Paid Advertisement
Historynet/feed historynet feedback facebook link World History Group RSS feed World History Group Subscriptions Historynet Home page

Unique: the Pacific War, Part 2

By Robert M. Citino 
Originally published under Front & Center Blog. Published Online: December 18, 2012 
Print Friendly
6 comments FONT +  FONT -

Last week I made a startling claim about the uniqueness of the Pacific War.

Well, startling for me, anyway. I've come up in a school that distrusts the very word "unique." Most historians eschew the concept. Indeed, the very job of a historian is to compare events from various epochs and to show how all events of the present owe something to those of the past.

As a card-carrying historian, I get that. But even so, I still think that the Pacific War was unlike anything before or since. At sea, the distances involved dwarfed any previous military conflict. Consider the battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944, for example. The deployment area was some 450,000 square miles, more than the American states of Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico combined. As a result, traditional notions of fleet battle, with battleships steaming line ahead and exchanging gunfire with their counterparts similarly arrayed, never came into play. Rather, the opposing fleets stayed hundreds of miles apart and the aircraft carrier became the principal weapon of destruction. The encounter at the Coral Sea in May 1942 was a milestone for that reason, the first naval battle in history in which the hostile ships never came within sight of one another.

While the fleets and carriers were roaming free over a major portion of the globe—maneuver personified, we might call it—the fighting on land was of a very different character. Here, individual islands witnessed one brutal battle of attrition after another, with Japanese soldiers fighting to the last man and U.S. forces having to vaporize them one by one with superior firepower. Today, we tend to see the typical battle as a "storm landing," an amphibious assault on a tiny island, with the Japanese defending on the water's edge and the Americans landing under fire. Think of Tarawa in November 1943, for example. But anyone with a cursory understanding of the Pacific knows that it is filled with larger islands like New Guinea and Leyte, and here the Japanese had no prospect of defeating a landing. On the big islands, U.S. forces often landed unopposed, then had to confront a series of heavily fortified ridges, hills, and caves in the interior. Finally, there were many islands like Peleliu, where the Japanese decided to follow both strategies: carrying out a murderous defense at the water's edge as well as a fight to the death in the interior. Any way you sliced it, it could take months for U.S. infantry to wipe out Japanese resistance. It was a ugly business of brutal close assaults, demolition charges, and flamethrowers.

In close quarters like these, the conditions were horrid for both sides. Historian Ronald Spector put it best when he wrote that the "real enemy" in the Pacific wasn't a hostile army. It was the jungle. Let us take Guadalcanal, for example. It was an island covered by tropical rain forest: razor-sharp grasses, crawling vines, ferns bigger than a man, tangled roots, giant hardwood trees that blocked out the sun. On "the Canal," as U.S. combatants called it, the heat and humidity was such that your men could make something like one to two miles per day before exhaustion set in. The Japanese didn't have it any easier than the Americans did. Tales of the Japanese being skilled at jungle warfare are mythological. Sure, they might have trained for it a little better, but they weren't raised in it any more than a boy from Cleveland, Ohio was, and there were just as many jungles on Japan as there are in America—that is to say, none. Visibility for both sides was nil, a few hundred yards at most. It was a world of giant ants, massive wasps, and mosquitos that gave you malaria. Quinine (the standard anti-malarial medicine) was always in short supply. American scientists, ever inventive, did manage to devise a synthetic substitute called Atabrine. Unfortunately, rumors had already spread among U.S. troops that Atabrine suppressed your sexual desire or made you impotent. So there was that. A more immediate threat was the humidity. It was a constant, clinging menace to you, your rifle, your clothing, your skin, and your feet. One nasty word: fungus.

Jungle wasn't the only problem in the Pacific, however. Even a non-jungle island like Iwo Jima could be a nightmare. Iwo was a hunk of volcanic rock four miles long by two miles wide, made up of gritty, irritating ash that stunk like sulfur. That was bad enough, until you realize that the entire island was honeycombed by Japanese tunnels, some as deep as 75 feet. U.S. troops have fought in some rotten places since 1945, from the Chosin Reservoir in Korea to the Iron Triangle in Vietnam to the Shar-i Kot valley in Afghanistan. As bad as they were, none of them was worse than Iwo Jima or Guadalcanal.

The point I am making here is that the Pacific Theater was a mess. Whether jungle island or tiny coral atoll or volcano: the fighting was never less than horrible, dehumanizing, and brutalizing. Both sides wound up doing what troops often do in such circumstances: committing atrocities. The Japanese mutilated American dead and the Americans began collecting body parts from Japanese corpses.

