MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 9/19/2018 9:21:50 AM
 (1939-1945) WWII Battles
AuthorMessage
BWilson
, Posts: 4534
MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/24/2018 2:13:06 AM
This came up in another thread ('health care'). I have replied to Wazza below and given this topic its own thread in the appropriate forum.


Quote:
We are thankful for the assistance of American forces (as well as the UK and Dutch) in the New Guinea campaign, but it was MacArthur's choice to backseat us for the rest of the Pacific campaign. -wazza


Wazza,

 Does it really matter in the end? Japs killed on Borneo or Japs killed in the Philippines? If MacArthur had put the Australians in the front of operations in the Philippines, today we would hear that 'MacArthur killed good Australian boys so the USA could reassert control over the Philippines'. Just pointing out that hindsight is only worth so much . . . and that I don't feel like hindsight does a good job of weighing how alternative courses of action might have played out.

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

RiaindeVoy
Geelong, Australia
Posts: 1392
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/24/2018 3:23:53 AM
Mac was pretty bad for exceeding his authority and influencing the leader of an Allied foreign country, but then again Curtin was pretty bad for allowing it to happen, more accurately for encouraging it!

EDIT. Re-reading Wazza's post again I'm getting the impression of; don't sideline us for the second half of the war and then whinge about how much you did for us and how grateful we should be for it.
---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/24/2018 4:12:32 AM
Riain,

Don't joint operations open up a whole can of worms logistically because you were using English equipment? Wasn't shipping a limiting factor for most of the war?

Personally I wish to God Mac had used Aussie troops in the Philippines because hindsight proves he certainly needed more troops but I really do wonder if he could have logistically supported them.
---------------
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"


BWilson
, Posts: 4534
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/24/2018 4:33:39 AM

Quote:
Mac was pretty bad for exceeding his authority and influencing the leader of an Allied foreign country, but then again Curtin was pretty bad for allowing it to happen, more accurately for encouraging it!

EDIT. Re-reading Wazza's post again I'm getting the impression of; don't sideline us for the second half of the war and then whinge about how much you did for us and how grateful we should be for it.
--RiaindeVoy


Riain,

 Yep, there was a reason I established a separate thread in the proper forum for this topic. Yet, Wazza's comment about Australia being "sidelined" is nothing new as a topic of discussion. What is rarely, if ever, said is that in terms of winning the Pacific War, the Philippines were about as much a backwater as Borneo and New Guinea. MacArthur was no part of the military operations, forces, and leaders who delivered the two crippling atomic blows to Japan. Seen in that perspective, MacArthur himself was sidelined as much as the Australian forces were.

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
Posts: 3897
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/24/2018 8:52:46 AM

Quote:
Riain,

Don't joint operations open up a whole can of worms logistically because you were using English equipment? Wasn't shipping a limiting factor for most of the war?

Personally I wish to God Mac had used Aussie troops in the Philippines because hindsight proves he certainly needed more troops but I really do wonder if he could have logistically supported them.

--John R. Price




John, & Riain,

My late father John with the 1st US Cavalry was almost killed fighting in the Philippines, (purple heart) could have used the help of the Aussie troops, since it was only Americans fighting, just so Mac could say "I have returned!"

[Read More]


MD

And what about this guy??

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

dt509er
Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Posts: 601
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/24/2018 2:06:31 PM

Quote:

Quote:
Mac was pretty bad for exceeding his authority and influencing the leader of an Allied foreign country, but then again Curtin was pretty bad for allowing it to happen, more accurately for encouraging it!

EDIT. Re-reading Wazza's post again I'm getting the impression of; don't sideline us for the second half of the war and then whinge about how much you did for us and how grateful we should be for it.
--RiaindeVoy


Riain,

 Yep, there was a reason I established a separate thread in the proper forum for this topic. Yet, Wazza's comment about Australia being "sidelined" is nothing new as a topic of discussion. What is rarely, if ever, said is that in terms of winning the Pacific War, the Philippines were about as much a backwater as Borneo and New Guinea. MacArthur was no part of the military operations, forces, and leaders who delivered the two crippling atomic blows to Japan. Seen in that perspective, MacArthur himself was sidelined as much as the Australian forces were.

Cheers,

BW
--BWilson


Interesting line of thought that The Philippines as much as Borneo and New Guinea were "backwater"/"sideline(ed)" battles in the Pacific, more so when compared to the statement of which I have read here at MHO and elsewhere, that the war against Japan was largely a side-event and not even directly tied to WWII.

The Aussies fight in the Pacific battles were critical to the success the Allies would achieve against Japan. Port Moresby, Coral Sea, the Coast Watchers in the Solomons, the basic imprisonment of Japanese forces on Guinea (New, Papua, N.E.), and Borneo, the long-drawn attrition of Japanese a/c and shipping in these regions did much to lesson Japanese capabilities for deployment to other areas of war in the Pacific.

Were Australian forces largely delegated to a secondary force from 1943 onwards, I would say so but IMO to the Aussie's benefit as a whole. Was the same done with the recognition of Australia's effort, commitment and success during and after the war, again IMO, yes. And yet, Australia would be victorious as anyone else in the war against Japan regardless of the lack of recognition from the US and GB. That the Aussies fought as hard and as long as they did against Japan and then went back home after the war to return to life says much about the overall character of the Australian people.

I met an Aussie vet who served in WWII and while he was modest about my appreciation of his and his country's service during WWII, it is my belief he was sincerely appreciative of my comments to him.

IMO, without the Aussies' participation as it was against Japan, my belief is that a negotiated settlement would have eventually come forth between the allies and Japan.

---------------
"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

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/24/2018 2:53:49 PM
Hello dt509er,

Why were the Philippines considered a backwater? Weren't thousands of prisoners held in the Philippines?

Does it mean that this area was no longer strategically significant?

Cheers,

George

wazza
Sydney , Australia
Posts: 452
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/24/2018 2:54:58 PM
Riain puts it better than me, but it was a source of frustration that we could have isolated and starved the Japanese garrisons rather than get involved in costly mopping up operations.
The RAAF mutinied over this very reason!!! Google the Moratai mutiny for some interesting reading.

And yes very good points about the incompatibility of our force structure compared to the US. I often wonder a big what if, could we back then have formed a mo e compact Marine style expeditionary force in WWII when we really needed it rather than what we are doing today?

RiaindeVoy
Geelong, Australia
Posts: 1392
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/24/2018 3:14:15 PM
There are backwaters than then there are backwaters. The PI were a hell of a lot closer to Japan than Borneo and far more strategically significant and invaded some 8 months earlier. The invasion of the PI bought the IJN out to fight and be destroyed. None of these things occurred at Borneo from May 1945, the war had well and truly moved on.

The political nature of the issue is apparent when looking at what Australia offered and what was rejected. Australia offered I Corps, 6th, 7th, 9th Divisions AIF, to be allocated a part of the PI to liberate with significant operational control, but Mac (perhaps thinking of his Presidential aspirations) would only accept 2 divisions each allocated to a US Corps with no operational control. In the end no agreement could be reached and the invasion went ahead with 6th Army having 4 Corps of 8 divisions.

As an aside there were major problems with RAAF command in WW2, AVMs Bostock and Jones were of equal rank but had different responsibilities and fought constantly. As a result they often appealed to USAAF General Kenny. Curtin wanted to bring out a RAF Air Marshal to put above Bostock and Jones and solve the RAAFs command problems but Mac advised against it, conveniently retaining the de facto power over the RAAF as a result.

