Posted on 03/15/2005 5:07:59 AM PST by billorites
Irrefutably so.
I wouldn't be suprised to learn that Russian influence managed to tip the balance as to where the Japs attacked first - Pearl or north from Manchuquo.
Japan needed oil. The only developed oil fields of significant size within reach of the Japanese military were in the Dutch East Indies. Manchurian/Siberian oil was underdeveloped and expensive to extract. To me, the decision to go South toward the Dutch East Indies was a "No-Brainer".
Look at your potential opponent in Siberia: The Soviets. Yeah, they are in trouble, but they kicked your buts not too many years back when you sent an infantry force up against Soviet Armor.
Look at you potential opponents to the South: The ABDA-alliance (America/Britain/Dutch/Australia) -- plus the Vichy Colonial government in Saigon. If you assume that your Pearl Harbor Raid disrupts the US Fleet, the ABDA alliance will fold. (As it did).
My thoughts exactly. Just another Brit putting the U.S. down.
I wonder what he has to say about Britain's utter and complete debacle at Dieppe in 1942. Hmmmmm?
Ahh yes, hindsight armchair generals, where would we be without them?
I disagree. Stopping to regroup for a new plan implies alternatives. A new plan implies that manuver, surprise, or tactics could win a campaign with less cost. This is a small island with a determined enemy well dug in. The only alternative would have been to abandon the invasion thereby handing the Japanese a victory.
Further while Nimitz was "regrouping" the Japanese would have been too. Additionally any amphibious landing means that the invasion fleet is necessarily locked to a stationary fixed location making an excellent target. Although the Japanese surface fleet was finished by the Iwo Jima invasion they still had more than 150 subs and several hundred planes that could have reached Iwo and the invasion fleet. Consider that the loss of a couple of carriers might have meant the deaths of thousands of sailors while you are regrouping and second guessing yourself.
Too many Marines died unnecessarily.
This you may argue but the only alternative was not invading at all. Perhaps the intelligence was poor but its the best that there was in 1945 when the decision was made. Lastly I will point out that although it is trite it is also true that war is won by fighting the enemy where he is. By 1945 the next steps in the war with Japan were necessarily going to be bloody. Warfare is a hazardous undertaking. Thats why those that follow that trade of arms are referred to as heroes.
Irrefutably so.
True if the only objective is land for airfields. I will point out once again that wars are won by going where the other guy is and making him miserable. You can perhaps make the arguement that Iwo was unnecessary since the Okinawa campaign was just over the horizon but bloody invasions were a next inevitable step in the Pacific war.
That however misses the concern that Iwo also provided the Japanese with a base to attack the Marianas. And they planned to do just that. Imagine the potential damage of a suicidal air attack to the closely packed B-29's of Tinian.
I'll bet this guy won't write about the European mistakes of appeasement that emboldened the nazis. Iwo Jima is sacred American history and revising the reasons why we fought that battle 60 years later is an insult to the magnificent men who fought there. I know I would not want to be the man making life and death decisions in a conflict of the scale of WWII. Every decision was an agonizing decision.
As a 19yrear old marine in I Corps (Vietnam), I saw heroism. But I think it's our obligation to question tactics after the fact. Never did myself or my brothers not fulfill their duty. But to study the history of battle, in my opinion, is not arm-chair quarter-backing. It's our duty. Semper Fi.
Absolutely brother. I was in I Corps as well (three times). The situation of 1945 was (hopefully) unique to that war and that time. Certainly today given different weapons and capabilities a similar situation would indicate a different response.
The fac is that given the technology and the political climate of the times bloody battles on Iwo or anywhere else in the Pacific Campaign were an inevitable next step. Iwo as an air base in our hands was of marginal value but then also Iwo in the Japanese hands was a serious threat and both nation's knew it.
The effectiveness of the Marine Corps, besides our somewhat unique ethos, is that we have innovated far ahead of our opposition and even allies and the US Army. After all it was the Marines that pioneered close air support, amphibous landings, helicopter vertical envelopement, and dedicated special op teams. All these are accepted, very effective tactics today.
I was once told that what makes the Marines unique in innovation is that we learn not only from our mistakes but from our successes. After the Iraq War 8 commanders of units from battalion on up were quietly relieved. Not for losing or screwing up but for rather for not winning better.
Well said. Thanks for the reply.
Typical academic baloney.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.