Pacific War: McArthur vs Nimitz: Who Was Right?

[DrDeth]

@AncientHumanoid

All the US had to do was get close enough to enable them to bomb Japanese cities with savage regularity. The island hopping campaign did this just fine.

And support a total blockade.

@Polycarp

…They had been U.S. territory since 1898,…

Not quite. As wiki sez: In 1935, the Philippines was granted Commonwealth status with Manuel Quezon as president and Sergio Osmeña as vice president.[1

That put the Phillipines in a protectorate status, not longer actual US territory.

@OtakuLoki

Certainly it’s ironic that for all the vehemence that the US spent complaining about unrestricted submarine warfare as practiced by the Germans, that’s exactly the strategy used by the US Navy during WWII.

That is not true. Unrestricted submarine warfare as practiced by the Germans sank Neutral ships (such as American ones) in the zone. By that time, there were no neutrals shipping stuff to Japan, the USN sank only Japanese ships.

The Navy wanted to “starve the Japs out” and there were a few problems with that- one, being as our POWs would have died, and two that the Japanese civil casualties would have been worse the with the Bomb. Three- would they ever surrender?

@China_Guy

My father the WW2 pacific theater (Philipines)…

So was my Dad! He had Philippines Defense, Independence and Liberation Medals. He was in Mac’s HQ.

@EASTWIND

Let’s be clear: Nimitz, the carrier’s, the submarines and the Marines won the war in the Pacific.
McArthur was a side show of no relevance Only served to get good men killed and waste war materiel.

Oh no, the New Guinea campaign, pretty much all Army, was critical.

Not to mention the Battle of Guadalcanal, and others.

6 times the Army destroyed Japanese troops in the Pacific

Many of those airfields that were so critical for the Bombing offense were taken by the Army.