---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

dt509er
Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Posts: 601
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/24/2018 5:36:07 PM

Quote:
Hello dt509er,

Why were the Philippines considered a backwater? Weren't thousands of prisoners held in the Philippines?

Does it mean that this area was no longer strategically significant?

Cheers,

George
--George


Hi George:

I based my comments off of the following;
Quote:
Yet, Wazza's comment about Australia being "sidelined" is nothing new as a topic of discussion.


Of course the Philippine's was of strategic value and was so in many ways in which I do not have the capacity to address other than its importance trumped an invasion of Formosa.
---------------
"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
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/24/2018 6:59:35 PM
Riain,

It took 2 US Armies to take the Philippines, 6th Army of 9 Divisions and 8th Army of 5 Divisions with both having multiple Independent smaller sized units. It was basically 6th Army on Leyte and Luzon and 8th Army all the rest.
---------------
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
Posts: 1392
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/24/2018 8:02:56 PM

Quote:
Riain,

It took 2 US Armies to take the Philippines, 6th Army of 9 Divisions and 8th Army of 5 Divisions with both having multiple Independent smaller sized units. It was basically 6th Army on Leyte and Luzon and 8th Army all the rest.
--John R. Price


That's right, 6th Army was the big show and we offered to be a big piece of the big show, a Corps of 2 or 3 divisions in the most important Army. This isn't a niggardly offer, a token to keep the big boy happy, like an offer to join the 8th Army might have been or to offer a single division might have been, this was our premier fighting formation ready to shoulder the responsibility and slug it out in the main arena.

Mac rejected this offer and countered with an offer for Australia to play a bit part, shouldering no responsibility. Mac would have liked the troops, he just didn't want them to do much of note. This makes it galling when the ignorant throw out the 'we saved you in WW2', indicating a damaging popular/ist commitment to an historical untruth.
---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

BWilson
, Posts: 4534
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/25/2018 1:56:42 AM
Riain puts it better than me, but it was a source of frustration that we could have isolated and starved the Japanese garrisons rather than get involved in costly mopping up operations.

 I was hoping you or Riain would bring that up. And that is, IMO, a valid point. If the operations in the Pacific proved anything, it was that island garrisons were useless if one did not control the air and the sea.

 How many of the "backwater" operations took place in areas in which Australia had troops or official representatives before the war? Those kind of operations were the equivalent of the U.S. returning to the Philippines -- put very briefly, "we're back."

 I also find it interesting how little discussion is made here of freeing peoples from occupation by Japanese forces. As much as some of those peoples may have had an axe to grind with given Western powers, I have no doubt they preferred the presence of Western troops to those of the Japanese. A sense of duty to the people at least in part informed MacArthur's desire to return to the Philippines. Honestly: if western Europe was deserving of deliverance from Nazism ... were not the peoples of the Pacific, Indonesia, etc. equally deserving? Or was there still too much of our collective psychology hung up on a colonial mentality? IIRC, that message was played for at least propaganda purposes regarding the Chinese and their struggle with the Japanese.

 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.

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/25/2018 7:37:55 AM
Riain,

What assignment did they want? I mean don't you think Manila, Bataan and Corregidor and the islands in the Bay was the right of the US to take because of what happened in 42? I mean after that the main jobs were opening the Wawa and Ipo Dams and the drive against Yamashita's Group ob the Villa Verde Trail, Highway #5 and Baguio and both chewed up, digested and spit out US Corps. An example the 32nd Division landed on Luzon with 625 officers and 10,499 enlisted men. On the Villa Verde Trail it suffered 41 officers and 720 enlisted KIA, 117 officers and 2,396 enlisted WIA, 1 officer and 3 enlisted MIA and 153 officers and 4,754 enlisted non battle casualties that required evacuation. The casualties were like that in the 7 Divisions that handled the "non glory" assignments on Luzon and they were pretty similar in 8th Army also plus the troops involved in Manila.

I also quickly browsed through the material I have and I keep seeing a common denominator in that they are all claiming a shortage of artillery ammunition and replacements. The artillery of every kind was on a daily allotment of shells and it did effect operations and there was a major shortage of infantrymen carrying over from the Leyte loss never being completely made good as the 32nd shows above. Fist it was a lot like Europe in that they couldn't bring in enough over the invasion beeches and Manila held out a lot longer than planned but there was also poor and/or disputed routes of supply to the front line troops. I also believe there is a shortage of shipping space available.

EDIT I check and the average allotment of rounds for each division was 1,200 105, 180 155 1nd 1,000 morter rounds of all types for 54 105's, 12 155's and I'd estimate at lrast 100 morters. That really isn't a hell of a lot of rounds per gun per day.
---------------
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
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/25/2018 7:42:52 AM
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?"
---------------
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
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/25/2018 8:56:55 AM

Quote:
I also find it interesting how little discussion is made here of freeing peoples from occupation by Japanese forces. As much as some of those peoples may have had an axe to grind with given Western powers, I have no doubt they preferred the presence of Western troops to those of the Japanese. A sense of duty to the people at least in part informed MacArthur's desire to return to the Philippines. Honestly: if western Europe was deserving of deliverance from Nazism ... were not the peoples of the Pacific, Indonesia, etc. equally deserving? Or was there still too much of our collective psychology hung up on a colonial mentality? IIRC, that message was played for at least propaganda purposes regarding the Chinese and their struggle with the Japanese.


Good points here.

How many of the occupied nations were often the colonial property of a European or American nation?

Of course, those Asian people were worthy of delivery from occupation and oppression by the Japanese as Bill says.

But I wonder whether the allied mindset was different in the Pacific from what it was in Europe.

In Europe, western people were oppressed by another western power and it was considered a noble act to free Europe from the Nazis.

I am raising the race card here but was there more concern in the Pacific with reclaiming colonial property than with saving the Asian peoples from Japanese oppression.

I believe that the US was suspicious of Britain's motives in the Pacific and concerned that Britain wanted to re-establish its empire.


Cheers,

George


Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
Posts: 3897
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/25/2018 9:29:41 AM
Hi George,

IMHO, I think your reading to much into it, really it's quite simple, The Nazis and Imperial Japan were so oppressive & evil, they simply had to be stopped! Those Allied Countries who fought them basically had no choice! They don't call this "Our Greatest Generation", for nothing! Suggesting any thing else is a dis-service to them!?

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

anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
Posts: 6851
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/25/2018 9:33:21 AM
The BPF-which Churchill DID NIT want; but was sent out to Australia at the command of the British Chiefs of Stall who threatened to resign if this was not done .It proved a sad appendage to the enormous USN Fleets but was accepted .The Americans and indeed the Australians saw it for what it was --a political ploy-which backfired and the BNPF was came to a sad end--it all ended quite badly

Regards

Jim
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/25/2018 10:04:03 AM

Quote:
Hi George,

IMHO, I think your reading to much into it, really it's quite simple, The Nazis and Imperial Japan were so oppressive & evil, they simply had to be stopped! Those Allied Countries who fought them basically had no choice! They don't call this "Our Greatest Generation", for nothing! Suggesting any thing else is a dis-service to them!?

Regards,
Dave
--Michigan Dave


Dave, there was no disrespect to the soldiers who fought this war. But the military of a country exists to protect the interests of that country.

I am suggesting that the motivations to fight the Japanese and the Nazis may have been dissimilar.

And the British who fought in the Pacific were certainly intent on driving the Japanese out of British controlled territory.

The Americans had to reclaim territories that they controlled.

