A Two Front War

A Two-Front War

Throughout the course of history there has been no conflict as cataclysmic and defining as that of World War II. In his book, The Good Fight, How WWII Was Won, author Stephen E. Ambrose called it "the greatest catastrophe in history" (4). This war was truly deserving of its "world" title. There was fighting on six out of the seven continents. Four of the major oceans had naval battles. In The United States and World War II, Vol. I, the editor notes that "it involved almost every great nation on the globe, and most of the smaller ones as wellÐ'...it was fought in every quarter of the globeÐ'...and the war was almost total in its destructive character as well" (xiv). Multiple nations supplied thousands of troops with many of them escalating into the millions. Every nation was touched in some way by the events of this "world war". There have been an exhaustive number of theories on how the war could have gone different ways, but a consensus view is that the "Allies" were victorious because of one major swing; the entrance of the United States into the fighting. When many people think about WWII, one of two pictures is usually dominant. Either a picture of Europe comes to mind with the US forces fighting against German and Italian armies or a picture of the US fighting against Japanese forces in the Pacific is present. It is important that one views the entire US experience in WWII as a true worldwide saga instead of as almost two separate wars on two different sides of the globe.

Prior to America's entrance into the war, in the decades following World War I, the country had tried to hold an "isolationist" point of view. The overall attitude was to leave well enough alone regarding world events. WWI was still fresh in the country's mind, and no one was interested in putting the country back into a similar situation. The difference in the start of the two wars lies with how the country committed to each. With WWI, the US had made a conscious decision to enter. But with WWII, events took place that the country had no control over. In Europe, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi followers had launched a "lightning strike" or blitzkrieg attack on several countries. Great Britain and France had both been committed to the war, but America was determined to let them all figure out their differences. Unbeknownst to anyone was the secret alliance Japan had forged with Germany and Italy, known as the Axis powers. On December 7, 1941, Japan launched a surprise attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and officially declared war on America. Four days later both Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. The country had no choice but to fight. It had suddenly and unexpectedly been thrust into a two-sided war.

With the country now committed to fighting, it became apparent that this war would be like no other war it had been involved in. Every other war before WWII, from the War for Independence to WWI, had been concentrated on usually one clear opponent. In this case, the US had to deal with German and Italian forces in Europe and Africa, and with Japanese forces in the Pacific Ocean and Asia. It would be one of the first times where American military leaders would be forced to divide their attention between not only two different fronts, but also between two different enemies. Even though Germany and Italy were allied with Japan, both sides approached war in completely opposite ways.

The European forces were under the guide of the German leader Hitler and the Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini. These men were both committed to the abolition of several large groups of people, especially blacks or Jews. These groups were treated with disdain in both the home countries of Germany and Italy and also in the invaded countries throughout Europe. But when it came to actual warfare, the Axis European forces were not fighting "dirty". The Geneva Convention had adopted so called "rules of war" in which most countries adhered to. James Bradley quotes in his book Flags of Our Fathers, from a German tank commander, Hans von Luck, who said it was the "always fair war" (65). Bradley says that the battles were between "Westernized armies who fought by the Ð''rules'Ð'...Gentlemen's agreements suspended hostilities for the day at five o'clock each afternoon, and each side held its fire for medics to care for the wounded" (65). This is not to say that combat was not extremely intense or fierce. Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost in Europe. But most of the combat casualties were in the expected way of two sides squaring off fighting right at each other. This was not the case, however, in the Pacific.

There are two distinct differences in the Pacific and European theatres. These differences lie first in the attitude of the enemy being fought and second in the style of fighting displayed by the American soldier on each front. As mentioned, the German and Italian soldiers were more "civilized" in their fighting ways. This is completely untrue when it comes to the Japanese soldier of WWII. According to Bradley the "Japanese troops had long been told they were racially and morally superior to the soft and materialistic Western man" (65). The Japanese government had for years been beating it into their soldiers' minds that the ultimate sacrifice was death. "The aim was to make warriors out of the entire male populaceÐ'...death in battle was portrayed as an honor to the family and a transcendent act on the part of the individual. Surrender was a disgrace to the soldier and his family" (Bradley 67). This created a terrible mindset for the Japanese soldier. Because he didn't value his own life, he most assuredly would not care about the humane treatment of another country's soldiers or people. Thus, atrocities were committed by the Japanese armies that were not