Timeline: The Road To Disaster - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

As a timeline for the Western war it is not bad, but it only contains 3 Pacific references.

A simple Google search will prove my point. When you search "WWII Pacific" you get 701,000 results. However, when you search "WWII Europe" you get 4,580,000 results. On this very forum the "War in Europe" section has 2,000 more posts than the "War in the Pacific" section.

I can only assume this is because the Germans posed a greater threat and the war machines they produced are of greater appeal. In the US, one might think the focus would be more heavily on the Pacific, as the US was certainly the forerunner in defeating Japan.

Just thought it was interesting.

 

TBH, the Pacific war was pretty much a sideshow. From the get-go it had pretty much only one concievable outcome - Japan runs out of steam after a few months, then the USA sledgehammers various tiny outposts into submission one at a time. Sort of as if the war in Europe had been fought only by East Prussia. When every pivotal battle ends up as 'and if the US had lost, it could have delayed the outcome by up to 3 months' it's hardly surprising it fails to seize the interest as much. Not helped by the fact that so much of the fighting happened on the Chinese mainland, meaning the archives are less complete, less accessible by the westerners who tend to dominate this forum, and don't have the same personal/family significance.
It was a hugely complex and demanding theatre of battle, but even at the time it was obvious that the war would be won or lost in Europe, and Japan would be mopped up by whoever was left standing afterwards.

 

Theres also the case that when 1 or 2 of us brits have raised it we have been frowned on in some threads for having audacity to think we were even involved.. See pacific sub section burma etc on this forum.

 

With all due respect to your right to your own opinions, calling the Pacific Theater a side show shows no respect for the men and women who fought and died there, the many countries that were oppressed by Imperial Japan or a great understanding of military history. How can you describe as a side show, a theater of operation that gave us (i) the Bataan Death March, (ii) the horrors of Okinawa, Iwo Jima and every other island that the United States had to conquer in order to drive the Japanese back to Japan, (iii) the Rape of Nanking and all of the associated fighting throughout China, (iv) Midway, (v) Guadalcanal, (vi) Wake, (vii) Bougainville, (viii) Tarawa . . . . need I go on?

Also I dispute your contention that the war would be won or lost in Europe. I believe that the USA directed early efforts at Europe in part because it wanted active allies in the destruction of Imperial Japan and none of its allies could focus on colonial territories with Germany looming near their respective homelands. The Pacific Theater was not a sideshow it was just farther away and only the USA and Australia could really focus on it. Indeed, if it were a sideswow that could easily be mopped up after Nazi Germany was destroyed, why would the USA have dropped two atomic bombs on Japan rather than invade it?

I do hope that you will respond to this, as I find your position untenable and unsupported and would really like to know how you can substantiate it.

 

A sideshow?... that hurts. Don't tell that to any of the Battlin' Bastards who suffered because it was a "sideshow"

 

Whoa... I can see a lot of emotion coming out of this one. There are vets here who served the theatre bone.. So choose your words carefully.. They have our respect here. I do though acknowledge china and your views therin.

 

If the term "sideshow" had been applied to the small section of the PTO called the CBI, then I would agree. The China Burma India theater was a sideshow, but to the PTO which wasn't.

Those who participated in any of them would surely not call their sacrifices and efforts a "sideshow", as well they shouldn't. That the history books give that section in China, et.al. such short shrift, is the problem there. The only thing that gets air and ink there are the AVG (Flying Tigers).

 

It's all a matter of perspective I guess... ignorance comes to mind, and lack of descretion. With all due respect to our veterans who valiantly served in the Pacific theatre, thank you. I have a heart felt passion for the Marines and War dogs who served in Guam.... no where near a sideshow in my mind - more like "the show" if you ask me. If I offended anyone, I'm sorry. I'm trying to maintain that level of respect through words, and sometimes I have a harder time performing that

special

 

Its not fair to label the pacific as less important. Sure the Indonesia and Island campaigns didnt have thousands of tanks involved but they had their own kind of Epic to them. The struggle against an enemy who had months to turn small places into underground forts, the jungles where a bayonet could be waiting in a bush... the list goes on.

The CBI by no means was a sideshow. If you look at a map from 1944 you can see how badly China was doing and the stedy advance of Japan. What if Japan had access to the most populated land on Earth? India to, same case.

 

Well said totenkhopf. Im always interested in cause and effect.. But once the shooting starts i have no problems in seeing who is who. I am though interested in how japan went from allie to bad guy especially where my own nation is concerned.. As many political shenanagins as in europe before the war and as many stages where things could have been met or stopped.

 

Sideshow or not, I'd like to take the opportunity to salute and remember these men. To them it was The Show.

(click for bigger)





Rest in peace. Thank you.

 

I said this in my "new member" post, but I think it might be relevant here. I have a hard time meshing WWII-meaning I think of WWII as the war against Hitler. Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, seems like something that just happened while we were in a war with Hitler. (That's not at all meant to be disrespectful, dad served in the Pacific, this is just my perception of events) The war in the Pacific just seems like it's own entity and not part of WWII. I"m now finally starting to mesh all the time lines together.

 

My contribution.

Visiting the US Military Cemetery was one of the greatest things I have experienced.

Many people read about the battles in the Pacific, but here is the human cost of it.

It puts things in perspective.

 

Japan never had the capacity to invade, occupy and then exploit India.

The war in the Pacific was decided in the NG/Solomons where the IJN was destroyed.

And once the USN seized the Mariana's, essentially anything that happened south of those islands became irrelevant (regardless of the political issues in liberating the PI).

In all honestly, the CBI and Aleutions were side shows of limited strategic importance beginning in 1943.

 

But nobody knew the fate of India in the starting months of Burma, that is the terror of not having forsight during the war. What if the Nationalists had surrendured and Japan installed a Puppet government in their place. What if said puppet formed a military from its over 600 million population? IJN ships made in Chinese ports by Chinese workers......

Knowing the results of the war we might deem it less important. But it was one of those things where "fate was in the balance"

 

For me, I like to learn about the history in the Pacific more than Europe. I suppose it could be due to the Marines playing a large role in that theater [I'm a huge Marine supporter]

To call it a "side show" is completely insulting, not only to World War 2 veterans who sacrificed everything and put their life on the line, but to those who love the Pacific theater in World War 2.

I only hope you meant something different by saying that, as you would be extremely ignorant to think that it was a Side Show in WW2.

 

Well it is only natural that the war in Europe gets the most attention with over 90% of all WW2 casualties having been dealt there. But the war in the Pacific was still significant, and in general I believe it gets plenty of attention.

One war which however gets way too little attention is the Korean war, which is sad really as it was quite a struggle.

 

one of the most insightful posts i have read on the forums tote... Stripping away the emotions and hindsight is not something we are all capable of.. Me included.