That strikes me as different than the motivation to drive the Nazis out of Europe and other parts of the world.

cheers,

George

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/25/2018 10:22:23 AM
But the French were the only colonial power that tried to reoccupy strictly as a colony and they didn't fight in the Pacific.

Guam and Wake Island were the only American territories reclaimed. Wake I believe had no natives and Guam not a really significant number. The timeline for self determination had already been set in the Philippines. The British and Dutch set it in their soon after the war.

I think you are grasping at straws.
---------------
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
Posts: 3897
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/25/2018 10:29:01 AM
John,

I agree with you on this one, perhaps the UK's leaders had other motivation? But over all it was simply to stop Imperial Japan's terrible aggression!

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

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/25/2018 11:13:10 AM

Quote:
But the French were the only colonial power that tried to reoccupy strictly as a colony and they didn't fight in the Pacific.

Guam and Wake Island were the only American territories reclaimed. Wake I believe had no natives and Guam not a really significant number. The timeline for self determination had already been set in the Philippines. The British and Dutch set it in their soon after the war.

I think you are grasping at straws.
--John R. Price


Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore.

Whether the Philippines were on a pathway to independence is irrelevant John. It was still an American protectorate/colony and it had been occupied.

I don't think that a declaration that a country will be permitted to become independent means the colonial ownership is somehow negated.


But that wasn't my point. The European war was not about reclaiming colonial territories. The Pacific war, in part, was.

It would be interesting to hear whether the governments that sent troops to the Pacific were concerned with the freedom of the people in conquered countries as much as they were with reclaiming lost territory.

As well, much has been written about the racial overtones associated with the Pacific war from the allied perspective. Those overtones did not exist in the European war.

The Japanese also introduced race as a factor in the propaganda game. Getting rid of the white, European invaders was given as a reason for fighting the war.



George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/25/2018 11:25:43 AM

Quote:
John,

I agree with you on this one, perhaps the UK's leaders had other motivation? But over all it was simply to stop Imperial Japan's terrible aggression!

MD
--Michigan Dave


Dave, your statement means that while the UK may have had territory to reclaim, the US was motivated only by the purest of goals, to stop aggression.

Forgive me my friend but that strikes me as a little naive.

Retribution undoubtedly had a lot to do with US motivation. Fair enough.

But tell me, what interest should a country like the US have in the other side of the Pacific ocean in the first place? The area had been determined to be within the US sphere of influence and the US and the UK and France for that matter wanted to make sure that the Japanese did not end their influence in territories important to them.

For the average guy sent to fight, I don't think that he gave a lot of thought to the causes of the war and US foreign policy. The Japanese had attacked US territories in the Pacific. That means war and they did their duty.

Cheers,

George

Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
Posts: 3897
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/25/2018 11:40:53 AM
George,

Excuse me I didn't start this train of thought, I didn't even want to say the UK had ulterior motives? (just trying to see some obscure reasoning in your statements??), You seem to want to start a debate on some thing that in my opinion is not the primary reason for the Allies fighting either Japan or Germany? Since your argument is your opinion, let me be entitled to mine, Not just the US but all Pacific Allies had noble intentions, US, Australia, New Zealand, China, India, Canada, England, & anyone else I seemed to miss?! It's my opinion, now leave me alone & argue with someone else?

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

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/25/2018 1:40:14 PM

Quote:
George,

Excuse me I didn't start this train of thought, I didn't even want to say the UK had ulterior motives? (just trying to see some obscure reasoning in your statements??), You seem to want to start a debate on some thing that in my opinion is not the primary reason for the Allies fighting either Japan or Germany? Since your argument is your opinion, let me be entitled to mine, Not just the US but all Pacific Allies had noble intentions, US, Australia, New Zealand, China, India, Canada, England, & anyone else I seemed to miss?! It's my opinion, now leave me alone & argue with someone else?

Peace,
MD
--Michigan Dave


It's a discussion Dave. Sorry that you are upset but I have more cynical attitude toward war and the reasons the governments send their troops.

I believe that the reasons are multiple and not altogether altruistic. Multiple factors influence the decision to fight.

WW2 more than WW1 was a more "justifiable" war and all of us fought to win.

Dave I didn't invent the theory that there were racist overtones to the war in the Pacific. There is a lot of material on that.

My other point was that those countries that fought in the Pacific were working to regain colonial territory. Not so in Europe.

I believe that Hitler was identified as evil but a country like the UK had always preferred to see a healthy balance of power among the European states and clearly the Nazis had upset that balance.

Don't you think that that is part of a history discussion?

I wish that you would explain your anger.

Look I know that you don't like to engage in debate so I'll leave it.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/25/2018 4:30:21 PM
What reasons would MacArthur have had to reject the Australian proposal?

Did the Australians demand some operational control and he didn't want that?

Did he or the US have concerns about too much post war input from other allied forces once Japan was defeated? Would a heavy Australian presence have given them the right demand greater influence on developments in that area of the world?

Cheers,

George


Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
Posts: 3897
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/25/2018 6:19:54 PM
George,

When my son was in elementary school, he would get mad, he'd say" I'm mad at chew, but if you take me to toys r us, then, I'll be your friend"!?

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

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/25/2018 7:44:46 PM

Quote:
George,

When my son was in elementary school, he would get mad, he'd say" I'm mad at chew, but if you take me to toys r us, then, I'll be your friend"!?

a wise lad,
MD
--Michigan Dave


I'd rather go to a pub.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/26/2018 12:56:16 AM
No the European war was about one Allied participant claiming new colonies or are you forgetting the Iron Curtain and the fact that any country "liberated" by the Soviets had no self determination for the next 40 plus years.

I also think you are wrong. "Reclaiming" to me means the only intention is to reestablish the pre war status quo and that isn't the case for all but the French and as I pointed out they didn't fight in the Pacific. Your examples of Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaya are flawed because you aren't factoring in the Chinese Civil War, Communist victory in China, Soviet expansionism and the start of the Cold War all which didn't exist during the war nor could be expected to happen. How much do the above factor into the decisions to hold each?

You also aren't factoring in the POW's and civilian prisoners taken in the Japanese expansion and the treatment they were receiving.

I'd also be of the opinion that there has been a lot written about the Japanese racial perspective but I don't see you mentioning how they believed themselves superior to all the West and every other Asian as well. How about their occupation and basic enslavement of Korea which was going on for how long? Their actions against civilians in Manchuria and China?

And the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere played well right up until Japanese occupation and the realization that the only prosperity was going to be for the Japanese were bigger racists than the white man and more brutal also.
---------------
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
Posts: 1392
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/26/2018 2:31:27 AM

Quote:
Riain,

What assignment did they want? I mean don't you think Manila, Bataan and Corregidor and the islands in the Bay was the right of the US to take because of what happened in 42? I mean after that the main jobs were opening the Wawa and Ipo Dams and the drive against Yamashita's Group ob the Villa Verde Trail, Highway #5 and Baguio and both chewed up, digested and spit out US Corps. An example the 32nd Division landed on Luzon with 625 officers and 10,499 enlisted men. On the Villa Verde Trail it suffered 41 officers and 720 enlisted KIA, 117 officers and 2,396 enlisted WIA, 1 officer and 3 enlisted MIA and 153 officers and 4,754 enlisted non battle casualties that required evacuation. The casualties were like that in the 7 Divisions that handled the "non glory" assignments on Luzon and they were pretty similar in 8th Army also plus the troops involved in Manila.

........................

