I would describe Russia's contribution similar to that of a sports player who misses the entire regular season but then comes into the playoffs and makes a big shot to help his team win a championship. Yea, you can't deny the contribution and it's impact but you can't say they had the same impact as a player who played all season Long and helped get the team to the playoffs.
Also it most certainly is just opinion. You can think you're right and I'm wrong and you can state numbers and figures to back up your argument. But it's still just your opinion. I have stats and numbers to back mine up. So that's why I said agree to disagree but if you want to continue to discuss then here's my stats.
1. 400k+ US soldiers dead compared to 27k Australian. 17k of those Australians died in pacific and 9k died in Europe Africa. Yes population sizes = military aged men. But there is no comparison in terms of price paid by the US in both Theatres.
2. Russia went to war with Japan in 1945. They had a signciant contribution to the surrender of Japan but they did not fight 2 wars in 2 Theatres. Which was my original argument. My original argument which I stand by is the US fought 2 wars from 42 to 45. Russia did not until 45. And Australia and Britain do not match up in terms of contribution per the numbers above and below. US KIA in italy alone were not far off the entire KIA of Australia for the war.
3. The bloodiest battles of Pacific theatre. Almost All fought by the US. Okinawa, Iowa Jima, etc. Only counting casualties the US by far inflicted the most causlities on Japan (not counting China who only fought in china). 100k in Okinawa alone.
4. This is a bit controversial but almost all of the bombing campaigns on Japanese mainland were conducted by the US. Mostly.
5. Lastly, the US had all of the critical victories for the allies (before 1945) in the pacific. Midway, Coral Sea, Leyte Gulf etc. These are considered the decisive blows to Japan. Where either the Japenesr Navy or Air Force was effectively wiped out.
Oh and you're simply skewing numbers with your British contributions like Singapore. I live in singapore. I've studied up extensively on this battle. It wasn't even a battle. The Brits were expecting an invasion by sea and Japan came through Malaysia and effectively captured the city relatively intact. Very few British died in singapore. Almost all were captured. 5k casualties. 80k surrender. Big difference between 85k casualties.. nice try there. And the Burma campaign was made up of many nationalities. African, Indian, Commonwealth, etc. It was not 100k British casualties. Actual British casualties were far less. And actually more Chinese died than Commonwealth as well. Maybe you should be the one reading up and not just going on Wikipedia and just repeating what you read from the stats page?
Oh and you're simply skewing numbers with your British contributions like Singapore. I live in singapore. I've studied up extensively on this battle. It wasn't even a battle. The Brits were expecting an invasion by sea and Japan came through Malaysia and effectively captured the city relatively intact. Very few British died in singapore. Almost all were captured. 5k casualties. 80k surrender. Big difference between 85k casualties.. nice try there. And the Burma campaign was made up of many nationalities. African, Indian, Commonwealth, etc. It was not 100k British casualties. Actual British casualties were far less. And actually more Chinese died than Commonwealth as well. Maybe you should be the one reading up and not just going on Wikipedia and just repeating what you read from the stats page?
86K casualties is the accurate number, casualties include wounded, 28 thousand British (including empire) forces members were killed. That's still not an minor event.
You started by insisting the US was the only country to have fought "two wars" that claim is demonstrably untrue. You also claimed the US was the only country involved against Japan in any significant way, I dispute that.
Now the goalposts are shifting to the severity of invovement by casualty counts. But that's not the first argument that was made.
Yes the Burma campaign was not strategically vital in the sense of Midway or Tarawa or the America battles, but It was a massive morale victory and it tied up some 300,000 Japanese soldiers for the period of the war.
As far as casualties, the military deaths of the U.K. And British Empire (excluding independent dominions like Canada and Australia) was 380,000 which doesn't track far below ours
1- I specifically said killed in action. More Australians died total facing Japan, but that is because they were captured and died as POW, while in Europe they mainly served in the RAAF. 2- The Soviets fought the Japanese in 1939. Again, verifiable fact. And again, if length of engagement is the ultimate metric, then the Brits have the Americans beat in both fronts. 3- I am just going to post this here as a response to your "US contribution" argument
4- I think it's interesting that you think that the length of the war between the USSR and Japan in 1945 is indicative of its contribution, but that length doesn't seem to matter when comparing the US and the British Empire.
