Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_iwelqqq wrote

[deleted]

−19

Silver_Channel_3112 t1_iwempbl wrote

Right, 1941 to 45 was “the end”

13

Moody_GenX t1_iweouf2 wrote

Technically not wrong, we ended that shit.

7

KiaPe t1_iweyh8h wrote

The rest of the world must not be awake yet.

No one except an American who has never been outside the American narrative bubble thinks America won or ended the war. Not Australians, not Chinese, not anyone in mainland Europe, and certainly not any Russians. Did America help? Of course. Did they win the war? No.

America's ascent as an economic power came largely because America lost so few young men, and suffered no economic damage whatsoever during the war.

It was weird seeing Americans react to countries that finally had rebuilt their economies and populations from the destruction of WWII overtake America in productivity and innovation in the latter half of the twentieth century. Because Americans had this fantasy that the only country not devastated by WWII somehow had some special power or spirit instead of lucky geographical happenstance.

−11

Swagasaurus-Rex t1_iwezakp wrote

The war in the pacific was won by Americans.

Sure, China sacrificed much but they did not defeat the Japanese Navy.

10

WorshipNickOfferman t1_iwf24nl wrote

Or we had a massive population and massive industrial capacity and essentially supplied the Allies with vast amounts of war material. Don’t kid yourself into thinking WWII goes different without American involvement.

5

Moody_GenX t1_iwf7uq8 wrote

Brother, you Europeans would be speaking German if it weren't for American involvement. We all won it together but it ended favorable once the US got involved. Our ascent to as an economic power has nothing to do with this conversation. We all know what happened to our economy afterwards. Do we kinda suck at being an economic power, I'd say yes but no amount of hate for our country will change facts.

4

WorshipNickOfferman t1_iwnq609 wrote

Things were really dark in Europe in 1941. The UK was holding out, and German really would have struggled to actually invade that island, but the only major combatant still standing other than the Commonwealth was the Soviets. But for Hitler being dumb enough to break the non-aggression pact and invade the Soviet Union, Hitler could have sat back and economically strangled the UK. That war goes really different if the US doesn’t join.

1

BarelyEvolved t1_iwepwis wrote

Yeah, its not like the US Navy didnt have to hold down an entire theatre of war by themselves for almost two years or anything.

11

KiaPe t1_iwez1ql wrote

The Indian Army had 2.5 million soldiers fighting in the Burma campaign alone.

The fantasy that the slap fight over colonial island possessions that the American Empire and the Imperial Japan were engaging in was somehow a large part of the overall War in the Pacific is bizarre.

Millions and millions of people from all over the world were fighting there. The US fought Japan over some islands, and carpet-bombed a civilian population, and lobbed Atomic bombs at civilian targets.

America should revel in its actual area of competence: manufacturing and extraction of natural resources in its geographically privileged location. (Of course, it has given up on manufacturing because paying attention to narrative fantasy matters more than protecting national interests apparently.)

Instead it creates this weird narrative about fighting for freedom, that people of the Pacific, under the thumb of competing empires sees as utterly bizarre. The US committed genocide of everyone over 10 years old in the Philippines simply to deny them sovereignty, because the US and Japan were fighting for Empire and control.

The US invaded a sovereign ally in Hawaii, for Empire and control.

And even after WWII was over, the US spent the next 30 years fighting for Empire throughout Asia. The end goal was not peace, or freedom. It was Empire and control.

−7

BarelyEvolved t1_iwf2p8v wrote

The islands were only fought over for area denial. The US Navy was trying to contest the entire Pacific ocean.

The Burma campaign was only won in 44, im talking about the US Navy being the only real force conducting offensive operations or contesting the Japanese in the pacific from 41 to 43.

In terms of straight manpower i'm pretty sure the Allied forces in the pacific were pretty much carried by India.

5

bearsnchairs t1_iwf4g9b wrote

By 1945 the US had 3.6 million personnel across the Navy, Marines, and Army in the pacific. China had over 10 million though. China probably takes the cake in terms of numbers.

5

BarelyEvolved t1_iwf4w6m wrote

I dont really count China in terms of allies, because of the civil war it was a White china v Red China v Japan and who was doing what and to who is confusing.

2

bearsnchairs t1_iwf60ot wrote

That is odd. China was certainly one of the allied powers. Hell they were on of the parties that issued the Potsdam Declaration.

5

BarelyEvolved t1_iwf7ktj wrote

Im not saying they didnt matter, its just that when I think about China in WW2, I personally put them in thier own sub category in my mind.

I do the same thing with Scandinavia(and screw you nordics, I include Finland).

There was just so much going on that wasnt overt battles that I put them in a different mental sub category.

1