--John R. Price


I don't know the details, or even if they got that far. All I know is Australia offered a Corps to 6th Army with a level of operational freedom that would come with a national Corps command and Mac rejected that for single divisions under US Corps. I believe quite rightly that if our guys were going to fight and die in the Philippines they should do it under Australian Command as high as possible, which is why Cabinet rejected Macs suggestion, to the detriment to the overall war effort.
---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/26/2018 3:03:16 AM
Riain,

So then it was a either or proposition? I mean if the Aussie Corps goes to the Philippines then there is no invasion of Borneo with say US troops?

So what your saying is that there was a disagreement over what level of command was the highest possible? Didn't your government agree in 42 to serve in the Allied structure of command and to serve faithfully under the commanders appointed by the Allied high command no matter what nationality they were? Did you know that a son of Teddy Roosevelt was attached to the Aussie 3rd Division with his Bat and served under its command on New Guinea until WIA in early 44?

How is there not being a Aussie Corps on Luzon a detriment to the overall war effort? I mean the real strategic case for taking the Philippines is as a staging point for the invasion of Japan. Once Manila is taken and Bataan and the Bay clear that mission is accomplished because Yamashita has absolutely no mobility and can't come out of his prepared positions with any hope of success.
---------------
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
Posts: 1392
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/26/2018 3:47:29 AM
Borneo has been called a political campaign, but could be more accurately described as a Generals campaign, they wanted to lead an army in the field. I doubt the US would invade Borneo in mid 1945 if Australia didn't do it, it just wasn't important.

It isn't strange for a country want its troops commanded at the highest level; we did it in WW1 with Corps and the AEF was used as a separate national army rather than split up into British Armies, and we had done it throughout WW2. In this case the argument was between Mac wanting US Officers in all the Corps and Army command slots and the Australians wanting its divisions kept together under Australian Corps command. In the end we didn't send our Corps to fight in the Philippines where the big war was being fought, and I can't imagine that was a good thing for the war effort.

---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

BWilson
, Posts: 4534
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/26/2018 4:03:14 AM
The Coconut Bombers


Quote:
Some men and women involved in the Pacific War have thought that their service was not recognised in New Zealand once the war was over. 'We were branded as coconut bombers as distinct from the men of steel in the desert', one man said.
[Read More]

 Was there a similar divergence of views among Australian veterans postwar -- between those who fought in the desert, those who fought in the Southwest Pacific, and those who served only at home?

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/26/2018 7:09:48 AM

Quote:
No the European war was about one Allied participant claiming new colonies or are you forgetting the Iron Curtain and the fact that any country "liberated" by the Soviets had no self determination for the next 40 plus years.

I also think you are wrong. "Reclaiming" to me means the only intention is to reestablish the pre war status quo and that isn't the case for all but the French and as I pointed out they didn't fight in the Pacific. Your examples of Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaya are flawed because you aren't factoring in the Chinese Civil War, Communist victory in China, Soviet expansionism and the start of the Cold War all which didn't exist during the war nor could be expected to happen. How much do the above factor into the decisions to hold each?

You also aren't factoring in the POW's and civilian prisoners taken in the Japanese expansion and the treatment they were receiving.

I'd also be of the opinion that there has been a lot written about the Japanese racial perspective but I don't see you mentioning how they believed themselves superior to all the West and every other Asian as well. How about their occupation and basic enslavement of Korea which was going on for how long? Their actions against civilians in Manchuria and China?

And the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere played well right up until Japanese occupation and the realization that the only prosperity was going to be for the Japanese were bigger racists than the white man and more brutal also.
--John R. Price


Actually, I did mention that the Japanese played their own race card John. Check back a couple of posts.

But racism was involved in the desire to defeat, utterly defeat the Japanese. In 1945, Fortune magazine conducted a survey and asked Americans whether they thought that the Japanese people were, "naturally cruel and brutal". 56% of Americans responded yes.

The same question was posed with reference to the Germans and only 39% said yes.

The treatment of Japanese-Americans and Japanese-Canadians in their home countries proves to me that part of the enmity toward the Japanese was racially motivated.

But it is more than that. The war in Europe was about restoring balance among people who were like us, who looked like us. It was about defeating a person that we considered to be a madman. As the war progressed there was great anger about the treatment of occupied nations by the Germans.

You essentially have given a list of all of the bad things that the Japanese did and using that as a justification for the US going to war. But those are after the fact.

I suggest that you are ignoring the fact that all western nations including the US not only had colonial territories but great interest in carving out their piece of China. That includes the Russians and clearly the Japanese.

Japanese hegemony over Asia would certainly put a crimp into economic plans for a lot of nations, don't you think? There were raw resources available in abundance.

I know that you would like to believe that the war was about saving the Chinese and Koreans and others from the Japanese onslaught but there are other reasons for going to war.

Had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor, do you think that the US would have sent troops to China, John?

Cheers,

George



John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/26/2018 8:36:00 AM
Riain,

Fair enough on Borneo.

Apples to oranges France in WWI and the Philippines in WWII. You are talking 100 divisions with more jobs than you can shake a stuck at and very extended frontage. Did your government try and dictate what part of the line and what assignments the troops were going to get in WWI? Hey maybe if assignment to 8th Army had been acceptable you could have had a Aussie Corps. The point I'm not sure you are getting is that there were very limited options/assignments for a full corps and the truth is IMHO three out of four weren't all that more backwater than Borneo. I mean how much do you know about Wawa or Ippo, the Villa Verde Trail, Highway #5 , Baguio or Mindanao? And all four of them would have required about 20,000 replacements available for a 3 Division Corps to stay combat effective and finish the job assigned.
---------------
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
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/26/2018 8:45:47 AM
No George you made a passing reference to the Japanese using it as propaganda and no Korea, Manchuria and China aren't after the fact of as all happened well before Dec 7, 1941. You forget it was the Chinese Nationalist coming to the US begging for help that sparks the economic sanction and oil embargo plus the recruiting of the Flying Tigers before Dec 7, 1941 not to mention formal aid given. All of the above are major reasons why the Japanese attacked on Dec 7,1941.

And no you don't know what I would like to think or am thinking and I wish to God you would stop trying to claim you do.
---------------
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
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/26/2018 9:02:43 AM
John, you make discussion impossible.

If you wanted a full discussion on Japanese racism, then we could have had it.

But US and western racism and feelings of racial superiority aren't negated by the fact that the Japanese were pushing their own brand.

I am glad that you alluded to some events in China that the Japanese interpreted as interference in their claimed sphere of influence and the pressures put upon them in the form of sanctions.

Yes the Japanese decided to attack and politically and militarily it was a monumentally foolish decision.


Quote:
And no you don't know what I would like to think or am thinking and I wish to God you would stop trying to claim you do.
---------------


I really don't know what you are talking about here but this is a pretty standard response from you when someone doesn't buy into what you are selling.

And especially from me. You don't like what I say. I dare to examine US attitudes and behaviours in historical situations and you immediately take that as impugning the character of a nation. Anti-American, without a doubt.

I don't particularly find your interpretation of some events involving the US to be always accurate though your facts may be enlightening.

Operating from an idée fixe point of view and exacerbated by a philosophy of American exceptionalism means that convincing you otherwise on most topics is next to impossible.

I recall that in one conversation that you would not acknowledge the brutal treatment of rebels in the Philippines who wanted the US out. Instead, it was all about a plan for independence, sometime later somehow making the mistreatment of the population more acceptable.

So the US entered WW2 to save the world? Is that all there is to it? No political and economic motivation? No imperative to reestablish US control in what it had deemed its sphere of influence. No desire to restore the comfortable balance that had been dictated in Asia by the western powers?

