Less interest in the Pacific?

Yes, you are right and good point. I was responding to the post that suggested about war between "US v. Japan" and "US v. Germany" since Pearl Harbor was mentioned.

The war in China claimed over 1 million Japanese casualties, quite a bit of Japanese military blood was spilled in China, a good thing for the Allies that fought in the pacific.

 

This statement is far more offensive to the Asian CIVILIANS than Allied soldiers (both those who survived and perished). Women being raped, civilians who were just tossing out food to unfed soldiers and they get bayoneted and shot. Rape of Nanking, Battle of Manila (even before the allied troops arrived, the Japanese has been burning buildings and indiscriminately shooting civilians), Korea. And how about the KILL-ALL policy (Read: Palawan Internment Camp), SLAVE LABOR order from the higher ups? Add to that, the higher ups of the IJA didn't seem to have even RESPECT for their foot soldiers. In fact, the POW death rate of Imperial Japan tremendously exceeds that of Nazi Germany, even at the start of the Japanese attacks.

I am not in anyway trying to justify the A-bomb but having respect for Japanese soldiers who were raping, indiscriminately killing civilians, practicing waterboarding not only on soldiers but also on civilians, doesn't matter if they are children or women... are these acts to be RESPECTED?

And the funny thing about the IJA? They deny the atrocities done to the POWs and civilians yet being able to carry out an KILL-ALL (POW) policy? And compared to Germany who acknowledges their past mistake, Japan haven't formally apologized to the Asian nations its pillaged and when Asian nations bring it up, they say it didn't happen. Japanese school textbooks on ww2 only covers Pearl Harbor and A-bomb. Their invasion of China, Korea, Taiwan, Southeast Asia went down to "oblivion".

I have no grudge against present-day Japanese, but their government has to let their people know about this dark past of their history

Other than the A-Bomb, what do you know about the Pacific war? I guess just the a-bomb. Have you ever read about (or watched) the suffering of both Asian and European/American CIVILIANS under the Japanese SOLDIERS?

 

The Japanese struck us close to our heart hitting the Pearl Harbor area and were the greatest threat to our homelands if left to continue on their course......it took our most advanced weapon, the Atomic Bomb to defeat the Japanese who lasted longer than did other enemies. I would not think we would have spent so much men and our best weaponry on any kind of side show and there are many reasons the Pacific Theater is less covered. We as a people were more familiar with the cultures of Europe and had many who could speak the languages therein. Many less Americans had the skills necessary to communicate in the Japanese language and we should be thankful to those that translated for us in our own midst for our military. We were also less familiar with the many islands in the pacific that were held by the Japanese and were strategic in a stepping stone sort of way at bringing us their threat. I have long lamented how hard it is to find details of things in the Pacific when such things are more easily researched in the ETO. The people in my state will not forget the suffering of our troops on Bataan and how hard our soldiers fought, on behalf of all of us to accomplish our eventual safety. God bless those troops and those that carry on today in the same traditions keeping us here safe at home......where perhaps we are the "side-show" to their greatly appreciated contributions!

 

Thats not totally true. The Japanese aggression was well reported in the US media. There was a lot of sympathy from the US public for China. And it showed as the primary reason for the deteriorating relations between the US and Japan was over its China policy.

 

to me by the looks of this thread alone there is alot more interest in the Pacific than the Atlantik .................

 

Would you call dropping the world's first and second atomic weapons in the PTO a sideshow? Seems to me that stole the show entirely. Many lessons were learned in the PTO and applied to the ETO such as amphibious assaults. Taking Islands back such as Guam, Tinian, Saipan, Iwo Jima, Chi Chi Jima from the Japanese and the major sea battles such as Midway, Leyte Gulf, and Coral Sea were and are indeed a far cry from a side show. The Holocaust in China is taboo subject it seems. Not too much is heard about the brutalization of the Chinese, instead we are pounded with images of the Jewish Holocaust. Maybe there needs to be more discussion about the PTO. I am game!!

FT

Also, my post was in response to bOnedOme.. I quoted the wrong thread..

 

There is a fine thread about IndoChina going on for a start. Other chapters deserve to be developped. For instance the Dutch Indies, the Free French fleet (I started a thread about the Triomphant a while ago for instance) , The Australians, Burma, Singapore, Hongkong etc... If there is interest I have info about New Caledonia too.

 

Depends how you define longer and enemy really.
Germany Sept 1939 to May 1945 (5 years 8 months)
Japan Dec 1941 to August 1945 (3 years 8 months)

 

Well, for those of us in the United States it's:
Japan: December, 1941 - September, 1945
Germany: December, 1941 - May, 1945

Just off the top of my head,

In the west there has always been a distinct lack of published work from the Japanese veterans. Unfortunately, Japanese veterans were following an old tradition that defeated troops did not talk of there battles. Luckily a few decided to break this tradition and most published works were from aviators and sailors, but of few were from IJA troops. Where as, there is a wealth of first person accounts from the German veterans of all their armed services. This fact alone made it easier for westerners to understand and identify with the Germans, as opposed to the relatively little understood Japanese troops.