5- You should read up on the definition of casualties. Casualties include dead, wounded, missing or captured: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_(person)#NATO_definitions
6- Finally, you are moving goal posts. First you said that only the US fought in the two theaters. Now you are trying to find excuses as to why the British weren't that big a deal. And if the Americans were the ones involved in the most strategically important battles in the Pacific, the same is true for the Soviets in Europe.
As I said, there are many things where we can agree to disagree. We can disagree on what was the key thing that led Japan to surrender, or what part of the Pacific theater was more important, the islands or the continent. But it is absolutely false that the Australians were mostly focused on the Pacific, it is absolutely false that only the US fought on two theaters, and it is absolutely false that the British had no major part against the Japanese (and India was part of the British empire then).
I'm not arguing that the Soviet Union suffered the most. But almost all of those casualties were against Germany. The Soviet war against Japan was not declared until 1945. There was no ally that contributed to both wars as much as the US. Whether it was time, personnel, resources, etc.
I really don't understand how you can continue to argue for Russia when they didn't fight any battle until 1945. the US effectively wiped out the Japanese Navy and Air Force and crippled their entire war machine before Russia fired a single shot in Manchuria.
You say I'm moving the goal posts but I'm not. You're the one moving goal posts by continuing to grasp at stats that back up your argument. I've stuck by my original argument. While you have continued to try and find new arguments. First it was Russia, then it was Australia, then it was the UK. And now you're trying to use Russian total deaths as some argument? Which makes no sense. My original post clearly say Russia paid with blood. No one is denying their contribution in total. But they did not fight 2 wars. Im not the one moving goal posts. You are.
My argument summed up. Per my previous comments. It has not changed.
US vs.. Russia: Russia did not engage or declare war on Japan until 1945. They simply did not fight 2 wars. No matter what their contribution to Japan's surrender was. Commonwealth: the US provided more personal, resources and also won more critical and bloody battles than any Commonwealth country.
Anyways if it makes you feel better then you won. Good job. I tried to end this discussion comments ago but you continued to push. You're right, I'm wrong. Congratulations. You win the internet.
I've wondered about this a lot, and have spoken to many German's about this - not just their portrayal in movies but WWII in general. In my experience, I've noticed that they carry an enormous sense of shame about it. I obviously don't mean to suggest that they should have pride about unleashing Hitler on the world, but each time it comes up I'm surprised by the emotional burden that modern day Germans have over WWII. I don't at all mean to say "hey, you guys went a little nutty, killed millions and attempted a genocide...no biggy!" but at some point, you have to realize that you're not entirely responsible for what your ancestor's did. Never forget but maybe explore forgiving yourselves.
That sense of collective guilt has played a part in modern day politics as well...Germany has let in a million Syrian refugees that they probably (almost certainly) can't accommodate all of, but given their past actions towards minorities they're still trying to make amends and show the world that they aren't who they once were.
Conversely, and this is way more anecdotal because I haven't met nearly as many Japanese people (from Japan) that I have Germans, but I've never heard a Japanese person express any sort of war remorse. Maybe the bombs wiped out any Pearl Harbour guilt, but they seem polar opposites to the Germans that I've encountered.
The Japanese have a huge cultural aversion to criticizing their own kind.
And for years the ministry of education would reject textbooks for schools that referenced any Japanese war crimes. The Rape of Nanking was a topic that wouldn't be discussed in academia until the 1990s, until then if it was referenced at all it was explained away as propaganda.
The US Historian Stephen Ambrose once wrote that Japanese history on World War Two as according to Japanese education could be summarized as "one day, for reasons we don't understand Americans started dropping atomic bombs on us"
I think that you're probably right. Two years ago I spent 3 or 4 days with a couple of guys from Japan who were in Toronto on business. It's probably worth mentioning that both worked in the music industry and were rebel/rocker guys ie they had (Western) tattoos, long hair and were America-obsessed - so probably aren't the best examples of the typical Japanese person.
One night over drinks we were talking about samurais and history in general and eventually WWII came up. Again, it's probably not wise for these two guys to be held up as examples of Japanese knowledge and insight, but they had a pretty skewed view of WWII. In short - America was amassing an army to wipe out Japan, so in self-defence they attacked Pearl Harbour. The fact that they didn't invade and take over Hawaii was supposed to be a signal to America that they didn't have imperial plans and weren't a threat to America and that should have been the end of hostilities. America then broke the peace by declaring war on them, which forced them to expand their empire for defensive reasons.