I suspect that the UK had similar motivations. It's colonial properties were taken too.

BTW, I asked a question earlier. Had the Japanese not attacked on Dec. 7, do you think that the US would have sent troops to China?

Cheers,

George

Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
Posts: 3897
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/26/2018 10:47:56 AM
Remember; Mac said: "I shall return" so did he mean to retake the Philippines as part of an American Empire??
---------------
"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
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/26/2018 10:53:43 AM
US attitudes and motivation really don't matter because Japanese actions and plans leave no room for the possibility that they had a better vision. I'm also not trying to negate or offset racism by both side just pointing out the accepted norms of the time under discussion. Racism was a fact of life on both sides. You are trying to hold people to a standard that didn't exist. You are also acting like there was a viable third option and there wasn't. It was either Western or US lead influence or Japanese influence and with all due respect US influence was hands down the better choice for the people.

I'm talking about you saying "I know you would like to believe" and other such statements. You don't know what I want to or do believe.

What you won't accept is that its political and economic motivation that shapes policy and what I'm pointing out is that in this case and a few others US policy had the higher moral ground and was a benefit to a significantly larger percentage of the people than the alternative offered. You harp on what to me is the obvious, every country does what it believes is in its own political and economic interest.

If I'm such a asshole that discussion is impossible stop asking me questions


---------------
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
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/26/2018 10:59:33 AM
Dave Mac was a Field Marshal and advisor to the President of the Philippines when called back to active duty in the US Army. Basically the first Commander of the Philippine Army which had begun training. The Philippine version of West Point was open and the first class graduated in 1940 I believe. He and his family had been living in Manila for years, sine he retired from the US Army. The Philippines were due to become independent in 46 I believe
---------------
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
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/26/2018 12:09:51 PM

Quote:
It was either Western or US lead influence or Japanese influence and with all due respect US influence was hands down the better choice for the people.



Quote:
US policy had the higher moral ground


Very self righteous statements John. It is the rationale of the powerful who are self confident because of that power.

How often do we in the west including the US have to make the same mistakes, judging that our values and way of life and our systems of government are the best thing for people who may not even want us there?

Tell me please, what possible reason could all of the colonial powers have had to impose their will on Asia in the first place? Why did they not respect the right of self determination? That's another topic but colonialism and imperialism were examples of accepted conduct by powerful nations in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

Why did the US need the territories that were already subjected to rule by the Spanish? Did the US take those places as spoils of war? Why did the US need Cuba and the Philippines and Puerto Rico and Guam?

It was that the US was in danger of missing out on the imperial expansionism going on at the time and part of that was the desire to secure necessary natural resources.

None of that control exerted upon indigenous populations can be construed as having taken the moral high ground. We need only point to the Filipinos who felt betrayed when the independence that they sought from Spain wasn't immediately delivered when the US took over to see that many of them did not feel that they had been saved.

But nations, powerful nations, can convince themselves that control of foreign nations and the people is the right thing to do and that occupation is in their best interest.




Was Japanese militarism a good thing? It was when they were useful as when they defeated the Russians in 1905 (?) just as Russia was hoping to become a more respected world power. It sent the Russians scrambling looking for European allies, like the French.

Japan used that conquest to extend its interests into China. Everyone else was doing it, so why not Japan?

But it ticked off the US and the UK didn't it? Manchuria wasn't supposed to fall to the Japanese. The step too far. This is our sphere of influence, not that of the Japanese. Note, there were several other countries who were involved in China and had secured the right to use ports from the weak Chinese government.

Militarism was a good thing during WW1 when the Japanese navy honoured the Anglo-Japanese Treaty and secured sea lanes from access by the German navy. Japanese ships were even in the Mediterranean and played a large role in escorting troop ships to North Africa and the Middle East.

It was a good thing when they fought German and Austrian subs in the Mediterranean.


Were the Japanese brutal in their approach to war? Undoubtedly. Were they brutal to any opposition in the Asian countries that they occupied. For sure. The Rape of Nanking is a blight on humanity.

But I ask again, would the US have sent troops to China to fight had the Japanese not foolishly attacked Pearl Harbor?



Quote:
If I'm such a asshole that discussion is impossible stop asking me questions


I don't know you well enough to make that assessment.

I do find you prickly in your responses when someone disagrees with you.

And over the years it has become clear that you believe in the righteousness of nearly every initiative that the US has undertaken. That's the American Exceptionalism to which I referred before. Any criticism of America, and the hair on your neck stands up.

Unfortunately, the anonymity of the internet causes us to pass judgement on one another over the use or misuse of a word or phrase.

We may read things and misinterpret them. It is an awkward and sometimes too safe a means of communication.

So I believe your to be a good man and a patriotic man. I just disagree with some of your assessments of situations.

If you disagree with me or think that I am all wet, then weigh in. But give me a little more than sentences that start with, "what you're forgetting is....".

Flesh it out for me. If I have forgotten something, then why is it important. How should it inform my opinion.


Cheers,

George



RiaindeVoy
Geelong, Australia
Posts: 1392
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/26/2018 1:26:54 PM

Quote:
Riain,

Fair enough on Borneo.

Apples to oranges France in WWI and the Philippines in WWII. You are talking 100 divisions with more jobs than you can shake a stuck at and very extended frontage. Did your government try and dictate what part of the line and what assignments the troops were going to get in WWI? Hey maybe if assignment to 8th Army had been acceptable you could have had a Aussie Corps. The point I'm not sure you are getting is that there were very limited options/assignments for a full corps and the truth is IMHO three out of four weren't all that more backwater than Borneo. I mean how much do you know about Wawa or Ippo, the Villa Verde Trail, Highway #5 , Baguio or Mindanao? And all four of them would have required about 20,000 replacements available for a 3 Division Corps to stay combat effective and finish the job assigned.
--John R. Price


We didn't try to dictate what part of the line we were in during WW1, but like Canada we did try to keep our divisions together so they wouldn't be mis-used. Similarly in WW2 when our divisions weren't together in a Corps they were sent to Greece and wasted, lost in Malaya and tried to be diverted to Ceylon and Burma.

Mac knew the influence a full Corps would have and he tried (and succeeded) to limit that influence, just like he tried (and succeeded) to limit the influence of the RAAF by advising Curtin not to bring out a RAF officer above Bostock and Jones. We were wise to this Great Power tactic of splitting up Australian formations to reduce their importance and thus make them more easily used for Great Power tasks, and in this instance we didn't let it happen.

Maybe this was a good thing for the overall war effort, but more likely Mac was a self-aggrandising arsehole and Curtin wasn't much of a PM.
---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/26/2018 6:26:08 PM
Riain I agree completely that Mac was a ass all I'm trying to point out is that because of what happened in 42 the US deserved the right to retake Manila, Bataan and Corregidor and they were the only "main stage" tasks in the Philippines. Do you really think that a Australian Corps was due that assignment?
---------------
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
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/27/2018 2:55:50 AM
Riain if a Australian Corps had taken the level of casualties I quoted the 32nd Division did in capturing the Wawa Dam only to discover after the capture that since 36 0r 37 the Dam no longer provided any of the water for Manila when the whole reason given for the battle was to get the water turned back on in Manila what discussion would we be having today? Because that is exactly what the US unit found out after capturing the objective.

