MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 6/18/2018 5:15:42 AM
 (1939-1945) WWII Battles
AuthorMessage
Page 3 of 3 (Page: 1  2  3) 
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 709

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 10:04:54 PM
Because Hitler thought so much of US capabilities in 1939 he declared war on them almost 3 years later after the National Guard had been called up, a draft initiated, hundreds of ships built and recommissioned and thousands of planes and tanks built.

You know the answer to this the people were isolationists. Besides Canada was more than enough if we listen to you tell of all she contributed every chance you get while running down the US every chance you get.

Edit Want to talk "moral imperatives" then why not declare war on the Soviet Union when she invaded Poland in concert with Germany along with Latvia, Lithuainia and Estonia and within months Finnland?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 7192

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/3/2018 7:03:23 AM
Indeed John, I will tell the Canadian story lest we be forgotten by people like you.

Short story: We receive PBS out of Buffalo. It gets a lot of donations from Ontario. I recall when they put on a special about Canada in WW1. The three shills who solicit donations while the show pauses were effusive with praise and comments like, "I had no idea that Canada was in that war" and "isn't that wonderful that Canada took part". It ticked me off and I realized that perhaps some Americans, perhaps many, had no idea that Canada's contribution to that war was so significant.

And yes we have heard too many times that the US, "saved Europe's ass" in that conflict too. Untrue but if those are the tales that are told to Americans, someone has to modify or correct the narrative. May as well be me.

War of 1812? Another US victory right? Wrong. Let me tell our side.

We create our own mythology. So do you. In a history discussion forum, sometimes it is necessary to dig a little deeper and perhaps dispel some myths.

So get as ticked off as you like when I tell the Canadian side. I think our story is important.

And no, Canada was not near large or capable enough to turn the tide but it is heartening to know that when the UK was in trouble that the Dominions and colonies stepped up.

It was a show of solidarity. And while I am at it, the Canadian effort was notable and yes, it began in 1939.

It is always a difficult task to take a contrary view when dealing with some Americans who will not recognize that other countries made massive contributions to the war effort and did all that they could and paid a dear price for that. Difficult because some Americans are insistent that they won the wars all by themselves.

Europeans and Britons especially were trying to avoid war. They had just come through a horrific war just 20 years before and the deaths in the war for the UK and others were astounding to contemplate once again.

The US was also shocked at the number of casualties that it had taken in the brief time that it was in combat but the other nations who had been at it since 1914, including mine I must add, were numbed by it all. But they persevered to the end or the armistice at least.

And yet when the line in the sand was crossed in 1939, the UK and the Commonwealth and France and the victim countries of Hitler attempted to restore order and to defeat a dangerous enemy.

Despite the best efforts of FDR to circumvent the American neutrality laws, the US did not enter until the Japanese attacked and Hitler sealed his doom with a declaration of war on the US. I consider FDR to be a war hero in his own right.

We recognize the importance of Lend-Lease but should we ignore the fact that before L-L the US demanded cash for any goods that the UK bought.
This damaged the ability to continue to buy supplies. So the UK wealth was shipped to the US while it was in a desperate situation. So the issue of aid to the UK is complex and nuanced.

Commonwealth countries attempted to fill supply gaps and did wonderfully well but it was never going to be enough.

As well, the US and Canada I must admit, survived the war with strong economies while the UK, having fought two major wars in a half century, was beggared and took a long time to recover.

Again I ask John, do you think that the US would have entered the fray to "save everyone's ass" if Hitler had not declared war against the US? Why or why not?

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 709

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/3/2018 9:08:12 AM
And Europeans pretty much ensured the next war when they concluded the Treaty of Versaille. Oh and since Canada did so much during the war to ensure influence at the peace table should you be included in that?

Just what do you think the US owed GB that the peoples tax dollars should pay their bills with US industry?

You never recognize honoring the British blockade of Germany, the freezing of German assets and confiscation of German goods and transports on US property, the enlargement of the US patrol zone to include half the Atlantic with reporting to the RN of the positions of U-Boats, raiders and tenders, the escort of convoys and the defense of the same halfway to the point that twice USN Ships were damaged with loss of life in combat with U Boats, air cover for convoys and then Lend Lease before Dec 7.

So given that between the attacks on Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and the German attack on the Soviets Union there were over 1 mill Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonian and Finns killed in combat, executed or sent to Soviet gulags why no declaration of war on the Soviets?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 7192

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/3/2018 10:53:37 AM

Quote:
And Europeans pretty much ensured the next war when they concluded the Treaty of Versaille. Oh and since Canada did so much during the war to ensure influence at the peace table should you be included in that?


Simplistic analysis.

I don't quite get the shot at Canada but what is it now, about three in a row.

Sarcasm is the last refuge of the weak, John.

I think that I could present a compelling argument that both the Canadian and Australian Corps were more significant factors in WW1 than the US forces. The Dominion Corps had been at it for nearly 3 years and had been in many more battles. Those two Corps were very important elements in the final 100 days too.