I've wondered about this a lot, and have spoken to many German's about this - not just their portrayal in movies but WWII in general. In my experience, I've noticed that they carry an enormous sense of shame about it. I obviously don't mean to suggest that they should have pride about unleashing Hitler on the world, but each time it comes up I'm surprised by the emotional burden that modern day Germans have over WWII. I don't at all mean to say "hey, you guys went a little nutty, killed millions and attempted a genocide...no biggy!" but at some point, you have to realize that you're not entirely responsible for what your ancestor's did. Never forget but maybe explore forgiving yourselves.
That sense of collective guilt has played a part in modern day politics as well...Germany has let in a million Syrian refugees that they probably (almost certainly) can't accommodate all of, but given their past actions towards minorities they're still trying to make amends and show the world that they aren't who they once were.
Conversely, and this is way more anecdotal because I haven't met nearly as many Japanese people (from Japan) that I have Germans, but I've never heard a Japanese person express any sort of war remorse. Maybe the bombs wiped out any Pearl Harbour guilt, but they seem polar opposites to the Germans that I've encountered.
The Japanese have a huge cultural aversion to criticizing their own kind.
And for years the ministry of education would reject textbooks for schools that referenced any Japanese war crimes. The Rape of Nanking was a topic that wouldn't be discussed in academia until the 1990s, until then if it was referenced at all it was explained away as propaganda.
The US Historian Stephen Ambrose once wrote that Japanese history on World War Two as according to Japanese education could be summarized as "one day, for reasons we don't understand Americans started dropping atomic bombs on us"
I think that you're probably right. Two years ago I spent 3 or 4 days with a couple of guys from Japan who were in Toronto on business. It's probably worth mentioning that both worked in the music industry and were rebel/rocker guys ie they had (Western) tattoos, long hair and were America-obsessed - so probably aren't the best examples of the typical Japanese person.
One night over drinks we were talking about samurais and history in general and eventually WWII came up. Again, it's probably not wise for these two guys to be held up as examples of Japanese knowledge and insight, but they had a pretty skewed view of WWII. In short - America was amassing an army to wipe out Japan, so in self-defence they attacked Pearl Harbour. The fact that they didn't invade and take over Hawaii was supposed to be a signal to America that they didn't have imperial plans and weren't a threat to America and that should have been the end of hostilities. America then broke the peace by declaring war on them, which forced them to expand their empire for defensive reasons.
That's in essence their view of WWII.
It's not uncommon, it's like when arguing with southerners over the civil war, most people in the South do as a result of modern though believe slavery and the various forms of racism were wrong, but they also don't want to acknowledge their families as being wrong. so you'll argue with someone from Mississippi who will insist the civil war was not over slavery and thus the south wasn't wrong to fight it, and it's trying to fit a square peg into a circular hole.
The Germans got over this because we forced them to, we completely disarmed them, the police became GIs in jeeps and they were under full military occupation and anyone of power in the Nazis was not allowed to hold office at the least, and at the other end they were hung. and what's the alternative? well maybe you'd prefer living under Joseph Stalin? oh no we'll disavow Hitler thank you very much.
Japan we allowed much of that government to remain at their posts and didn't mandate they teach a western-centric history curriculum, so for decades they were taught a version of history that completely ignored the war crimes in China, in the Philipines, Korea, etc. of course they were taught about the US and Canadian internment of Japanese people in those countries
I once was on a discussion with someone of japanese descent although he was an American and he tried to insist that the empire of Japan and the US were morally equal because of internment and I said "yeah you're right, FDR should not have ordered US soldiers to march into major cities bayoneting japanese babies, shooting military age men in the head and sexually enslaving japanese women into army brothels for soldiers" like he shut up pretty quick with that argument. like tat wasn't right that we interned Japanese Americans, but to claim it's on the moral ground of the IJA's atrocities in Manchuria and Nanking is insane, but there's apologists for Japan who will insist just that.
like it wasn't until the 1990s (and even now the current prime minister is of a political party that openly denies japanese atrocities, including the forced brothels even happened, even more then that, Japanese delegates to the US were actually involved in a lawsuit to remove a memorial statue in California dedicated to victims of the forced prostitution) that the Japanese government even acknowledged the enslavement of the korean "comfort women" for military prostitution and agreed to compensate, that should've been a mandate of Japan's surrender.