There is a whole school of thought that once the "glory" was achieved MacArthur "checked out" and started all his attention and energy to the next mission to the detriment of the current unfinished mission. "Pacific Hurtgen" all to briefly in my opinion explores that school of thought with example given for new Gunia and the Philippines.
---------------
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
Posts: 1392
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/27/2018 4:31:06 PM
To answer a question with a question, after what happened in 42 did Australia deserve to be marginalised and sidelined as an Ally?
---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/27/2018 7:31:27 PM
If it meant handing the recapture of Manila, Bataan and Corregidor over yes and that is basically what you are demanding because everything else is a "great power task" as it played out
---------------
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
Posts: 1392
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/27/2018 9:53:20 PM
6th Army was several Corps strong, I doubt having one of them an Australian Corps means that the Australia Corps would do ALL the heavy lifting; but hey, thanks for having such a high opinion of us! ;-)

---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/27/2018 11:37:48 PM
Riain you are the one telling me it was unacceptable to be used in a backwater or as cannon fodder. I'm trying to tell you it was all "heavy lifting" combat wise but only one that could be considered "front page." I'm also telling you the breakdown of assignments for 6th Army on Luzon. You basically had one 3 Division Corps assigned to Manila, Bataan and Corregidor. Another of 2+ Divisions to take the Dams and a third of 3+ Divisions to go after Yamashita's group. There was I other Corps level assignment with 8th Army on Mindinao. Everything else was RCT, Reinforced Bats or single Divisions. The fact that your saying there was only heavy lifting in Manila, Bataan and Corregidor tells me you don't know much of what went on.

The loss in 6th Army after Manila fell and Bataan was cleared was 288 officers and 4,499 enlisted KIA, 868 officers and 16,503 enlisted WIA and 3,361 officer and 70,433 enlisted non battle casualties evacuated. 34% of the non battle casualties didn't make it back to their units.

---------------
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
Posts: 1392
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/28/2018 1:48:25 AM
I'm not telling you anything about cannon fodder, or anything about the campaign itself because I don't know anything about it.

I'm telling you that Australia offered a Corps for the 6th Army and this was rejected, Mac countered with single divisions under US Corps command and this was unacceptable to the Australian government. By 1944 Australia had been in campaigns in Africa, Syria, Greece, Malaya and New Guinea and likely knew about the casualties that would be suffered and weighed these up against the political impact of having a Corps in the main event. It would also appear that the Australian Government knew having single divisions under US Corps command was about as useful to us as having no divisions at all in the Philippines, so that's what we did.

---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/28/2018 8:04:29 AM
Riain, the RAN and RAAF did provide support in the battles to liberate the Philippines. Why was that decision made?

Good on Australia for not sending a couple of divisions to be attached to US Corps.

Is it not true that MacArthur had promised PM Curtin and General Blamey that they would be full partners in the liberation of the Philippines? Did he not make this promise in 1942 when he escaped to Australia?

According to Australian accounts, Mac met with Curtin for the first time in Sept. of 1944 and told him that AIF would accompany American forces "in the advance against the Japanese."

One week later, MacArthur's Chief of Staff met with Blamey and told him that, " it was not politically expedient for the AIF to be amongst the rst troops
into the Philippines”.

If true and Australian accounts say it is, it seems pretty clear that MacArthur's decision had more to do with assuring that he and the US would be the liberators.

Shades of Rome in the Italian campaign when British and Canadian forces were ordered to stand to while Mark Clark made his grand entry into Rome.

Lieutenant Gen. Frank Berryman was the Australian officer leading the small Australian attachment to GHQ and he wrote in his diary after Australia had been excluded from the liberation of the Philippines.


Quote:
I have not even hinted that we should be represented as our dignity & pride is proof against inclusion in a flamboyant Hollywood spectacle ... In his [MacArthur’s] hour [of] victory his ego allows him to forget his former dependence on the AMF & is in keeping with GHQ policy to minimise the efforts of Australia in SWPA.






Cheers,

George

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/28/2018 8:09:24 AM
What was the personal relationship between Lieutenant General Blamey and MacArthur?

Must point out that Blamey was a significant figure with the Australian Army during the Great War. Later appointed to the rank of Field Marshall.


Cheers,

George

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/28/2018 8:43:30 AM
Riain the main event in the Philippines was the Naval battle as far as strategic impact on the war.

What are the political advantages to Australia to having a Corps?

If the Philippines were bypassed you making the same demands for Formosa?
---------------
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
Posts: 3897
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 2/28/2018 10:19:59 AM
It seems MacArthur was rated among the worst commander in US history??

[Read More]

some of you seem to agree?
MD

If so, some sad company for Mac?
---------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

RiaindeVoy
Geelong, Australia
Posts: 1392
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/1/2018 2:16:04 AM
I think he was quite good tactically and operationally, the campaigns in PNG were pretty well done, but strategically and politically he was found wanting.
---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/1/2018 2:16:35 PM
Riain,

Please forgive me I'm not trying to be offensive or a idiot but other than national pride and I can without doubt understand that I just don't see the political capital or influence a Corps is going to bring.
---------------
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
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/1/2018 7:39:34 PM
I have read the Australian people were wondering why their ground forces were not more fully engaged.

Australia had been a major contributor to the defeat of Germany in WW1. One of the top Corps of the British army.

The Aussies were considered to be British storm troopers and they were top notch. Battle honours are too extensive to list here.

If we want to see just how important a Corps can be to a war, we just have to look at the Dominion Corps of the British Army in WW1. Key players.

PM Billy Hughes was adamant that Australia had earned the right to have an independent seat at the negotiations for the Treaty of Versailles.
Despite butting heads with David Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson, he and Australia received the recognition that was so deserved.
And he signed the Treaty as an independent entity from Great Britain. Rightly so.

Given that history, is it any wonder that the Australians wanted to be part of the major battles in the second world war and were angry at being passed over for an assignment that they were willing to accept.

As well, if a country wants a voice at the peace table in discussions about the future after the battles are over, it is necessary to have made significant contributions. Otherwise you are ignored.

If any allied country had legitimate concerns in this area of the world, it is Australia. It was their back yard even if the Philippines is 4400 km away.


Quote:
Over 993,000 Australians served in the armed forces during World War II. Of those on active service, 27,073 were killed in action or died, 23,477 were wounded, and 30,560 were taken prisoner of war. Of those taken prisoner, 8296 died in captivity.
. (source: national archives of Aus.)

And they were willing to contribute in the Philippines.

It seems that the decision to exclude them was ego driven on the part of MacArthur.

Cheers,

George

Mike Johnson
Stafford, VA, USA
Posts: 505
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/1/2018 9:13:12 PM

Quote:
This came up in another thread ('health care'). I have replied to Wazza below and given this topic its own thread in the appropriate forum.


Quote:
We are thankful for the assistance of American forces (as well as the UK and Dutch) in the New Guinea campaign, but it was MacArthur's choice to backseat us for the rest of the Pacific campaign. -wazza


Wazza,

 Does it really matter in the end? Japs killed on Borneo or Japs killed in the Philippines? If MacArthur had put the Australians in the front of operations in the Philippines, today we would hear that 'MacArthur killed good Australian boys so the USA could reassert control over the Philippines'. Just pointing out that hindsight is only worth so much . . . and that I don't feel like hindsight does a good job of weighing how alternative courses of action might have played out.

Cheers,

BW
--BWilson


Why should Aussies die to return the Philippines to the US?

What gets me with this discussion is that MacArthur originally planned for two corps of four divisions to land on Leyte, with one of the divisions being Australian. Years ago, I read the messages back and forth between MacArthur, Blamey, and Curtin on this. Curtin objected to 1 AUS division and 3 US and insisted on one of the corps being Australian and it was Curtain who stated that if it couldn't be 1 AUS corps than no Australians would participate.