And the British effort. Incomparable. They gave everything that they had and their casualties indicate that.

I believe that both the Canadian and Australian Corps had more combat deaths than did the million man army of the US during WW1.

So yeah, both countries are justifiably proud of the war that they fought in both world wars.

Why do you spend so much time trying to disparage smaller nations as if they are of no consequence?

If the war had gone into the next year, we would have seen the capabilities and efforts of the US in a different light. But the war ended. Otherwise I think that the US would have had to bear a heavy load in 1919.

I do wonder why the US had a seat at the negotiation table for the Treaty of Versailles. Certainly Wilson arrived with his own agenda and the US contribution was far less than many other nations. Much appreciated though.

We all know that the US involvement in WW2 was massive and the entry of this industrial giant which became a military giant was the factor that made victory possible.

But with all that due praise, is there not room to praise all the nations that did their utmost or is the purpose here to suggest that only the US did that?

Most Americans I think would be proud of their military history in WW2 but I trust that they would also acknowledge that other countries, big and small, also covered themselves with glory, if there is any glory in thousands of deaths in war.



Quote:
You never recognize honoring the British blockade of Germany, the freezing of German assets and confiscation of German goods and transports on US property, the enlargement of the US patrol zone to include half the Atlantic with reporting to the RN of the positions of U-Boats, raiders and tenders, the escort of convoys and the defense of the same halfway to the point that twice USN Ships were damaged with loss of life in combat with U Boats, air cover for convoys and then Lend Lease before Dec 7.


Wrong. Acknowledged and discussed many times on this forum.

Question though: Did you know that the RCN was involved in the Battle of the Atlantic too?



John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 709

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/3/2018 6:07:11 PM
I spend no time "trying to disparage smaller nations" its the unrealistic view of the contributions and influence those contributions merit that I'm disparaging.

I wasn't being sarcastic you go off for 3 pages of discussion that the military contributions of the smaller nations is what buys them a seat at and influence over the peace negotiations then when I ask if you want to take any credit for a crappy peace treaty its sarcasim on my part.

Common freakin sense tells anybody with a brain that Canada would be "involved in the Battle of the Atlantic" because you were at war my point was your involvement wasn't a game changer nor could it be but the US on the other hand. What is that saying about war? Oh yah "In war there is no substitute for victory" and Canada's involvement on any level didn't ensure victory. The brutal honest truth in no way meant to "disparage" Canada just the FACT.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


RiaindeVoy
Geelong, Australia
top 10
E-9 Sergeant Major


Posts: 1328

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/3/2018 6:21:02 PM

Quote:
Riain,

No US and no Lend Lease when are the Aussie troops in Europe getting back? Does GB have enough shipping and escorts? Does Australia have enough Navy to keep the shipping lanes open from a possible Japanese blockade? Does Australia have the planes to keep air superiority over the shipping lanes? Without Lend Lease how much arms and equipment can GB ship to you or can you arm, equip and supply your forces indefenetly without any help? How about replace the shipping lost? Oil and refineries?

I also have to add this whole discussion starts with you running down the contributions of one of your allies even if I really don't have a problem with running down MacArthur he was an ally and expecting a pat on the back for offering troops to serve under specific terms and conditions that were unacceptable to an alliance you had already agreed to be a part of and with a commander you already agreed to serve under.
--John R. Price


John, the 6th and 7th AIF divisions were bought back from the Mid East by mid 1942 in British shipping I believe, the 9th stayed until after El Alamein.

After the Indian Ocean foray in early 1942 the British invaded Madagascar and had ships stationed in East Africa. Without US involvement these ships could be based in and around Australia, by January 1943 this equated to 7 capital ships, 12 cruisers, 16 destroyers, 11 subs and assorted other cats and dogs. In any case Australia is pretty self sufficient in raw materials and the main centres of population and industry are a long way to the south, making blockade with Japans 60-odd subs an impossible task. Of course by 1944 the Far Eastern fleet was being built up into an offensive striking force.

By 1941 Australia was manufacturing the Beaufort bomber and by 1942 had received Beaufighters and Spitfires from Britain, by 1943 we were manufacturing the (not very good) Boomerang fighter and Beaufighter and eventually the Mosquito with locally built Merlins. By mid 42 Britain had shipped us 200 Matildas and by January 1943 we had 300 Matildas and 140 British light tanks on strength and were gearing up to build our home-grown Sentinel tank (only 65 were built because of 1000 Lend Lease Stuart and Grant tanks). We had at least one oil refinery during WW2 and plans to expand and build others before the war, and an oil industry to expand upon in an emergency.

We are a long way from helpless and Britain was far from useless in the event that the US made peace with Japan.