Further,
My opinion is that the British lacked a popular "redemption" for there early losses in the Pacific. For them, there was no equitable "sinking of the Bismarck", "El Alamein", "Midway", or "Return to the Philippines". Although, their forces performed admirably in retaking Burma, it is often referred to as "The Forgotten Front", much akin to the US fighting in Alaska and the Aleutians. Perhaps, had the British had one outstanding victory in the CBI, the Forgotten Front would not be so forgotten. Also, it also does not help that the Americans shunted what British forces did make it to the Pacific into "secondary" or "support" roles.


Although, for me anyway, the Pacific War has always been, first and foremost, my main interest. It was only much later that I began reading about the European Front.

 

I can kind of see where the OP is coming from I guess.
I think there is more interest in the European theatre because people know more about it. The environment is more familiar. Town, house field town house field river bridge etc etc.
The Pacific is less familiar.
I have lived more than 10 years on Guadalcanal, and here is a headline..... There is very little jungle on Guadalcanal. What we have is equatorial rain forest, grasslands and coconut plantations and swamps, which is what would have been here in 1042 / 43. Jungle usually is seen just on the roadsides where creepers and small trees grow because there is enough sun to let them grow fast, much of the stuff that constitutes jungle is not native but has come in on logging equipment brought in from Malaysia, Philippines and other places. In the rainforest it is still hard to move, there is not much sun that comes through as the green canopy is high above where there is some sunlight.
That does not mean I am saying the environment is any easier to deal with because it aint, but it does create misconceptions, or generalizations, which are unhelpful.
I lived in Papua New Guinea also and spent time in Vanuatu (New Hebrides), New Caledonia, Fiji, Kirribati (the Gilbert and Ellice Islands), East Timor. Each place is very very different.
I guess too why the pacific remains unfamiliar today is because there is just so much of it and the vast majority is the pacific ocean and that is very very empty.
When the war ended and the troops went home these places reverted back to what they were, small back water towns, ringed by the vast emptiness of the pacific ocean.

 

Yes, LRusso216, I have also tried to explain the difference between rainforest and jungle a number of times as the generalization of all bush in the Pacific as jungle drives me crazy.

I read the following on wikipedia and it helps me rationalize the misappropriation of the term.

"As a metaphor, jungle often refers to situations that are unruly or lawless, or where the only law is perceived to be "survival of the fittest". This reflects the view of "city people" that forests are such places." Jungle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess all that extract is relevant to whole experience of the allies who fought through the Pacific campaigns.

 

That's quite a curiculum, you don't meet people that often who have visited all those places. Most people can't even spot them on a map. What languages do they speak in Vanuatu? Is it still billingual (French and English as it used to be some years ago?)

 

Yes Skipper, Vanuatu is still bilingual, a not entirely happy hangover from the old colonial condominium.
Tourism is pretty big in Vanuatu and most of them are Australian and New Zealanders so the Ni-Vanuatu speak English for them.
There are still some French there and I guess a lot visit from New Caledonia so the Ni-Vanuatu speak French for them.
Then there is the local lingua franca - Bislama - which is increasingly popular.
Most of the print media there is in English although the same paper will run stories in French and bislama.
I think most of the teaching is done in French
I have attached a picture of the war memorial that looks over Port Vila harbour. It is a simple memorial, placed there after world war 1 and joint dedicated to the French, English and few Ni-Vanuatu who served and died in both world wars.
View attachment 13937

 

Which can explain to most people why the British tend to focus more on the war in Europe than the war against Japan. The British fought the Germans for 2 years longer and they were much closer than the Japanese, the Germans were also a direct threat to the UK public ie the Germans bombed the UK but the Japanese did not.

 

My two cents worth,

Duration,With the generally accepted start date December 1941 (my apologies China) for the Pacific war, there is simply more history to explore in europe as opposed to the PTO.

Participation,

All four of the major players (British Commonwealth, Germany, USSR and USA) of WWII acted on a grand scale in the ETO. A large cast of interesting 2nd string players like France, Poland, Italy and Finland had pivital parts to play. The interest of important neutrals ( Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and Ireland) was always a factor. Even the minor actors in the Baltic and Balkans added spice to the mix. In the PTO, again with apologies to all, it was primarily a war between Japan and the US. I intend no disrespect to Chinese, Indian, Austrailian, New Zeelander's or any of the other native peoples affected, but the ebb and flow of the Pacific war was dictated by the actions of either Japan or the US.