RiaindeVoy
Geelong, Australia
Posts: 1392
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/1/2018 10:59:45 PM

Quote:
Riain,

Please forgive me I'm not trying to be offensive or a idiot but other than national pride and I can without doubt understand that I just don't see the political capital or influence a Corps is going to bring.
--John R. Price


Countries that don't fight in the war don't get to shape the peace.

Another example would be the creation of the British Pacific Fleet, it wasn't much compared to the USN but went anyway to give the British a stake in the post war Pacific that they wouldn't get if they didn't go and fight.

A more recent version would the the establishment of 1ATF in its own AO in Vietnam.

---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/1/2018 11:01:02 PM
Just wondering but exactly were was Canada's Zone of Occupation in Germany or exactly what the Free Poles service in Italy and elsewhere bought them other than a Monument at Casino? Or how about what did Italy and Japan get in Paris for being on the winning side and doing all asked in 1919?
---------------
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
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/1/2018 11:07:51 PM
Riain,

Your forgetting British troops engaged in Malaya throughout the war and India being the supply hub for China.

Apples to oranges with Vietnam the US was begging for Allies in Vietnam and were willing to give away the kitchen sink to get them.

Do you really think a Corps in the Philippines was going to give you major influence in shaping the peace? What did Tobruk give you?

EDIT Brain fart that should be Burma. Chindits, Imphail amd Kohema, Chinese troops being trained in India, the Hump, Burma Road and Slim and I know my spelling is off but I don't feel like checking.
---------------
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
Posts: 1392
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 12:28:25 AM
Firstly, Vietnam is exactly the correct analogy, Australia wanted to conduct its own war in Vietnam, not get subsumed into the US way of doing things.

Secondly, if the British thought the CBI theatre was enough they wouldn't have bothered with the BPF or the plans to re-capture Malaya.

Thridly, a Corps in the Philippines would have given us something whereas a Corps in Borneo gave us nothing. Tobruk, or more accurately our contribution to Imperial Defence, gave us;
Force Z of 2 capital ships
various naval units which fought at Java Sea including the 8" cruiser Exeter
the 50 Hurricanes and the 18th Division which arrived during the Malaya Campaign
Somerville's Far Eastern Fleet which arrived with 3 aircraft carriers and several battleships within 4 months of the Japanese attack.

---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 12:41:15 AM
Riain,

No you had political leverage in Vietnam not so much with the Philippines.

The idea of Malaya was to keep Japanese troops from reinforcing the Home Islands. No all that many knew about the Atomic Bomb and nobody knew it was going to work or work as well as it did.

A Corps or 2 in the Invasion of Japan would have gotten you something but either way you weren't going to be a major mover in the peace process. And Singapore, Malaya, Hong Kong and Burma have no part in the transfers after Japan attacked? If not for the stand of the Desert Rats they aren't going to happen?
---------------
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"


BWilson
, Posts: 4534
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 12:55:43 AM

Quote:

Why should Aussies die to return the Philippines to the US?

What gets me with this discussion is that MacArthur originally planned for two corps of four divisions to land on Leyte, with one of the divisions being Australian. Years ago, I read the messages back and forth between MacArthur, Blamey, and Curtin on this. Curtin objected to 1 AUS division and 3 US and insisted on one of the corps being Australian and it was Curtain who stated that if it couldn't be 1 AUS corps than no Australians would participate.
--Mike Johnson


Hi Mike,

 That's my point. In -hindsight-, the critical operations were those that seized the islands from which the B-29's ultimately flew to drop A-bombs on Japan (but in 1944 the Allied field military personnel could not have foreseen such a stunning development). Seen in hindsight, while all of the operations were important, only one series of operations ultimately proved critical to forcing a surrender of Japan.

 What about the plans to invade Japan proper with ground forces (OLYMPIC, CORONET, etc.)? Did those include any Australian formations?

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

RiaindeVoy
Geelong, Australia
Posts: 1392
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 2:19:58 AM
Yep, and again Mac was trying to reduce the size of the contribution and delay its employment.

[Read More]
---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 2:25:39 AM
BW,

I just did a quick search of Army and Marine centric sites online and they both say that "Olympic" and "Coronet" would both have been a all American show with the exception of a contingent of Royal Navy ships. 11 Army and 3 Marine Divisions for "Olympic" and 19 Army and 3 Marine for "Coronet." With "Olympic" there was a 1 Division landing on a island of the southern coast that I'm not sure if it was counted in the total given.
---------------
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"


BWilson
, Posts: 4534
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 4:00:16 AM
 Thanks John. No doubt some politics there. I believe the Soviets wanted to invade Hokkaido so they could install a Japanese communist regime, but events moved too fast versus their capability to launch such an operation.

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

BWilson
, Posts: 4534
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 4:03:10 AM

Quote:
Yep, and again Mac was trying to reduce the size of the contribution and delay its employment.

[Read More]
--RiaindeVoy


 That article mentions a British division . . . interesting considering how Churchill squeezed 21st Army Group for infantry reinforcements to the point that two divisions and several brigades had to be DISBANDED. Montgomery would have probably appreciated that division!

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
Posts: 6851
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 5:45:21 AM
Yes Btll 59th Infantry was broken up and the 50th T&T Infantry in 1944--the latter had been in action from 1940 andwas placed in Home Reserve .

Regards

Jim
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 7:37:26 AM
BW,

The Soviets kept attacking for at least 2 weeks after the surrender.

My Army source for "Downfall"

https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V1/ch13.htm
---------------
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
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 7:43:47 AM
The Canadians who had volunteered for Europe were asked to re-volunteer for the Japanese theatre.

My Dad was one of them. He had finished the war in Europe and they were in Wilhelmshaven, Germany and anxious to get home.

Officers were asking men to volunteer for Japan and if you did you got 30 days leave at home before going to the states for jungle training.

That's what Dad called it. Not sure how much jungle is left on the home islands of Japan. Anyway, he had been told that he would be headed to Georgia, after his leave was over.

Languishing on the base and bored, he noted that those who had volunteered were permitted to leave base and go into town. Dad and the rest stayed on base waiting for new assignments or repatriation.

So he asked an officer about the Japanese situation and the officer whipped out papers and said "sign here". And off he went to town to get a hamburger. There were rumours that an American kitchen was in Wilhelmshaven and it was serving hamburgers.

And then it was home. One day out of Halifax and the first bomb was dropped. So he was an earlier arrival back to Canada.


Quote:
Just wondering but exactly were was Canada's Zone of Occupation in Germany or exactly what the Free Poles service in Italy and elsewhere bought them other than a Monument at Casino? Or how about what did Italy and Japan get in Paris for being on the winning side and doing all asked in 1919?


The quote is a recent post from John Price. John, please explain what you are getting at and what exactly is Canada's Zone of Occupation. I'm confused.

I think that you are suggesting that small to middle powers are ignored anyway when the wars are over. I disagree.

Once the blood is spilled and battle honours received, countries may stand up and demand a seat at the table. With commitment comes gravitas.

When Bill Clinton was preparing a speech to be delivered at the 50th anniversary of D-day, he asked historian John Keegan to come to the oval office to advise him. Keegan's third piece of advice was, "Don't forget the Canadians". And he didn't.

But it is necessary to keep reminding the larger powers that you were there too and played a part in the defeat of the enemy.