Most importantly I didn't run down what the US did. I expressed displeasure about the attitude that Allies owe the US all this gratitude for all the things they did for us, but rejected offers for assistance. You can't have your cake and eat it too; if you forego offers of assistance you also forego the right to criticise allies for not doing enough.
---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 709

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/3/2018 6:58:20 PM
Riain,

Doesn't Lend Lease effect the availability of British shipping and British military assets of all kinds? If there is no Lend lease to the British in 41 and the US Navy doesn't start escorting in 41 and extend the patrol zone in 41 is the shipping and military assets available in 42? All that was well before entry into the war. And it wouldn't be just 60-odd subs for Japan because they would have air bases on New Guinea and Guadalcanal and there would have been no carriers lost at Coral Sea or Midway.

But really my main points in your "displeasure" were that if it had been accepted you would have had just as much "displeasure" for other reasons and the conditions attached were IMHO a little over the top.(I'm not sure what word or phrase to use here but basically I think you were asking for too much control)
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


RiaindeVoy
Geelong, Australia
top 10
E-9 Sergeant Major


Posts: 1328

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/3/2018 7:52:21 PM
John, I think we're going down a strange rabbit hole where the Japanese attack Pearl Harbour and Germany declares war on the US but the US doesn't fight despite already agreeing to a Germany first policy with the British in November 1941 and all the other stuff. But hey, I'm a strange bloke and this is an interesting topic, so down I go!

Sure LL affects shipping etc, but without it the Commonwealth will adjust the war they fight to take a lack of LL into account.
For example as LL was being negotiated in the US the British were organising the Greek campaign knowing that in Feb 41 the LL had passed Congress and that later in the year they were going to get a bunch of free stuff. If LL looked like falling over in the US perhaps the British don't take the risk of going to Greece and holding their gains from Op Compass so far forward, they husband the 2nd Armoured division back further and as a result reduce the effect of Rommel's Sonnenblume offensive.
Perhaps the British also hold Crete because of the firm limits on what they can send to Greece means they're much more realistic in their planning and modest in their commitment.
Perhaps the RAF doesn't undertake offensive fighter sweeps over France because they need to husband their fighters for the Mid East, and the same with night bomber raids that miss their targets, and they send Spitfires to Malta in 1941 rather than 1942.

Who knows how it would play out, but certainly no LL from March 41 would cause all sorts of ripples both good and bad that by 1942 when the Japanese are near Australia its difficult to say how the situation might look.
---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 7192

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/3/2018 9:55:17 PM

Quote:
the military contributions of the smaller nations is what buys them a seat at and influence over the peace negotiations


Now you've got it John. Participation means consultation and consideration of one's views. I actually thought that that was fairly obvious.

But smaller nations have to push for it. Australia and Canada had to push their position with the British and certainly with the US.





Quote:
Common freakin sense tells anybody with a brain that Canada would be "involved in the Battle of the Atlantic" because you were at war my point was your involvement wasn't a game changer nor could it be but the US on the other hand.


So the Battle of the Atlantic would have been won without the RCN and RCAF? Is that your contention?

Are you aware of the extent of the involvement of the RCN and RCAF in convoy escort?







John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 709

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/4/2018 4:03:51 AM
Riain,

But the truth is that absent the US and its industrial capacity the British and all her Dominions and colonies can't build enough ships fast enough to keep up with the loss the U-Boats are inflicting and even attempting to try diverts resources and raw materials from other critical production needs and now you are adding loss that the Japanese are inflicting. Without US food production and ship production to get it there the USSR after the initial ground loss in Barbarossa can't produce enough food to feed the population and the army. Hell how far do the initial 50 Destroyers go in only buying time?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 709

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/4/2018 4:07:02 AM
Answer the whole quote instead of picking it apart in a attempt to make it look like I'm agreeing with your stance.

Edit No I'm saying that Canada with her economic and military capabilities, no matter how much you toot your horn about them, can't win without a hell of a lot of help. But if you would rather it be said your way then yes the Battle of the Atlantic could be won without Canada.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 7192

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/4/2018 6:29:56 AM
It doesn't take long before the belief in American Exceptionalism rises to the top of the bottle. It guides your views of every other nation.


Quote:
Edit No I'm saying that Canada with her economic and military capabilities, no matter how much you toot your horn about them, can't win without a hell of a lot of help. But if you would rather it be said your way then yes the Battle of the Atlantic could be won without Canada.


I think that if you examined the history of the Battle of the Atlantic you would find that the RCN and RCAF played a key role in fighting this battle.

Your comments make me wonder why we bothered.

But I'm game. Tell me how the Battle of the Atlantic was going to be won without the RCN.

EDIT: What you call "horn tooting" is important because it is people like you that would choose to dismiss us and so I will not be cowed.

Small to middle powers know that they must co-operate with other nations to be effective. They must accept challenges that are within their capabilities.

In that, I am telling you that Canada punched far above its weight class in both world wars.

I am telling you that starting from scratch, the RCN created a purpose built navy, an escort navy that despite all of the problems created by rapid growth and inexperience, somehow managed to be a key player in this battle.

