MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 11/18/2017 11:37:46 PM
 (1939-1945) WWII Battles    
AuthorMessage
Page 2 of 2 (Page: 1  2) 
OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 503

Re: The Japanese plans to cut off Australia from America in WWII!?
Posted on: 11/9/2017 1:04:40 PM
Oh, they were certain the Allies would respond, they just hoped they would have time to get what they needed and build up an insurmountable defense. I don't think the Army realized deep down that the Pacific was mostly "empty air".

Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 2860

Re: The Japanese plans to cut off Australia from America in WWII!?
Posted on: 11/15/2017 3:11:50 PM
op,

That's one thing about the Pacific the Ocean is so vast,

it's almost impossible to hold territory against good navies!?

What say you?
MD
---------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 503

Re: The Japanese plans to cut off Australia from America in WWII!?
Posted on: 11/15/2017 4:35:15 PM

Quote:
op,

That's one thing about the Pacific the Ocean is so vast,

it's almost impossible to hold territory against good navies!?

What say you?
MD

--Michigan Dave

IT's almost impossible to hold territory WITH good navies. If there had been a serious threat to our supply lines and rear areas immediately adjacent to the "front" we'd have had to have a much larger military structure. Fortunately, the Japanese were never willing to consider "logistics, logistics, logistics" as a valid strategy guide.

brian grafton
Victoria, BC, Canada
top 10
E-9 Sergeant Major
Moderator


Posts: 1387

Re: The Japanese plans to cut off Australia from America in WWII!?
Posted on: 11/15/2017 9:02:21 PM
Opana, I tend to agree with you.

I assumed at the time you posted that you were responding to my comment: "The point is, they made their move and were incredibly successful."

But I also said: "I think it important to keep the Pacific war within a temporal framework." In late 1941, Britain, France, Holland and the US boasted control of much of the various Asias, either by conquest, treaty, control, trade or some other means. Six months later, white nations had lost their power bases. Britain had lost Hong Kong, the Malay States, and Singapore, and were being challenged in Burma. India, the jewel in the crown, was less than supportive of the Brits, and had citizens fighting against GB in sites as far apart as Burma and Germany. France and Holland, already non-existent states (except for governments-in-exile) lost Indochina and Indonesia. The US lost small atolls and the Philippines, though not Midway. Australia was under threat, and New Zealand, an even smaller nation but with a commitment to Britain, was in no better position.

I put that down as pretty good soldiering, to be honest. And that's why I said they were incredibly successful.

Did it last? No. But as you suggest (even if you meant it only ironically) the Bushido cult of the warrior became so fearsome that the use of nukes was seen as the "best" solution.

Cheers
Brian G
---------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly.

"The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 503

Re: The Japanese plans to cut off Australia from America in WWII!?
Posted on: 11/16/2017 6:35:50 AM
I didn't suggest that the atomic bombs were the best solution. They were part of a total package. The fact that Gen. Marshall was to be given ten more bombs for use in the invasion of Japan tell us that the US was not certain that two would end the war. The Allies were faced with the possibility that the war would end when the last military man in Japan was dead.

 (1939-1945) WWII Battles    
Page 2 of 2 (Page: 1  2) 
 Forum Ads from Google