Back to the topic though, I think that it was pretty clear that the Pacific operations were to be an American show.

Hell the Canadian volunteers were to be issued US kit for upcoming operations, to blend in.

Note that the 1st Special Service Force (CAN/Am) all wore US uniforms.
The Canadians who joined in the attack on Kiska all wore some US equipment worn over Canadian battle dress.

In the latter situation, the involvement came about through casual discussion between Canadian and US authorities with the US acknowledging that they would be "delighted" to have Canadians involved in the expulsion of the Japanese from the Aleutian chain.

These were among the first signs of Canada's shift toward the US and away from the UK in co-operation in the protection of North America.


Smaller countries whose soldiers give their lives in the same operations as the larger countries ask that they be permitted as middle powers, to have some say in how the peace is formed and what policies will guide the world after it is all over.

To some extent, that is why countries volunteer to be a part of operations, to make sure that they are not ignored when the world is reshaping.

There are political motivations to sending one's troops into harm's way. In the case of my country, Canada evolved as a middle power but also an honest broker in world affairs, often acting as a go between for US interests with the UK. Efforts in WW2 led to Canada's important work at the UN and peacekeeping. Note the influence of this small country during the Suez Crisis to diffuse the situation.

That all comes about because the commitment to winning in WW2 by Canada simply could not be ignored.


And I would suggest that the Australians were thinking along those lines. They had good reason to want to get back at the Japanese too.

But more than that, it was necessary to establish that Australia was a significant player in the defeat of the Japanese.

From their perspective I gather that they felt that they were being prevented from showing what they could do and were willing to do.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 8:46:07 AM
"To some extent, that is why countries volunteer to be a part of operations, to make sure that they are not ignored when the world is reshaping."

Or they are bored on base and hungry for a hamburger.

Oh and I guess Russia and the USA had absolutely nothing to do with the British and French backing off at the Suez Canal?

And the use of US equipment makes resupply easier it really has nothing to do with national identity nor is it a slight in any way. What is that saying, logistics is what seperates the pros from the cons.

Bill Clinton was as big an ass as MacArthur and his including Canada in his speech has nothing to do with that statement.

I'm not saying Australians were thinking along that train of thought just that it is a rather naïve train of thought.
---------------
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
Posts: 3897
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 8:58:13 AM
But John, & others,

Douglas MacArthur, was a nice man! Check out all the good he did! Don't call him names, like Dugout Doug!?

[Read More]

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

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 9:19:09 AM

Quote:
Or they are bored on base and hungry for a hamburger.


If this was an attempt at humour, then please attach the appropriate emoticon.

If not, it is most disrespectful of my father and the average soldier who only does as he is ordered.

It is, and I expect that you cannot see it, extremely dismissive of people that you like to call allies. I would like to say that it is beneath you but unfortunately it is not.

John, other than your dislike for me, was there any reason to make such snide and sarcastic comments? I should be used to it now by now. The normal pattern plays out. You only have so many, "respectfully's" in you before you start to splutter nonsense.


You again are being deliberately obtuse. My comment about Canada's involvement in the Suez Crisis, which I suspect you know little about given your US-centric perspective on most things, was to indicate that Canada had emerged from WW2 as a significantly more influential entity than when it entered the war in Sept. of 1939. Full participation in the war effort contributed to self confidence within Canada and recognition by other countries that its efforts were appreciated.

My comment about Clinton's speech was to indicate that he perhaps needed a reminder to separate Canada from the UK when talking about Normandy and the war in Europe. Whether he is an ass or not is irrelevant just as that comment was.


Quote:
Oh and I guess Russia and the USA had absolutely nothing to do with the British and French backing off at the Suez Canal?
.

Where was that implied John? But when you just assume that the rift between the US and GB over the canal was handled by the US alone with Russia (who was supplying weapons to Nasser), you discredit others who played an important role.

So why don't you look up Lester B. Pearson and the Suez Canal Crisis or the UNEF (UN Emergency Task Force) and perhaps you won't be so dismissive.

I offered it up to indicate that a country may punch above its weight and thus have the ear of the major powers that would have us tap dance to the tunes that they play. In that way, smaller countries may have influence on world affairs. BTW, Lester Pearson won a Nobel peace prize for his work during the Suez Canal crisis.

I must admit that it is interesting to see that you view the Australian point of view as naive. It is indicative of the importance of standing up to be counted among the nations of the world and to assert oneself lest one be dismissed as irrelevant as it appears that you have done with Australia.







John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 9:22:45 AM
Dave yep and Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman! Oh and I didn't call Mac that once in this thread.
---------------
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
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 10:53:01 AM

Quote:
Dave yep and Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman! Oh and I didn't call Mac that once in this thread.

--John R. Price


what does this mean?



RiaindeVoy
Geelong, Australia
Posts: 1392
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 3:52:32 PM
I think there is a simple difference of perspective between great powers and minor powers that likely won't be bridged.

I don't care other than the whole 'we saved your ass' attitude, which is inaccurate given Dugout Doug came running to Australia with his tail between his legs looking for help.
---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 5:34:37 PM
I so wanted to stop but I just can't help myself. Riain now if you mean MacArthur saved your ass I agree its inaccurate but without the US at Coral Sea and the two other attempts to reinforce New Guinea and the reinforcement of the 41st Division do you really think you can hold New Guinea? And if for some reason the US makes peace and there is no Lend Lease Japan and Germany can be defeated? Now do I call that savin your ass no because it was in the best interests of the US to do so.
---------------
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
Posts: 1392
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 7:22:58 PM
If Japan wasn't going to invade Australia, and it wasn't because it couldn't, and even if it did would have been defeated by some 10 infantry and 3 armoured divisions Australia had by mid 1942 how can Australia's ass be saved?

Even if the US had made peace with Japan Australia would have survived as an independent country.

I'm not going to knock what the US DID do in the war, and it was a hell of a lot, but there is no need to blow that up into even more than it was and run down the contribution of allies and THEN expect a pat on the back. The US deserves a pat on the back for what it did do, not what it imagines it did.
---------------
Fact: The phrase "she'll be right mate" increases an Australian's healing process by 40%.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 7825
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 7:33:11 PM
"Saving your ass" is a hot button expression reviled by all the allies who gave their all to defeat Germany.

Implicit is that the action of saving was one of generosity or altruism.

But if that was the case then why did the US not recognize the moral imperative and to mobilize in 1939?

One wonders what the response of Hitler would have been had a division or two of Americans as starters had been sent over in 1939 or early 1940 with promises of more to come.

I am aware that the US was unprepared for war in 1939 but neither were the countries that did respond.

So why did the US enter the fray fully and would they have done so had Hitler not been so stupid to have declared war on the US?


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 811
Re: MacArthur, Australia, and the Pacific War
Posted on: 3/2/2018 9:54:11 PM
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.
---------------
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
Posts: 811
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
Posts: 7825
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
Posts: 811
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
Posts: 7825
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
Posts: 811
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
Posts: 1392
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
Posts: 811
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
Posts: 1392
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
Posts: 7825
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
Posts: 811
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
Posts: 811
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
Posts: 7825
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
Posts: 811
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
Posts: 7825
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
Posts: 811
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
Posts: 7825
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
Posts: 811
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
Posts: 7825
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
Posts: 3897
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
Posts: 1392
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
Posts: 811
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
Posts: 811
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
Posts: 3897
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
Posts: 811
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
Posts: 22
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
Posts: 7825
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
Posts: 811
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
Posts: 601
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
Posts: 811
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
Posts: 424
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
Posts: 811
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"