Meh, if it wasn't for "America", they'd speak Japanese all over Korea, parts of China and Indonesia, a base in Okinawa doesn't sound too bad for an occupation following WW2.

[–] uralsolo@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

80% of the Japanese military was being slowly routed in China while America was hopping between islands and building genocide bombs. The American conflict with Japan is better understood as the inevitable clash of two empires expanding into the same place, rather than some kind of rescue of the Koreans, half of whom are still under American occupation.

[–] Gsus4@feddit.nl 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

An oil embargo, lend-lease over the Himalayas and the Pacific war culminating in Japan's surrender helped China repel Japan a lot more than 20%, but sure "death to murica".

[–] Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net 21 points 1 year ago

but sure "death to murica"

Yes. Now you get it.

[–] uralsolo@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You seem to be under the impression that I think America deserves 20% credit for dislodging the Japanese Empire. I'm sorry for giving you this mistaken impression, because in truth America deserves 0% credit for doing it. America did not defeat the Japanese Empire and liberate the former imperial holdings, they simply captured it for themselves instead.

Also the effectiveness of lend-lease and other actions taken by America to weaken their imperial rival economically are greatly overstated.

[–] Gsus4@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well, ok then, you can go back to "death to murica", I'm sure it will help inform your worldview fantastically.

PS: for anyone else: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ichi-Go and https://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/31/opinions/china-wwii-forgotten-ally-rana-mitter/index.html

[–] zephyreks@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

Ichi-Go was pretty futile tbh. It accomplished its strategic goals, but strong Communist control in the countryside led to a drawn out guerilla war that stretched Japanese supply lines to their limit.

Chaing Kai-shek was right in assessing that, by that point, the greatest threat to KMT rule was the Communists rather than the Japanese. That's why so much of his forces were tied up with the Communists rather than against the Japanese.

[–] zephyreks@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

Lend-lease over the Himalayas was rather futile and happened more of political reasons than for strategic value.

As for the embargo? It's a byproduct of US war profiteering given that Japan imported something like 70% of their iron, 80% of their oil, and 90% of their copper from the US in 1939.

The Pacific War is a valid point insofar as it forced Japanese industrial capacity to focus on naval strength rather than land arms, but it's a rather misguided one given that a huge chunk of Japanese forces was stuck in China locked in a stalemate, which made the Pacific Theater far less contested than it otherwise would have been (notably, this meant that Australia was safe from Japanese occupation because Japan lacked the resources to invade Australia).

[–] TheBroodian@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago

I think you mean if it wasn't for the Soviet Union and the people of the Korean and Chinese resistances

[–] zephyreks@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

In what fantasy land are you living in? By 1941, Japan was locked in a stalemate and slowly getting whittled down by the sheer number of bodies China could throw at the problem. In 1944, Japan's Ichi-Go operation showcased the futility of Japanese offensives: despite Japanese strategic successes, China could fight an asymmetric guerilla war and stretch out supply lines even while the Nationalists and Communists were themselves stuck in an unsteady balance of power. By 1945, the USSR had an army large enough to rout any Japanese occupation in mainland Asia and technology that was simply superior to what was available to Japan.

Allied efforts to supply China over "The Hump" were costly and largely ineffective, delivering just 351 machine guns, 96 mountain cannon, 618 antitank rifles, 28 antitank guns, and 50 million rounds of rifle ammunition between May 1942 and September 1944 (Taylor 2009).

Did the US play a role in the Pacific Theater? Absolutely. Would the Japanese have won if the US hadn't gotten involved? I doubt it.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it wasn't for America, the mainland areas would likely be called former soviet nations.

[–] Gsus4@feddit.nl 4 points 1 year ago

I'm assuming here that the US hadn't embargoed Japan and stayed out of WW2. Probably Japan+Germany would have defeated a lone overstretched USSR.