That put the Phillipines in a protectorate status, not longer actual US territory.
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?
So was my Dad! He had Philippines Defense, Independence and Liberation Medals. He was in Mac’s HQ.
Oh no, the New Guinea campaign, pretty much all Army, was critical.
Not to mention the Battle of Guadalcanal, and others.
Many of those airfields that were so critical for the Bombing offense were taken by the Army.
AFAIK, US fleet submarines were long ranged enough that they were based in Pearl Harbor or Fremantle, Australia. So there wasn’t really a need to capture closer bases for enacting the submarine blockade vs. Japan.
Strategic bombing on the other hand, required much closer bases- Tinian, Saipan & Guam were some of the biggest ones.
But ultimately, when you strip it all down, the US could have defeated Japan strictly through air and sea power. There wasn’t really any need to capture Japanese held islands and territories, except insofar as they supported the air/sea fighting efforts.
That said, I suppose there’s some merit to the idea that by engaging in ground fighting, we drew out and destroyed the Japanese fleet as they tried to support/defend those locations. In concept, this is sort of similar to how the US 8th AF destroyed the Luftwaffe by staging bomber raids designed to force the Luftwaffe to engage, so the US fighters could destroy them.
Pretty sure nobody in the US gave half a shit about your second point in the war.
As for the first one, I’d bet the math on that is pretty close- it’s likely that the casualty totals in the Pacific would have been considerably smaller if we’d stuck to only taking places useful for bombers, fighters and naval bases, and gone into a blockade and strategic bombing offensive. I’m not sure that in the calculus of war to sacrifice 30,000 men to rescue 30,000 men is a good trade.
And really… the war would have ended in 1945, although it might have taken a couple more nuclear weapons and run into September.
Can you cite that? I’m not sure that is true. I believe they made plans for effectively starving them out and conventional bombing. But mainly as the planners weren’t even aware of the atomic bombs availability.
I think most accepted estimates assumed the US would lose 300,000 in the invasion and have to kill millions.
Oh, no, what I meant is that the Navy’s plan was to starve them out. Period. They likely didnt even know about the bomb, that might have changed their plans, just like the Army’s plan was to Invade. The Bomb changed all that, of course.
But yeah, and that is deaths, they planned on 1.2 Million casualties.
The Marines did much of the fighting on Guadalcanal.
Nimitz cut the Japanese line in two and the subs sunk their supply ships, the Marines took those islands necessary for airstrips and the carriers reduced Japan’s navy to nothing, while devastating their airforce and pounding isolated islands, such as Rubul, into nothing but a starving mass of defeated men.
On the other hand, McArthur marched on the bonus soldiers before the war, did absolutely nothing during WWII except hide and retreat and later was fired by a president.
The fact is, Nimitz, the navy and the marines won the war in the pacific and nothing McArthur did contributed to their efforts. None of the airstrips captured by McArthur were used to bomb Japan. McArthur did not even begin until 1944 at which time the Navy was well on its way to cutting the Japanese in two.
Did some good that came from McArthur’s efforts? Very little, but it did allow the NAVY to engage and destroy the Japanese navy and Air Force. Again, none of which McArthur had anything to do with other than the navy was there to protect him from sea and air attacks. So that was something good that came from McArthur’s war, not at all due to him.
Of course there were army forces on the canal, that has never been in dispute
.State your case. You make statements without any facts. Make your argument.
My chief argument is to look at the map. Japan could not be reached from any of McArthur’s positions. Once the Navy took Saipan, Japan was within striking distance by air. Our submarine force devastated Japanese shipping, The flattops destroyed ships, planes and island garrisons. When air strips were needed Nimitz put together a force to capture the necessary islands. Of course the army helped out too. The marines could not have taken Okinawa without army help. And to be sure the army was involved in many of the island invasions under Nimitz. The basic plan of the Navy cut the Japanese line in two, quickly and efficiently.
The map will demonstrate that the Philippines were largely out of the way and did not serve to cut enemy supply lines as effectively as possible. Even if they did, by the time McArthur was in the fight, 1944, the Nimitz had basic control of air, land and sea for most of the Pacific theater.