Participents View of History,

If we accept that Japan and the US were the major players of the PTO, then their view of history has an effect. Japan both literally and figuratively dumped their martial past into Tokyo Bay. The US is a little more complicated. We like our history yes, but we do not wallow in it. We like it up on a shelf where we can occasionaly gaze upon it, or show it off to a guest, but otherwise out of the way day to day. We are often more concerned with our perception of our history, rather than its details. I suspect that being an immigrant nation has something to do with this. A immigrant makes the deliberate choice to discard much of their own history, for a future yet unwritten.

For many native peoples of the area, they rely upon the oral traditions as much as the written. For colonial peoples a sence of confliction, were they fighting for the emipre or there own freedom. For the colonial powers the loss of empire often dwarfed the memory of battles fought. This leaves Australia and New Zeeland. They have much to be proud of, but their populations are so small (relatively) that their history does not resonate as well as it should.

Scale.

The ETO produced vast land armies. Large armies need many, many people. On the eastern front perhaps as much as 3 million men or more at any given moment were clutched into close combat for years on end. Corps, Armies and Army Groups manuvered around each other. In the PTO a large naval battle might less have then 100,000 people counting both sides. Land battles were usualy on the scale of Regiment/Bridade or Division.

Accessability,

For the historian or the tourist it is far easier to tour a ETO battlefield than it is for the Pacific. They have large, easy to see landmarks and monuments, Nice hotels and good resturants nearby. You could place nearly anyone other than an expert on any island with a jungle or rainforrest and tell them it is Guadelcanal and they would not contradict you. Same goes for any patch of ocean. Only Pearl Harbor or Mt Suribachi have iconic landscapes known generaly.

The Holocaust,

Japan's occupation was a terribly cruel thing to endure, but Nazi tryanny was a whole different level of madness. Organized and nearly machine like, it mezmerises in a way difficult to explain. There have been warlord nations like Japan in the past, and will likely more in our future, but one who does not only to conquer a people, but erase their existance as well is something we have not seen for a long time.

I have not read the entire thread, so no doubt others have made many of the same points as I and better too, but then as you all know I really hate when the facts get in the way of my opinion

 

Belasar, nice summary, but you over looked a couple things;

1) The second world war started in Manchuria in 1931.
2) A second holocaust occurred in Asia. The Japanese conduct towards the Chinese in particular was ghastly.

And your right about the geography of the PTO (and CBI). Mostly unknown before the war, most battles were a brief headline, followed by relative obscurity postwar and remembered mostly by the participants and no one else.

 

Thank you for the kind comment.

With respect to your first point, you are correct on technical terms, but if you ask 100 High School teachers when did the war in the Pacific begin? 90% or more will say Dec. 7th 1941. For the man on the street, if they know, it approaches 100%. Only to the people of China and Japan, and purist's, does an earlier start date have meaning. It is 'generaly' accepted that WWII in Europe began on Sept. 1 1939, but ignores both the Spanish civil war and Italy's empire grab in Africa. Both acts had a profound effect on the course of the war in europe. It would seem that an earlier beginning to WWII in the ETO also has merit, but our collective perception remains Sept. 1, 1939.

Your second point is true as well. Once again though we bump up against perception. the Asian Holocaust had a different, more conventional feel to it compared to Europe. One of the largest causes for death was famine and exposure. Japan grabbed everything of value they could. This was a fairly common practice through out humanity's past. There were deliberate acts of murder such as Nanking, and the use of germs and bacteria as agents of death, but the Nazi death machine had a near clockwork precision to its operation.

The average Japanese held his asian neigbors in contempt, and felt a strong sense of race hate for them, yet Japan as a nation had not made the leap to the idea that they had forfited the very right to live as the Nazi's had done to so many. You could live within the Japanese Empire as a second or third class citizen so long as you accepted your place within it without complaint. To resist meant savage reprisal's. The fate of occupied peoples worsened as that of Japan itself delined. The harder the Allies squeezed the Empire, the harder the Empire squeezed its subject races. The Nazi's made a deliberate decision to expend valuable resources to accomplish a single goal, the absolute elimination of peoples deemed not worthy of life.

Nazi Germany left vast detailed records, reels of film footage, stacks of pictures and of course the vast monuments of their cruelty, the Concentration Camps themselves. Japan left little of this. Germany was seen as an advanced, modern and cultured society. To do as they did seemed unthinkable, only savages would do such things. Japan's Empire was not viewed in the same manner by their contemparies. Allied propaganda had a far more racist tone towards Japan compared to Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy.

I do not dispute your points, they are valid, but it is the perception of them that matters in the attempt to answer the OP's original question. What is the old saying 'when the truth is in conflict with the legend, print the legend'.