I've read a fair bit on WW2, i'm an enthusiast not an expert, broadly I'd have to agree with Hatorian though, just from my interpretation of the events, the Soviets play against Japan was more opportunistic in terms of getting the best deal out of the post war settlement , and was only fully agreed to at Yalta in 45, well towards the end of the war.
That compared to the slog of the US's years of Leapfrogging strategy, makes the Soviets experience in pacific theatre pretty incomparable. That said in the West it feels like the soviets contribution beyond Stalingrad is hugley underestimated, if you mention Kursk or even the Battle for Berlin to most brits and you get blank expression.
An interesting question, if you give the Russians the Lend-Lease equipment when it was really critical in like 1941-1942 when the Germans had them over the barrel, but the US and Britain never invade Western Europe, does the Soviet Union win the war against Germany anyway? I'm guessing yes, because the Russians had the Germans going backwards before the British or Americans had done much of anything. I'm not sure giving the Eastern Front the troops that the Germans used to bail out Mussolini and fight in Italy would have changed that.
@Doctor_Nick It's an interesting question and I like the fun of speculation about alternate Histories, I guess it could be something be a Fatherland type scenario.
My view is based largely on Hitlers survival, as long as he was in place at the top, it seems like he was increasingly detached from reality and incabable of winning the war. If Goring or someone had managed to topple Hitler during 1943 then the third reich could have survived in some form. Otherwise i think even without lend lease, the Soviets would have ultimately still won, if Napoleon couldn't do it and all that.
A more interesting scenario is what would have happened if war between the allies broke out in 45, like was considered in Operation Unthinkiable I'm sure I read about similar planning on the Soviet side, I think you end up with 1984 style geo-political order if that happened.
I've read a fair bit on WW2, i'm an enthusiast not an expert, broadly I'd have to agree with Hatorian though, just from my interpretation of the events, the Soviets play against Japan was more opportunistic in terms of getting the best deal out of the post war settlement , and was only fully agreed to at Yalta in 45, well towards the end of the war.
That compared to the slog of the US's years of Leapfrogging strategy, makes the Soviets experience in pacific theatre pretty incomparable. That said in the West it feels like the soviets contribution beyond Stalingrad is hugley underestimated, if you mention Kursk or even the Battle for Berlin to most brits and you get blank expression.
There is a massive difference between saying that the Soviet invasion came late or wasn't as important as the American contribution in the Pacific (though that is still completely ignoring Khalkhin Gol) and saying that the US was the only ally to fight a war on two fronts. No one disputes that the US did the most in the Pacific. But Hatorian pretty specifically said that only the US fought on both fronts, which is demonstrably not true. It is moving the goal posts to go from saying "only the US fought on two fronts" to "the US was the main allied force in the Pacific."
And Khalkhin Gol was perhaps the most important battle of the war that no one talks about. Japan was pretty evenly divided in terms of whether the plan should be to go south and capture European colonies or go north and take over Siberia for the raw materials. When Zhukov kicked Japanese ass in Khalkhin Gol, the Japanese decided to just focus on southward expansion, which necessitated destroying the American fleet.
I think the after Germany is defeated question is very much dependent on how efficient and dedicated the US could have been. Also how many nuclear bombs they could construct. I think they pretty easily liberate most of Eastern Europe.
@Doctor_Nick It's an interesting question and I like the fun of speculation about alternate Histories, I guess it could be something be a Fatherland type scenario.
My view is based largely on Hitlers survival, as long as he was in place at the top, it seems like he was increasingly detached from reality and incabable of winning the war. If Goring or someone had managed to topple Hitler during 1943 then the third reich could have survived in some form. Otherwise i think even without lend lease, the Soviets would have ultimately still won, if Napoleon couldn't do it and all that.
A more interesting scenario is what would have happened if war between the allies broke out in 45, like was considered in Operation Unthinkiable I'm sure I read about similar planning on the Soviet side, I think you end up with 1984 style geo-political order if that happened.
@joepinetree Man I wouldn't deny the importance of events like Khalkhin Gol, you're right it's a rich and underappreciated event in the prelude of WW2, or the impact of Soviets seriously entering the Pacific theatre in 45, they were big deals.