I don't want to appear naive or overly negative here about the way that we should remember the war. Hell, my dad fought on Guadalcanal. I have no problem at all with emphasizing the heroic side of the struggle in the Pacific. I thrill to the U.S. flag-raising on Iwo Jima, for example, and photos of the Japanese surrender on the deck of the USS Missouri make me proud to be an American.

At the same time that we remember this war in the ideal sense, however, we should also take note of the real. Indeed, it is precisely the horrible reality of the Pacific War that brings the acts of heroism on both sides into sharper focus.

A last point. What we need to avoid above all costs is romanticizing any of what happened. It is too easy to neglect the horror, the brutality. Too easy to forget, or to gloss it over. Too easy to turn the South Pacific into…well, South Pacific.

For the latest in military history from World War II's sister publications visit


6 Responses to “Unique: the Pacific War, Part 2”

  1. 1
    lirelou says:

    Yes, the scale was unique, but that was inevitable given the technology of the time. Yet parallels exist between the Pacific campaigns and the Peloponnesian War. It's been some time, and my memory of Thucydides is weak, but he painted that war as fought between two great alliances over a series of of islands, some of whom were city states in their own right, and others of whom were colonies of the major powers.

  2. 2
    Robert Kapanjie says:

    American chemists did not synthesize Atabrine, the Germans did in 1931.The Americans manufactured the drug on a large scale for the war effort. It is an effective anti malarial both for prophylaxis and treat ment. It has the somewhat unpleasant although benign side effect of turning the skin yellow. The juandice was a dye effect,it did not cause hepatitis and it did not cause erectile dysfunction. It was the first synthetic antimalarial since quinine. Quinine is derived from the bark of the cinchona tree but was in short supply during W W 2 because the Japanese controlled Indonesia. The small amount of cinchona from South America was insufficient to meet the need. As an aside it is said that the two things that made possible the exploration of the interior of subSaharan Africa, in the nineteenth century were the steamboat and quinine.

  3. 3
    Jaime Cuevas Dermdy says:


    I have seen this WWI History misstatement so many times, it seems to have a life of its own. In Unique: the Pacific War, Part 2
    By Robert M. Citino Tuesday, December 18th, 2012, we find:

    "The encounter at the Coral Sea in May 1942 was a milestone for that reason, the first naval battle in history in which the hostile ships never came within sight of one another."

    In fact, the Battle of the Coral Sea was the third such battle in which the hostile ships never came within sight of one another. The first was the battle of Taranto on 11-12 November 1940 and the second was Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. This perennial misstatement is similar to almost all historians ignoring that over 100,000 civilian U.S. citizens died in Manilla between 3 January to 3 February 1945.

    While I have your attention, can you tell me what you think of an alternative Pacific Strategy for late 1943 and early1944?
    (1.) Forget about the Gilbert, Marshall, Marianas, Philippine, and Ryukyu Islands.
    (2.) As soon as possible (probably in 1944) send a force of 10 fleet aircraft carriers and three divisions of marines to attack and seize Yakushma and Tanegashima Islands, and perhaps Tsushima Island for good measure.
    (3.) From the islands in (2.), launch the mass bomber attacks on the home islands of Japan, the invasion of Kyushu, as well as, base the naval blockade of the home islands from there.

    Thank You, Jaime

    Jaime Cuevas Dermody, Ph.D.

  4. 4
    JonS says:

    neither Taranto nor Pearl Harbor are 'naval engagements' or 'naval battles' by any useful definition of those terms. Otherwise we may as well call operation CHASTISE a land battle because some Tigers were destroyed in their factories.

  5. 5
    lyndon says:

    Why didn't U>S>A> invade the Kuriles from Alaska.

    Simultaneiously. why didn't Pacific Fleet just blockade and bomb Iwo Jima instead of Marines invading it?

Leave a Reply

Human Verification: In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Related Articles

History Net Images Spacer
Paid Advertisement
Paid Advertisement
History Net Daily Activities
History net Spacer
History net Spacer
Historynet Spacer

Which of these wars resulted in the most surprising underdog upset?

View Results | See previous polls

Loading ... Loading ...
History net Spacer
RSS Feed Daily Email Update
History net Spacer
Paid Advertisement

Paid Advertisement
What is HistoryNet? is brought to you by World History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines.

If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest.

From Our Magazines
World History Group

World History Group Network:  HistoryNet | Armchair General | Achtung Panzer!
Today in History | Ask Mr. History | Picture of the Day | Daily History Quiz | Contact Us

Copyright © 2015 World History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Advertise With Us | Subscription Help | Privacy Policy