Now if your point is political, then perhaps an argument can be made on behalf of McArthur. It was good to liberate those cities. However, from a tactical standpoint, the Philippines were of little military value as compared to the island hopping of Nimitz. Nimitz simply cut the Japanese off at their knees. To be fair, he did have the Navy at his disposal.
Australian forces were able to use the airfield for their own operations the very next day, and it was grown into a major air base that supported Australian operations for the rest of the war…This Japanese withdrawal opened a northern route to attack towards the Japanese home islands, forcing Japan to send some forces north, away from where soldiers and Marines were killing them on other fronts…These island assaults also tied up Japanese naval assets, reducing the pressure on Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz’s forces until Japan decided to protect the Marianas at all costs, withdrawing their fleet from fighting Army units ashore and sending it North to the Mariana Islands where the Navy achieved one of its greatest victories at the Battle of the Philippine Sea…The Army’s efforts were mostly aimed at retaking the Philippines, but it was hoped that, as the Army put pressure on Imperial Japanese land forces, it would force the Japanese Navy into another decisive engagement which Nimitz would, hopefully, win.
I am not saying that the USN didnt do the heavy lifting, and were the most critical, but the Army was important too. Not to mention the fact that the Army was used in many placed allowed the Marines to cap many small island airbases.
I did not see a link? In any case American submarines, the mighty Aircraft Carrier fleets, and the United States Marines, won the war in the Pacific, with a little help from the army here and there but nothing from McArthur.
Some even say it was the submarines that won the war. There is a very strong argument to be made for this concept. Of course others would say it was the U.S. carriers who simply had their way anywhere they went in the Pacific, won the war… But we still need the marines to take those vital islands and airstrips.
Again, not one airstrip in McArthur’s theater was ever used to bomb Japan.
I mean Okinawa was taken by a joint Army/Marine force, more Army than Marines. Same with the Mariana Islands. Those were the two primary places planse bombed the Main islands from.
Note that my dad was just a Noncom but he despised Mac. He never considered himself part of the Bataan gang.
That is great for your father. I can not imagine what suffering he must have endured. My father never spoke much about his military service during the war. He was in Europe.
I have already acknowledged that the army participated in many campaigns across the Pacific with the navy. They were in fact under navy and marine command. We can debate their contribution another day. The subject at hand is who has the best strategy for winning the war in the Pacific. And clearly that was Nimitz.
Thank you for telling my about your dad. The type of jungle fighting he endured must have been terrible.
And it is true the marines could not have taken Okinawa without the army. The army was certainly present in large numbers throughout the Pacific. In fact there were many soldiers in Europe dreading that they might have to fight in the Pacific.
Yeah, he had nightmares about the mosquitoes. Malaria weakened his heart and finally killed him, but not until age 75. He was in HQ, so wasnt on the front line, but one of his duties was running dispatches up to the front.
Mold was everywhere, in the morning you shook the bugs out of your boots and scraped the mold off before putting them on.
But in a way Malaria saved his life- he arrived as a civilian aircrew for Boeing on Dec 8th, volunteered, caught malaria and was invalided to Australia then home before the Philippines fell. Otherwise Bataan death march.
Then someone in the Bataan gang requested my Dad back into HQ. Almost certainly not Mac himself.
Wow! What a story! Far, far worse than whT I had imagined. Thank God for men like your father who sacrificed so to protect our country. What a story! Thank you for sharing it!
It’s possible that MacArthur’s campaign were part of drawing the Japanese fleet out to fight, when otherwise they might have sat tight and waited until they could choose to fight on advantageous terms.
Other than that, you’re right. The Navy’s blockade and the capture of a few strategic islands suitable for bomber bases and that had Japanese forces that could threaten the resupply of those bases, were what really put Japan on their knees, not MacArthur’s land conquests.
It would not have mattered, by the time McArthur got in the fight, Oct 1944, the U.S. Navy had it’s way with the Japanese, on the sea, in the air, on the ground capturing islands and under the sea with great devastation via submarines. The navy carriers, by the end of 1944, we’re supreme In every Theater of the Pacific and regardless of what the Japanese Navy did or did not do they were not able to withstand the U.S. Navy domination.