That said I wouldn't equate those battles with Normandy, Stalingrad, Kursk or even Bastogne or Gudalcanal,
I guess the way i see it the ultimately decisive battles in the Pacific theatre weren't battles, they were Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
Prior to that, & I think i'm paraphrasing Churchill, it was largely a story of the European powers ( Britain, France, Netherlands) stepping down while the US stepped up as the ally in the region- not that it was altruistic, but they didn't have to do that. It doesn't diminish from the suffering of the soldiers from ANZAC & the UK but that story would have been over a lot quicker if the US weren't there and there in a big way in the Pacific.
As a Brit I feel the most unrecognised and betrayed peoples of ww2 were the Polish and Czechs, the war was started broadly on their behalf , they were some of the bravest fighters throughout and they were sold down the river at the end, that is a blight on my country's record.
@Doctor_Nick Nuclear weapons were definitely the deciding factor, but up untill August 5th 1945 there was a very bizarre moment in history where victory seemed assured, every major power is fully mobilised, war hardened & next to each other, in an alternate history that's point where it feels to me anything could have happened .
@Doctor_Nick Nuclear weapons were definitely the deciding factor, but up untill August 5th 1945 there was a very bizarre moment in history where victory seemed assured, every major power IS fully mobilised, war hardened & next to each other, in an alternate history that's point where it feels to me anything could have happened .
theres some interesting alternative history out there on World War 2.5 or 3. Basically the US and Soviets go into war directly after 1945. it all seems to be pretty fan fiction though. Would be cool if someone with some serious writing skill put something together on this.
Comments
1. 400k+ US soldiers dead compared to 27k Australian. 17k of those Australians died in pacific and 9k died in Europe Africa. Yes population sizes = military aged men. But there is no comparison in terms of price paid by the US in both Theatres.
2. Russia went to war with Japan in 1945. They had a signciant contribution to the surrender of Japan but they did not fight 2 wars in 2 Theatres. Which was my original argument. My original argument which I stand by is the US fought 2 wars from 42 to 45. Russia did not until 45. And Australia and Britain do not match up in terms of contribution per the numbers above and below. US KIA in italy alone were not far off the entire KIA of Australia for the war.
3. The bloodiest battles of Pacific theatre. Almost All fought by the US. Okinawa, Iowa Jima, etc. Only counting casualties the US by far inflicted the most causlities on Japan (not counting China who only fought in china). 100k in Okinawa alone.
4. This is a bit controversial but almost all of the bombing campaigns on Japanese mainland were conducted by the US. Mostly.
5. Lastly, the US had all of the critical victories for the allies (before 1945) in the pacific. Midway, Coral Sea, Leyte Gulf etc. These are considered the decisive blows to Japan. Where either the Japenesr Navy or Air Force was effectively wiped out.
You started by insisting the US was the only country to have fought "two wars" that claim is demonstrably untrue. You also claimed the US was the only country involved against Japan in any significant way, I dispute that.
Now the goalposts are shifting to the severity of invovement by casualty counts. But that's not the first argument that was made.
Yes the Burma campaign was not strategically vital in the sense of Midway or Tarawa or the America battles, but It was a massive morale victory and it tied up some 300,000 Japanese soldiers for the period of the war.
As far as casualties, the military deaths of the U.K. And British Empire (excluding independent dominions like Canada and Australia) was 380,000 which doesn't track far below ours
2- The Soviets fought the Japanese in 1939. Again, verifiable fact. And again, if length of engagement is the ultimate metric, then the Brits have the Americans beat in both fronts.
3- I am just going to post this here as a response to your "US contribution" argument
4- I think it's interesting that you think that the length of the war between the USSR and Japan in 1945 is indicative of its contribution, but that length doesn't seem to matter when comparing the US and the British Empire.
5- You should read up on the definition of casualties. Casualties include dead, wounded, missing or captured:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_(person)#NATO_definitions
6- Finally, you are moving goal posts. First you said that only the US fought in the two theaters. Now you are trying to find excuses as to why the British weren't that big a deal. And if the Americans were the ones involved in the most strategically important battles in the Pacific, the same is true for the Soviets in Europe.
As I said, there are many things where we can agree to disagree. We can disagree on what was the key thing that led Japan to surrender, or what part of the Pacific theater was more important, the islands or the continent. But it is absolutely false that the Australians were mostly focused on the Pacific, it is absolutely false that only the US fought on two theaters, and it is absolutely false that the British had no major part against the Japanese (and India was part of the British empire then).
