Typical. I thought you might jump on that, does it feel good to chew on a bone thrown your way?
Cutlass:
I think the way many people like to think we got 'lucky' or 'only because we had more resources' in terms of pacific war is really feeding that masturbatory excuses of the defeated.
Let me outline this: Japan at the time as we all know had decades of fighting wars and traditions of military power. Many of the veterans Marines faced in pacific were units rerouted to the pacific from sino theatre to counter our advances. In a war, battle experience and determination often trumps equipment and opportunistic advantages to that regard. Japanese had up to that point supposedly were battle hardened soldiers, as their propaganda often trumpeted.
Also, in the beginning America was fighting with inferior equipment, namely the aircraft of naval aviation. Zero could outturn, outrun, and out maneuver our planes, and their numbers were at comparable parity it ours. Not to mention, their pilots were supposedly hard trained and basically 'supposedly' overclassed US as one of if not the most formidable modern navy in the pacific.
In contrast, US had only last fought in WW1, which was primarily a land affair in regards to the fact that U-boat campaign was destroyer and sub's hide and seek game. We didn't have much naval experience, nor jungle fighting. Our men were fresh green troops, and NCOs were the same overall with few exceptions. Most importantly, with 'Europe FIRST' policy, majority of our resources were diverted to european theatre.
Also, if you count in the numbers of reinforcements (also the 30,000 japs versus 60,000 on gudacanal is a bit misleading, US had much more proportion in terms of support and POG units, so in terms of direct combat personele the numbers were at a parity) and the fact that japanese were fighting from one of the most defensible terrains (jungle), then the obvious truth becomes clear:
Japan had all the possible advantages, yet they not only lost but lost decisively in each and every engagement, aside from a few where they managed to achieve victories in either loopsided engagements, or pyrrihic victories while still supposedly fighting with better equipment and better trained and 'superior' personnel. In almost all engagements, we achieved casualty ratio far superior to that of the japanese, which is ridiculous in that defending party in such a defensible position and supposed 'superior' soldiers could not only not repel the attackers but lost without inflicting even same number of permanent losses to the enemy (many of the 'casualties' for US count EVERYTHING, including that one joe who tripped and twisted his ankle for the sake of keeping accurate records - many of the wounded easily recovered and returned to duty). This reality quashes any masturbatory fantasies revisionists have about how we won only because 'we had more things', when they had better training, battle experience, better equipment in vital areas, and of course not even paying their forced laborers from colonized nations who died working in coal mines, while we paid our soldiers, our laborers, and others way more than they ever did, bearing the burden of that in addition to supplying a hugely expensive war.
They had the oil from south east asia, man power from conscripted forces, and every other conceivable advantage. They still lost, not only lost but lost badly. This proves that their fantasies of 'losing because of materials' flies in the face of reality that they do not wish to admit, because doing so would force them to acknowledge their inferiority without any convincing excuse.
You say we got 'lucky', yet I find that what most people call luck is when effort, preparation, and tenacity meets opportunity. Especially in midway, where US troops had less carriers, inferior planes, and were at defense. Even using cryptography as an excuse is pathetic (THEY CHEATEDDDDD) since it could not deliver minute-to-minute tactical situation which was realized not by luck or cryptography, but the tenacity of american airman and willingness to go above and beyond to achieve their objectives in the face more superior number of japanese opposition.
Really, they have no excuse to make themselves feel better. I do recall at one time how a jap was trumpeting that it has been 'scientifically' proven that japanese can use both sides of the brainpower compared to others and is therefore 'superior' to others. When I asked "Then how come your economy aside from the bubble is similar to our population ratio in terms of GDP, and haven't recovered from 1980s?" he sputtered with excuses about 'materials'. Than I asked him, "If you are using both your brains and we are only using half of ours, yet you still can't keep relative success above what is expected of population ratio, what does that tell you about yourself?". He had no more words to tell.
Really, the fantasies of some people.
Edit:
PrivateHudson:
Your response is understandable and valid in some points. However, you missed the vital core of my 'contentions' when pointing these things out: What I am talking about and being opposed to not, in the most essential and fundamental sense, the fact that these words are used by historians (although given the example of what I put out as neutral vs. loaded terms , I think you may be able to see that whether majority as you claim do not hold negative connotations it can still be unfairly used by those trying to pass off biased statement as reality while pointing to a small miss in historian neutrality that they exploit as 'good and credible sources said this too'), but the fundamental mentality behind those using such terms in loaded ways when, if what you say is true, the original authors did not intend it that way - to portray a certain nation or group in a bad light by manipulating and playing word games with loaded meanings.
Your idea is noted however, and I can see where you are coming from is a reasonable one. However, I must caution you that one must distinguish being able to talk about 'correct' facts and actually being able to walk the talk - the same way being able to use something does not mean you suddenly become the embodiment of what you are using itself and gives you a position of being more 'knowledgeable'. That passes over many people's heads, as many have already demonstrated.