Read the history of it John. You may never be impressed but you will be better informed.




Re: Australia

Since this is about the snubbing of Australia by MacArthur I think that the point that I have been trying to make is that the Australians felt that they would fight better under their own command and not as a single division attached to a US Corps.

They would want to be consulted on operations and then given control over their operations.

Look the Australians had already proved in the WW1 that they were excellent soldiers and fully capable of engaging in operations in combination with allies. Check their battle honours and count their successes.

In the end, it is a matter of respect and it seems that the only country that you feel is worthy is your own. But then I knew that going in.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 709

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/4/2018 7:24:46 AM
Simple math.

Canada built a total of 436 merchant ships of all kinds during the war. here is the link, http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/canadaships/wwtwo.htm

The US built 2,571 "Liberty" cargo ships and 531 "Victory" transports during the war and that isn't counting tankers or smaller sized cargo ships. The link just click on Liberty Ships and Victory ships, https://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/116liberty_victory_ships/116liberty_victory_ships.htm

Would you like me to get the numbers for warships built.

You can't build enough ship to come anywhere close to the number that the U-Boats alone are sinking without counting surface or air or the Japanese. GAME OVER!

Edit First with the Philippines the Army commander, Krueger, and the Area Commander, MacArthur are US. Second and I've been trying to point this out over and over again there would have been no consultation over assignments there was a very limited number available on Luzon and there would have been no control over operations because of terrain, limited troop numbers and limited artillery ammunition available the only tactics available were to attack prepared positions frontally with infantry. If MacArthur had accepted the Aussie demands we would be talking about how the US used them as cannon fodder.

I also found a site that says that the US built about 5,500 merchant ships of all kinds and sizes during the war and that the Allies and neutral nations lost 5,140 merchant ships to Axis combat actions.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 7192

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/4/2018 8:45:39 AM
John I know my country's history fairly well.

I may know more than you think about US history because we share a good deal of the same history. I may have a different interpretation of events like the insurrection in the 1770's but it is part of the shared history of North America. So I study it.

You see, I can give a different historical perspective on events like that but your ego and need to believe that the US is the greatest country in the world make it difficult for you to entertain different points of view.

Do you know the history of the Battle of the Atlantic? I mean really know it. Do you understand the way the system was organized and the different zones of operation.

I have read quite a bit about it. There is always more to learn of course. I really cannot find much on the US perspective of the battle. I would be interested in that.

You are talking about industrial capacity. I am talking about what the respective navies in the Battle of the Atlantic were asked to do and what they were able to accomplish and how they did so.

"Game over". Really. More child like every day. Revealing however. No nuances. No revision. Just a win for John.

Why would I dispute the industrial capacity of the USA? It was a major factor in victory.

But those tools have to be used by someone.


If you would like, I can explain what Canada was asked to do, why we were so unprepared to do it and how we geared up to do it. I can point to all the problems associated with growth.

I can point to the failures that occurred because of over reach and lack of training time. I can point to times when we should have told Britain that we were overly extended but did not.

But your frame of reference and ego won't ever allow you to acknowledge that a small nation perhaps was asked to step in because other nations, like the UK and much later, the US, were extremely busy closer to home or in the Pacific.

At no time do I claim that Canada won the war by itself. Smaller nations tend to be more humble than that. You should try it. Others appreciate it.

And they get ticked off when larger nations or their representatives, like you, dismiss them without sufficient knowledge because you don't care to know. You have made several disparaging remarks about my country already. Fortunately, I am not easily cowed and will continue to report our side if relevant.

You managed to do a quick google to prove that the US built more merchant ships. Very good. I already knew that.

Canada did build merchant ships and built its escort navy warships, mostly Corvettes but larger ships as well. Some of those ships went to the USN BTW.

The escort fleet was used to complete the task as requested by the UK which needed help in getting food and military supplies from Canada initially, to the UK and later from the US.

The RCN initially did not want this task. It had dreams of building a great blue water navy but what was needed was convoy escort. And Canada agreed.



Let's try this. Dec. 7, 1941 was a difficult day for the US. What happened to the USN and Coast Guard vessels that were involved in convoy escort in 1941. What was the response of the RCN?

When the u-boats were having a field day off the eastern coast of the US, what was the response of the RCN?

How many convoys did the RCN successfully deliver to the UK? As the war progressed, did the responsibilities accepted by the RCN increase or decrease?

At a later point in the war 96% of convoys were escorted by RN and RCN vessels on the North Atlantic run.

Given Canada's size there are many historians who will say that a disproportionate share of the Battle of the Atlantic was fought by the RCN. I tend to agree but we can take pride in not shirking from duty.

The doesn't mean that the RCN did the most but perhaps more than should have been expected because there was a need.


Are you on this forum to discuss history or not John?

But for some reason to allude to those accomplishments is perceived by you as a means to diminish the US.

It is not but you need to be reminded that the US did not win this war by itself and to claim so is disrespectful to the people from other countries who died facing the same challenges.


Specific to this thread, I posited that smaller nations seek recognition and influence when world events are unfolding. They want to make sure that when deals are struck that those deals don't leave them behind or damage their ability to exist.

Participation in war does mean that the large nations must take notice of the smaller nations. With negotiation, they may alter foreign policy to reflect the needs of the smaller ally. That's the hope. And I think that it is valid.

Why do you think that smaller nations contribute a few aircraft to some US initiative in the Middle East when those aircraft would not be needed if the US went full bore? Part of it is a treaty responsibility. Part of it is to placate and allow the participant to remind the US when needed that, "we were there. "

You reject that but give no reason for the rejection. Perhaps you don't give a damn what smaller countries think.

You did comment to Riain that what Australia was asking in the Philippine operation was too much. What did you mean by that? What was problematic in the request for more troops to be added to the Philippine campaign and more operational control?

Do you think that there was a problem with sharing the glory on Mac's part?



John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 709

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/4/2018 10:06:30 AM
The GAME OVER meant the war for the British. She is a island nation that depends on the merchant fleet for food and raw materials and for transport of troops, arms and munitions to the battlefield. When available shipping falls below a certain level she would be left with no choice but to seek terms or see her people starve and here armies go unsupplied. In 39, 40 and 41 she was getting closer and closer to that point. You are building 72 cargo ships a year when 1,000 or more are being sunk in those years. Its simple math.

As for the Philippines you have limited shipping space available, time in transit from base areas, limited offloading capability in the Philippines, limited infrastructure to get supplies to the front line and a very good Japanese commander. Then throw in that MacArthur checked out after Manila fell. I've given these reasons plus others in this discussion but you aren't listening.

There was no "glory" in the Philippines except Cabuatuan, Bilibad, St Thomas and every other place POW's and civilian internees were being held and they weren't corps level operations.

I also believe your viewpoint is window dressing just ask the Free Poles, the Latvians, Estonian, Lituanians, Palistinians and South Vietnamese.

---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 7192

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/4/2018 10:44:36 AM
Again, I know the math. Again, the US military-industrial complex was a major factor in the defeat of our enemies.

I am addressing your rude assertion that Canada's role in Battle of the Atlantic was inconsequential and did not make a difference to the result.

Try not be so obtuse. I have been very clear on the focus of my discussion.

Your rejection without explanation of the reasons for Australia to seek a greater role in the Philippines devolved into an attempt to diminish the efforts in war of the smaller powers. That was insulting and inaccurate too.

If I understand you correctly, you felt that the Aussies had no justification for asking to be involved to a greater extent and to ask for their troops to fight under Australian command. Correct?

Just to confirm, are you saying that the Australians hadn't done enough to be considered for the Philippines? Seeking clarification John, not looking to provoke.


Quote:
I also believe your viewpoint is window dressing just ask the Free Poles, the Latvians, Estonian, Lituanians, Palistinians and South Vietnamese.


What viewpoint and on which issue? Please explain yourself. What is window dressing in this context?

You know the role and importance of the middle powers has been studied John. There are scholarly articles on these nations and the influence that they can have on international affairs. And as we lurched into the cold war, the role of the middle power in international relations was enhanced.

Several middle powers emerged from the conflict of WW2 and influenced international politics in later years.

But it demands that you change lenses to clear from red, white and blue.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 709

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/4/2018 1:56:10 PM
I said Canada's effort in the Atlantic wasn't a "game changer" that it didn't make THE difference between victory and defeat. That Canada didn't have the economic or military capability to be THE difference maker and any level. Then you asked if I was saying the Battle of the Atlantic could have been won without Canada and I said yes. You didn't but enough assets into the pot.

There are like 100 plus island in the Philippines and the demands were that a Aussie Corps of 3/4 Divisions be assigned to 6th Army for the invasion of Luzon. To that I say there are a variety of pretty good to very good reasons of the military and political variety why that is going too far and asking too much and I've given those reasons multiple times. I've never said that Australia "hadn't done enough" that is you putting words in my mouth which you seem to do quite often.

The larger powers are going to do what is in their best interests no matter. You bring up the Suez Crisis and weren't there 2 or 3 Egypt-Israel wars after that cease fire and God know how much terrorism. There wasn't anything approaching peace until Nassar is dead, Arafat lost his war and Jimmy Carter gets involved what 15 years later or so. Hell the Second World War in Europe starts in Poland and the Polish people don't get to determine their own future and government until Solidarity in what the early 80's and the Free Poles fought like the devil for the British.

You have to take the Maple Leaf from before your eyes.

---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 7192

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/4/2018 2:28:24 PM

Quote:
I said Canada's effort in the Atlantic wasn't a "game changer" that it didn't make THE difference between victory and defeat. That Canada didn't have the economic or military capability to be THE difference maker and any level. Then you asked if I was saying the Battle of the Atlantic could have been won without Canada and I said yes. You didn't but enough assets into the pot




Well John, I know that you're wrong about Canada and the Battle of the Atlantic. But you aren't really interested in finding out why as usual.

In fact, I'm going to suggest that you really don't know the history of this battle or the roles of the navies that were in it.

But enough is enough. I tire of trying to decipher what you are trying to say in this, once again, disjointed post.


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


Posts: 3547

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/4/2018 3:45:45 PM
Gentlemen! Gentlemen!

Please! Least we forget! Canada & the US, FRIENDS Forever!!!!?

[Read More]

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

RiaindeVoy
Geelong, Australia
top 10
E-9 Sergeant Major


Posts: 1328

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/5/2018 12:42:51 AM

Quote:
Riain,

But the truth is that absent the US and its industrial capacity the British and all her Dominions and colonies can't build enough ships fast enough to keep up with the loss the U-Boats are inflicting and even attempting to try diverts resources and raw materials from other critical production needs and now you are adding loss that the Japanese are inflicting. Without US food production and ship production to get it there the USSR after the initial ground loss in Barbarossa can't produce enough food to feed the population and the army. Hell how far do the initial 50 Destroyers go in only buying time?
--John R. Price


To win the 'tonnage war' the U-boat arm had to sink 300,000 GRT per month in order to overwhelm Britain's shipbuilding capacity and reduce its merchant marine strength. In only four out of the first 27 months of the war did Germany achieve this target, while after December 1941, when Britain was joined by the U.S. merchant marine and ship yards the target effectively doubled. As a result, the Axis needed to sink 700,000 GRT per month; as the massive expansion of the U.S. shipbuilding industry took effect this target increased still further. The 700,000 ton target was achieved in only one month, November 1942, while after May 1943 average sinkings dropped to less than one tenth of that figure.

Its hard to nail down what it would mean if the US didn't join in because much of the 2nd Happy Time was over on the US East Coast and a good proportion of shipping in 1942-43 was US stuff for US forces building up in Britain. What is clear is that the Uboats weren't the mortal threat they've since been portrayed as and certainly without the US in the war Britain wouldn't be defeated by Uboats. The Japanese submarine campaign was an absolute joke and didn't threaten anyone.

As for LL to the Soviet, again they wouldn't be defeated without it, they certainly stopped Barbarossa without it and it didn't have much impact in Stalingrad. Like the the British the Soviets wouldn't have been able to drive to total victory without LL, but would likely have reached a compromise peace after Kursk.

All in all Britain-Soviet Union were economically evenly matched against the 3 Axis powers, which would result in a stalemate more or less if the US didn't intervene.

Just as an aside; this is the most I've thought about WW2 in ages, years even, I just don't find it interesting anymore.
---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 709

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/5/2018 9:05:04 AM
Riain could I ask your source on the British shipbuilding capability because I've got sources showing a different picture for 39 to 43.

The two countries collaborated most closely in the joint use of Merchant Shipping, a sphere in which they very nearly achieved a full-fledged pooling of resources. Throughout 1942, however, this collaboration was more of a burden than a help to Britain. Although the amount of American Merchant Shipping in British service almost doubled, British warships were diverted to help protect the sea lanes in the western Atlantic, with consequent thinning of protection elsewhere, and Britain also contributed heavily to American shipping services, particularly in troop ships. British shipping losses in 1942 fell just short of 6 million deadweight tons (an increase of a third over those in the year preceding, when Britain had been fighting the war at sea alone); American losses were less than 2.5 million tons. American shipyards, moreover, were able in this year to offset U.S. losses to the extent of almost 4 million tons, while Britain, with only a meager building capacity, showed a net loss of more than 2 million tons. By the end of March 1943 Britain's dry cargo shipping tonnage had fallen to 18.5 million deadweight tons, almost 3 million tons less than its total on the eve of Pearl Harbor. [3]
The drain on British Merchant Shipping during 1942, which Britain's new ally was not yet able to make good, posed a serious and growing threat to the British War Economy. The heart of that economy lay in the industries and people of the United Kingdom, which depended for their very existence on an uninterrupted flow of imports. These had already declined from a prewar average of more than 50 million deadweight tons to 42 million in 1940 and 31 million in 1941. In 1942, despite desperate efforts to arrest the decline and increased assistance from the United States, they fell to 23 million. Even with drastic curtailment of domestic consumption and services and increased local production of food and munitions, this was far less than was needed to meet current requirements. Britain had to eat into its stocks,
[3] (1) Behrens, Merchant Shipping, pp. 69, 293. (2) War Shipping Administration, Shipping Summary, Vol. II, No. 6, June 1945. (3) Hancock and Gowing, British War Economy, pp. 412-14, 416-17.

Deadweight tonnage represents the total carrying capacity of a ship, including ship's gear, supplies, and personnel, expressed in long tons (2,240 pounds). Figures on ship losses in this paragraph are extrapolated from gross tonnage figures given in (1) by applying a factor of 1.5. (Gross tonnage is a measure of a ship's entire enclosed space expressed in units of 100 cubic feet.) Deadweight tonnage figures in (2), the officially accepted U.S. source for World War II shipping losses, are not broken down to show separate categories for American- and British-controlled shipping. Tanker losses, reported separately, are not used in the present study.
Page 202
which by the end of the year had fallen an estimated 2.5 million tons to a level dangerously near what the War Cabinet had decided must be regarded as irreducible. [4]

The British Merchant Shipping Museum states that in 1938 that imports averaged over 1 million dead weight tons per week or slightly under 55million tons a year and included all oil, half the food and more than half the industrial raw materials.

I also have found a order for 60 merchant ships to be built in US shipyards in 1940.

I'm wondering if you source is only counting ships sunk by U-Boats and not all ships sunk or giving total shipbuilding capability including warships? Eith one of those or mine is completely wrong
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 709

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/5/2018 9:37:38 AM
Riain,

Continuing,

By late summer U.S. as well as British officials were growing uneasy over the trend. Lewis Douglas, deputy administrator for the War Shipping Administration (WSA), visited London in July and he and Averell Harriman, the President's lend-lease representative there, submitted a special report to the President on 2 August, supplementing a more comprehensive one by the two Combined Shipping Adjustment Boards (CSAB) (Washington and London) and warning that substantially greater aid in American shipping would be needed if Britain were to continue its war effort on the current scale. On 6 October the United States, through the CSAB, formally accepted the principle that, as merchant shipbuilder for the United Nations, it would undertake to assign an "appropriate portion" of the residue of tonnage built over tonnage lost in order "to relieve the burden on the war services of each of the other United Nations." Before the end of that month the President decided to expand the merchant shipbuilding program, hitherto held back because of a shortage of steel, to the full capacity of the shipyards. However, the British Government, while reasonably confident that Britain would be the chief foreign beneficiary of this expansion, felt that the clear drift of the national economy toward disaster called for more specific assurance and concrete action. It decided to seek from its ally "a solemn compact, almost a treaty" setting forth the amount of shipping Britain could expect. [5]
In November Sir Oliver Lyttelton, British Minister of Production, came to Washington to negotiate such a settlement, not merely for shipping but for the whole field of munitions as well. Depletion of domestic stocks, he pointed out, had gone so far that imports had little or no margin left for fluctuation; henceforth, the flow must keep pace with consumption. Lyttelton requested the United States to guarantee enough shipping in 1943 to enable Britain to bring her dry cargo imports up to 27 million tons, a figure that would retard, though it would not halt, the depletion of stocks while providing raw materials for an expanded output of munitions. To produce these results would, the British estimated, require the transfer to British service of ship-
[4] (1) Behrens, Merchant Shipping, pp. 264, 291. (2) Hancock and Gowing, British War Economy, pp. 423-26. U.S. shipping did not directly service the U.K. import program in 1942, but its indirect contribution to that program, by releasing British shipping from other routes, was equivalent to between five and six million tons of imports.
[5] (1) Hancock and Gowing, British War Economy, pp. 423-26. (2) Behrens, Merchant Shipping, pp. 316-18. (3) Correspondence in WSA Douglas File, folders, Hopkins, Shipping Correspondence, British Merchant Shipping Mission Misc, U.K. Imports.
Page 203
ping equivalent to 2.5 million deadweight tons in continuous employment throughout the year-an amount considered sufficient to bring in about 7 million tons of imports via the North Atlantic route. [6]
The President's response was prompt and sympathetic. He wrote to Rear Adm. Emory S. Land of the U.S. Maritime Commission:

In all probability the British are going to lose again in 1943 more ships than they can build. If we are going to keep England in the war at anything like this maximum capacity, we must consider the supplementing of their merchant fleet as one of the top military necessities of the war. [7]
Roosevelt's principal civilian advisers concurred; the military, evidently, were not consulted. Replying formally to the Prime Minister on 30 November, Roosevelt noted that the U.S. shipbuilding program was being augmented to at least 18.8 million deadweight tons in 1943, possibly 20 million. [8] He promised that the United States would make available in 1943 (as a loan rather than by transfer of flag, as requested), sufficient shipping to meet Britain's marginal needs for carriage of 27 million tons of imports, along with requirements for military supply and essential war services. Over and above U.S. shipping already in British service, the amount needed had been estimated, the President noted, as "an average of nearly 300,000 tons each month of carrying capacity." [9]

Specifically look to the note from FDR which starts "In all probability the British are going to lose again in 1943 more ships than they can build." Also that even at 27 million tons of imports the stocks are going to be used to meet need. Imports had gone from basically 55 million tons in 38 to 51 in 39 to 42 in 40 to 31 in 41 to 23 in 42 but as you noted much of what was sunk in 42 was destined to be used by US Forces for their build-up so any way you cut it imports for 42 weren't going to meet current consumption. They might not have been as low as 23 million tons but they weren't going to be any higher than 27 million tons and in all probability no more than 25 million.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


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


Posts: 3547

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/13/2018 9:51:38 AM

Quote:
BWilson,

 As for "backwater" operations in general, it bears recalling that all organizations/alliances/undertakings set priorities. The truth is that most of the players in any undertaking work the lesser priorities, but that doesn't make them lesser men for doing so.

