BarelyEvolved t1_iwepwis wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in TIL that the civilian sailors of the U.S. Merchant Marine had a higher casualty rate during World War II than any branch of the armed forces. by p38-lightning
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments