The Revisionist Attitude Towards The Pacific Theater
 

I'm not referring to Japan's continued fingers-in-their-ears inability to take a cold hard look at their actions in the Second World War - that's another topic altogether.

What's been nagging me for years now is the revisionistic and belittling attitude many people have towards the Pacific Theater's overall importance in World War II. Namely, I've read a great number of comments describing it as a "side show" or as an "easy war" without providing any backing references. I can't imagine anyone reading a first-hand account of Tarawa or Okinawa and denying that some serious carnage went down there, or walking away thinking that the Marines weren't terribly brave, and just pushed over the Japanese without a fight.

I find it especially frustrating that, considering the number of massive naval battles that took place in the theater, and the importance of the submarine campaign, I've encountered many people on this forum who act like not a single battle of importance happened in the entire Pacific theater between 1941 and 1945. Seriously - Midway, Samar, Savo Island, Guadalcanal, Surigao Strait...nothing "interesting" happened there? I'm starting to feel like myself and a couple of others here are the lone "voices in the woods" when it comes to actively studying the war in the Pacific. More and more, the popular conception is that World War II was fought in the Atlantic, and later between the Americans and the Germans in June 1944 through May 1945, and everything else was "boring."

Maybe I'm just pissed off because my grandfather Herman Bergman was a signals intelligence officer during the war, and was basically left for dead in the Philippines when the war ended because his very existence was a secret. He went off to have 11 children, and never talked about the war much afterwords, but the fact that his contributions to the war effort have never been officially recognized has always been a sore spot for our family. I wonder how many other people have to deal with the frustration and lack of closure involved with having a "forgotten soldier" in their family?

http://i25.tinypic.com/2ldhhg4.jpg
You see that guy in the upper left of this photo? That's my great uncle Thomas Cadder, who was a nose gunner on a B-24 which crashed into the side of a mountain on Luzon. Nobody ever found the wreckage of the plane or the bodies of any of it's crew. It took more than 50 years for his home town to include his name of their World War II memorial. I'm sure all 10 of the men in this picture appreciate the fact they died fighting an easy side show.

And give me a break, people - the American submarine force fought an "easy war" because they suffered a casualty rate of "only" 22 percent? How condescending can a Fighting Keyboardist get?

well said:yeah:

I'm debating if i should use this opportunity "unplug" and let loose in very blunt terms how i feel about this subject, since you let the genie out of the bottle. But suffice to say, i hear you and i understand what your saying.



Agreed.

Naturally however, his post will fall on deaf ears.

A good look into the history books is all it takes to see that the Pacific Theater was no simple task. Even Ernie Pyle had to find that out for himself at some point - he died during the invasion of Okinawa. :-?

Not mine. Deaf, that is. I had two uncles at Pearl Harbor and it has been my regret since my thirties that I never got to hear all their stories.

When I saw World At War for the first time all those years ago I was offended by the lack of coverage given the PTO. Seeing it again more recently I realized that in some ways it really was a sideshow, at least where coverage is concerned. Given that there was constant fighting going on everywhere, the Pacific looks more like a patchwork - lots of planning and maneuvering leading to a handful of very bloody and vitally important battles.

I think that's the biggest problem in dealing with the Pacific war - most of the time not much was happening. Of course when things did happen, it was big big big!

Testify!

Don't EVEN get me started.

:)

The thing is, most people here (IE submarine fans), really don't care. Some reasons are slightly understandable, others not so much.

1.) For some (many?) here, if it does not involve their country, it is not worth the time to find out about it. There are some notable exceptional indivduals to this statement (whom I admire for not being like many others), but from what ive seen, of many, if it didn't involve their country, they are not interested. The PTO is seen as mainly a Japanese, and American thing, and a number of people here are from Europe. To some degree, i can understand this. If i was from Europe, id be focused (more) on the ETO too.

2.) PTO involves more reading then ETO, which has several movies attached to it. From saving Private ryan, to band of brothers, and Das Boot. These movies inspire people to find out more. The PTO has what? Windtalkers? Old black and white Clark Gable movies just don't peak the same level of interest.

3.) Blatant fanboism and willful ignorance. Point blank, this is like football fans. Your team sucks, mine is the best. I think its inspired by romance and myth surrounding Uboats. But more specifically in this case, "your guys couldn't have had it near as bad as my guys, therego your theater is crap!". I won't name names, but one user from Texas told me in a PM a few years ago, that US submarines in the pacific was "as signficant as the Lithuanian navy." and then summarized the US sub campaign in the pacific as: "Blah, blah, torpedo troubles, blah blah blah". I never forgot that.

I never forgot it, because I'd expect that from someone from Europe, but not from own of my own countrymen! It's one thing to, being aninformed person, having a theater preference. But its quite another to make that preference as an uninformed person. That's just ignorant, and willfully so if you don't devote enough time to study both theaters somewhat equally. But this isn't isolated to this individual, Its actualy fairly commonplace here on subsim.

