I've been reading some things about the divisions of World War II, and I wonder if the war against Japan should be split off into its own, separate war. The reasons are primarily two-fold:
While there were some technology transfers and diplomatic promises between Japan on the one side and Germany and Italy on the other, very little in the way of military or manpower support was provided between the continents. In addition, Japan lost badly against the Soviets at Khalkhin Gol in the months leading up to the traditional beginning of World War II (September 1939), resulting in the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact that allowed a great deal of non-military goods in Lend-Lease shipping to go right past Japanese territory and on to supply the fight against Germany, further limiting Japan's military usefulness to its allies.
Japan's war essentially started in 1931 with the invasion of Manchuria. While British and Dutch forces in the Pacific did a great deal of fighting on the ground and, to an extent, in the air to hold onto European colonies, bases, and ports and even eventually start to push the Japanese back, the defeat of Japan rested largely on US involvement due to its ability to commit naval forces that the Dutch apparently no longer had and Britain could not afford to send halfway across the world. The Koreans, Chinese, and other Asian nationalities, of course, took the brunt of the violence from Japan, but did apparently little fighting elsewhere other than South Asian troops that fought in Europe under the British flag.
Under these points, the war against Germany and Italy could still be referred to as World War II since it involved several theaters across three oceans, two major seas, and multiple continents, but the war against Japan could be known as the Great Pacific War, a parallel but distinct war in its own right, and one that might have been fought even if Europe had not come to blows.
I'm interested in commentary on accuracy and on the logic of the idea, even if there's no chance of such a split being widely recognized.
While it makes some sense, and certainly is not without its points, it falls apart to a degree when examined from the Allied side and not the Axis.
Very much so for the US, and really Britain and the Empire, the war was experienced as a world spanning unified conflict.
Men and material were transferred between both theaters for the entirety of the war, planning was conducted in a unified fashion with eyes on all theaters.
While the Axis may have been widely separated, that the Western Allies found themselves squished between them basically helped ferment the idea of WW2 as the truly global conflict it was. Certainly say for a US Naval Officer it might be hard to see them as completely separate conflicts. He might begin the war on a destroyer on Neutrality patrol against U-Boats, end up assigned to a Pearl survivor battleship, bombard Normandy with her, then find himself months later bombarding Okinawa. Similar to a FAA pilot, he might freeze in the North Sea, fight to relieve Malta, then swelter in the Indian ocean then push into the DEI before fighting Kamikaze's off Okinawa.