I'd add that yes it was great to bypass and let the garrison starve but if there was a native population they were going to starve first as were any POW's being held military or civilian. With that said were any of the more densely populated areas really a "backwater?"
--John R. Price




This member feels MacArthur's tactics were influenced by baseball!?

[Read More]

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

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 709

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/13/2018 2:55:53 PM
Dave I would say that too may times MacArthur left his subordinates no other tactical choice than a frontal attack against prepared positions. That is exactly what just about every battle in the Philippines was. Its one of the points I have been trying to get across.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


Emanon
Gibsonia, PA, USA
New User
E-2 Private
Posts: 19

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/14/2018 4:36:58 AM
Now we know why the Canadian beach was placed between the two British beaches on D-Day in Normandy.

The British were afraid that if Omaha and Juno were adjacent, then John's grandfather and George's grandfather might shoot each other instead of the Nazis.

;)

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 7192

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/14/2018 6:35:14 AM

Quote:
Now we know why the Canadian beach was placed between the two British beaches on D-Day in Normandy.

The British were afraid that if Omaha and Juno were adjacent, then John's grandfather and George's grandfather might shoot each other instead of the Nazis.

;)
--Emanon


Ha, I'm older than you think. It would have been my father actually but he was otherwise engaged in the Italian campaign.

John and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. That's pretty obvious but he is entitled to his opinions.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 709

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/14/2018 12:19:30 PM
My Grandfather on my fathers side was a Marine and was KIA in the Pacific. My Grandfather on my step fathers side was in the Navy and served in the Pacific. My Grandfather on my mothers side was too old to serve in 42 his younger brother was in the PA National Guard Division the "Bloody Bucket" and his nephew, my Grandmothers sisters son, served in the 17th Airborne Division and he was my Godfather.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


dt509er
Santa Rosa, CA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 568

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/14/2018 11:34:50 PM

Quote:
My Grandfather on my fathers side was a Marine and was KIA in the Pacific. My Grandfather on my step fathers side was in the Navy and served in the Pacific. My Grandfather on my mothers side was too old to serve in 42 his younger brother was in the PA National Guard Division the "Bloody Bucket" and his nephew, my Grandmothers sisters son, served in the 17th Airborne Division and he was my Godfather.
--John R. Price


Hello John.

Curious to know if your Godfather made the Jump near Wesel during Operation Varsity?
---------------
"American parachutists-devils in baggy pants..."

I take offense to your perception of being offended!

“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Lord Ernest Rutherford

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 709

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/15/2018 1:15:16 AM
DT,

He had the star for a combat jump so he had to be. He didn't talk to me about his war experience my great uncle Bobby on the other hand did. Sadly they have both been gone for more than a few years.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


jahenders
Colorado Springs, CO, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant


Posts: 269

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/16/2018 3:33:19 PM

Quote:
Remember; Mac said: "I shall return" so did he mean to retake the Philippines as part of an American Empire??
--Michigan Dave


I think he meant it as both a keeping a promise to his Fillipino allies but also (perhaps more so) as a huge publicity affair highlighting (as always) him in all his glory. In one sense it SHOULD have been necessary for him to redeem his utter failures on, and leading up to, 7 Dec 41. Kimmel and short got blamed with far less direct justification in Hawaii, but McArthur escaped all censure for (arguably) far worse screw ups in the Phillipines:

- Neither his troops, nor his allies, were nearly as prepared as he claimed
- He claimed his defenses were all but impregnable, but they fell far faster than anyone could have expected
- He horribly mismanaged his Far Eastern Air Force aircraft, refused to approve actions for hours, and left them sitting on the ground to be destroyed
- He let his forces become trapped in Bataan
- He fled while leaving his troops to endure horrific loss, torture, and captivity


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 709

Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/17/2018 8:51:57 PM
jahenders,

I am unaware of there being any "Allies" in the Philippines in 1942. If you are talking about the Philippine Army the islands were still a possession of the US and I believe that MacArthur held the rank of Field Marshal in the PA.

The plan, War Plan Orange, was for the forces to fall back into Bataan and await the Fleet and reinforcements. But there would have been stockpiles of equipment, ammunition and supplies waiting and there would have been at least some prepared positions. MacArthur changed that in favor of his defend all points and territory and dispersed the supply dumps and did no work on fortifications in Bataan.

FDR ordered MacArthur out and his being there or not would have made absolutely no difference in the fate of the troops.

I don't have the highest opinion of Mac but lets not pile on.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


Page 3 of 3 (Page: 1  2  3) 
 Forum Ads from Google