I could probably rattle on, but i think those are the 3 big reasons why the PTO is shat on around here.

Not to mention the geography of it. It covers such a huge area of the world, filled with tiny islands that most people couldn't ever point out on a map. I think that has a lot to do with why people can't relate to the battles in the Pacific.

For the record, that wasn't me! I admit my preference in history is the Battle of the Atlantic, but my bookshelf also has Thunder Below, Clear the Bridge, Silent Victory and Shattered Sword on it. I don't favor one side to the exclusivity of others.

To be honest I think when it comes to this forum it is more of a want to be in the Atlantic in future Silent Hunter titles rather than any real revisionist history.

A comment that stuck with me to this day went somthing like "Silent Hunter 4 :rock:... In the Atlantic.... :rock:..... With U-Boats:rock:" Or something like that. Despite SH2 and SH3 being atlantic and mods out the rear end this year this user as well as others seemed to be unable to stand Silent Hunter going elseware.

It is far worse when people wanted SH5 to venture out into more modern territory. People crying about how it wouldn't be realistic even tho most people here have already changed history in the Atlantic and pacific 100 times over. Hypocritical and hard headed and perhaps that along with DRM is why Sh5 sucks so bad as well as its sales.

I wouldnt let it get to you. Its just gamers.

I will admit to being far more ignorant about the war in the Pacific than in the Atlantic and Europe. I know more than the average person, I guess, because I'm interested in WWII at all - but still.

Part of it for me is personal, as my father served in the ETO and not elsewhere. So did the one brother of his that I was around a lot as a child. So whatever personal stories and names and places I heard, were from the ETO.

And the part about popular WWII movies, miniseries & documentaries (some of which are very well done, and do create a sort of "emotional attachment") focusing on the ETO to the exclusion of, or in a way that downplays the importance of, the PTO - that's also a factor. I have seen some things that focus on the PTO but so far nothing that has revved up my interest in the way that, say, "Band of Brothers" did for the airborne infantry in Europe. I do not have HBO so saw nothing of "The Pacific" but expect I will see it when it comes out on DVD, and that may do what previous exposure to the subject via popular entertainment hasn't yet done.

There's also the fact that for Americans of European descent, there may be a lingering sense of connection to that part of the world that simply doesn't exist in the same way when it comes to the Far East and South Pacific.

However, I certainly hope that simply knowing more about the ETO, or being more interested in studying and/or "simming" that part of the war, doesn't lead to the assumption that this equates to a lack of respect for the sacrifices made by those who served in the PTO. Or for the importance of the PTO in the war effort overall. It certainly doesn't in my case. It's just not what I'm "into" right now. There are multitudes of worthy, important things I'm not "into" right now. Doesn't mean I don't think they're important, but there are only so many hours in the day to devote to satisfying one's curiosity about history (and everything else).

There are a vast number of things in this world I know far less about than the PTO in WWII, lol, but it doesn't mean I think they are unworthy of study or interest.

At any rate I am in the process of (slowly) downloading SH4 Gold, so I may be giving the US subs a try eventually. Who knows, I may fall in love with them too.

^^ That brings something to mind...


I don't have any connections to the war, other than what thoughts were evoked by all the books I absorbed as a kid. So for me it was an experience I could take in more as a whole without feelings one way or another. I was an empty vessel to the books I had opened. The biggest differences between the theaters in my mind are geographic.


I just asked a friend, as an outside source, which Theater comes to mind first and he said the European theater. For a couple of reasons:

1.) The war started in Europe
2.) The Japanese weren't famous for their submarines

Japan invaded China July 7 1937

USS Yorktown CV-5 sunk by I-168
USS Wasp CV-7 sunk by I-19

So two of the Four major CVs sunk by the IJN were by submarines.

Another small carrier could be added to the list:
USS Liscome Bay CVE-56 sunk by I-175
(But she was a jeep carrier and not a significant loss)

The Post War USN SSG(N) submarines (The Fleet Boat Conversions and purpose built Grayback/Halibut classes) incorprated design ideas from the I-400 class submarines namely the airplane hanger (used for Loon/Regulus missiles in the SSG(N)s). Not to mention the idea is still in use with the USN's DDSs that can be mounted on the hull of US SSNs to store Zodacs or Swimmer Delivery Vehicles.

Using a submarine to deliver a smaller submarine was pioneered by the IJN, the US and Russians use this in their DSRVs and SDVs.

That too is debatable.

I wasn't the one who said it, though. I posted the results of a quick and dirty experiment. *shrug* :DL


EDIT - Plausible deniability. I should be a politician. :har:


Sorry. Anyway, my buddy and I are discussing this right now on IM. Neither one of us know much about the naval war, and I had forgotten about Japan invading China. :-?

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was just commenting on how so few people seem to know that the fighting started in the Pacific years before the nazis invaded Poland.