I really don't understand how you can continue to argue for Russia when they didn't fight any battle until 1945. the US effectively wiped out the Japanese Navy and Air Force and crippled their entire war machine before Russia fired a single shot in Manchuria.
You say I'm moving the goal posts but I'm not. You're the one moving goal posts by continuing to grasp at stats that back up your argument. I've stuck by my original argument. While you have continued to try and find new arguments. First it was Russia, then it was Australia, then it was the UK. And now you're trying to use Russian total deaths as some argument? Which makes no sense. My original post clearly say Russia paid with blood. No one is denying their contribution in total. But they did not fight 2 wars. Im not the one moving goal posts. You are.
My argument summed up. Per my previous comments. It has not changed.
US vs..
Russia: Russia did not engage or declare war on Japan until 1945. They simply did not fight 2 wars. No matter what their contribution to Japan's surrender was.
Commonwealth: the US provided more personal, resources and also won more critical and bloody battles than any Commonwealth country.
Anyways if it makes you feel better then you won. Good job. I tried to end this discussion comments ago but you continued to push. You're right, I'm wrong. Congratulations. You win the internet.
I think that you're probably right. Two years ago I spent 3 or 4 days with a couple of guys from Japan who were in Toronto on business. It's probably worth mentioning that both worked in the music industry and were rebel/rocker guys ie they had (Western) tattoos, long hair and were America-obsessed - so probably aren't the best examples of the typical Japanese person.
One night over drinks we were talking about samurais and history in general and eventually WWII came up. Again, it's probably not wise for these two guys to be held up as examples of Japanese knowledge and insight, but they had a pretty skewed view of WWII. In short - America was amassing an army to wipe out Japan, so in self-defence they attacked Pearl Harbour. The fact that they didn't invade and take over Hawaii was supposed to be a signal to America that they didn't have imperial plans and weren't a threat to America and that should have been the end of hostilities. America then broke the peace by declaring war on them, which forced them to expand their empire for defensive reasons.
That's in essence their view of WWII.
The Germans got over this because we forced them to, we completely disarmed them, the police became GIs in jeeps and they were under full military occupation and anyone of power in the Nazis was not allowed to hold office at the least, and at the other end they were hung. and what's the alternative? well maybe you'd prefer living under Joseph Stalin? oh no we'll disavow Hitler thank you very much.
Japan we allowed much of that government to remain at their posts and didn't mandate they teach a western-centric history curriculum, so for decades they were taught a version of history that completely ignored the war crimes in China, in the Philipines, Korea, etc. of course they were taught about the US and Canadian internment of Japanese people in those countries
I once was on a discussion with someone of japanese descent although he was an American and he tried to insist that the empire of Japan and the US were morally equal because of internment and I said "yeah you're right, FDR should not have ordered US soldiers to march into major cities bayoneting japanese babies, shooting military age men in the head and sexually enslaving japanese women into army brothels for soldiers" like he shut up pretty quick with that argument. like tat wasn't right that we interned Japanese Americans, but to claim it's on the moral ground of the IJA's atrocities in Manchuria and Nanking is insane, but there's apologists for Japan who will insist just that.
like it wasn't until the 1990s (and even now the current prime minister is of a political party that openly denies japanese atrocities, including the forced brothels even happened, even more then that, Japanese delegates to the US were actually involved in a lawsuit to remove a memorial statue in California dedicated to victims of the forced prostitution) that the Japanese government even acknowledged the enslavement of the korean "comfort women" for military prostitution and agreed to compensate, that should've been a mandate of Japan's surrender.
There is a massive difference between saying that the Soviet invasion came late or wasn't as important as the American contribution in the Pacific (though that is still completely ignoring Khalkhin Gol) and saying that the US was the only ally to fight a war on two fronts. No one disputes that the US did the most in the Pacific. But Hatorian pretty specifically said that only the US fought on both fronts, which is demonstrably not true. It is moving the goal posts to go from saying "only the US fought on two fronts" to "the US was the main allied force in the Pacific."
And Khalkhin Gol was perhaps the most important battle of the war that no one talks about. Japan was pretty evenly divided in terms of whether the plan should be to go south and capture European colonies or go north and take over Siberia for the raw materials. When Zhukov kicked Japanese ass in Khalkhin Gol, the Japanese decided to just focus on southward expansion, which necessitated destroying the American fleet.