[fso301]

Consider Norway. Norway was occupied by the Germans early in WW 2. The Allies made no attempt to retake the country. Norway just wasn’t that great of a strategic importance. And any invasion would have been a bloody mess. So Norway was bypassed. Allied assets were better used elsewhere.

The line from London to Berlin is far from Norway.

The Philippines however provided a base of operations against Formosa, China, Indochina, Borneo and the South China Sea not to mention being a staging area for the invasion of Japan.

Please understand that I am not firm in my opposition of the 1944 American invasion of the Philippines. But I do have my doubts. That’s all I’m expressing here.

Why should we have avoided savages for fear that they would act like savages??

[Leaning Right]

> The Philippines however provided a base of operations... <

No doubt about that. The Philippines were well-suited as a base of operations against Japan. The country was, however, not the only option available.

If you don’t like the Norway analogy, consider this one. After D-Day the Germans holed up in some of the French channel ports. These ports were of value to the Allies as supply depots. But the Germans had heavily fortified the ports. So Eisenhower wisely decided not to expend the blood to capture them. Most of those ports were simply isolated, and then bypassed.

A fair argument could be made that the Philippines fell in that same category.

I’m an old guy, and it’s getting late. So I’ll give you the last word. Thanks again for keeping the conversation civil.