• Gsus4@feddit.nl
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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".

    • uralsolo
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      deleted by creator

      • Gsus4@feddit.nl
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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 [none/use name]
          ·
          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 [none/use name]
      ·
      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).