Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary?

Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

GaryChildress -> Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 10:51:45 PM)
Just saw part of World War II in color. It raised the question of whether or not the invasion of the Philippines was necessary. apparently the Navy plan was to bypass the Philippines and go straight to Taiwan. But MacArthur schmoozed Roosevelt into going with his plan to invade the Philippines. What do others think about the Invasioin? Was it necessary? Was it a waste of lives? [&:]

warspite1 -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 11:10:12 PM)
From what I have read, the case put forward by MacArthur was quite sound i.e. by passing the Philippines and keeping the islands under Japanese occupation for longer (while the US finish off Japan) would have been taken badly by the Philippinos that the US sought to defend. It would have sent out a message that the US does not care. I think some people like to judge all MacArthur's actions by his subsequent egomanic behaviour in Korea, but although MacArthur was a prima donna with a monstrous ego - I do not think he was wrong about invading the Philippines (although there is always the thought that he wanted to do it only so that he could fulfiil his "I will return" promise). Might be an idea to post this in the WITPAE forum as there are bound to be a lot more knowledgable folks there on this subject.

Mobius -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 11:14:30 PM)
What use is Tiawan?

GaryChildress -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 11:21:12 PM)
I would assume Taiwan was more important to Japan than the Philippines. They had industry and important bases there.

wworld7 -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 11:29:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress Just saw part of World War II in color. It raised the question of whether or not the invasion of the Philippines was necessary. apparently the Navy plan was to bypass the Philippines and go straight to Taiwan. But MacArthur schmoozed Roosevelt into going with his plan to invade the Philippines. What do others think about the Invasioin? Was it necessary? Was it a waste of lives? [&:] IMO, The Unites States had an obligation to retake the Philippines. No my answer is no.

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 11:32:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress Just saw part of World War II in color. It raised the question of whether or not the invasion of the Philippines was necessary. apparently the Navy plan was to bypass the Philippines and go straight to Taiwan. But MacArthur schmoozed Roosevelt into going with his plan to invade the Philippines. What do others think about the Invasioin? Was it necessary? Was it a waste of lives? [&:] From a strategic point of view, probably not. That's not to say that Formosa would have been either a picnic operationally, or decisive strategically. The real key to closing the war out (apart from the atomic bomb) was the capture of Okinawa. That put the cork in the Southeast-Asian bottle as effectively as anything else that the Allies could have done. But, it's important to realize that the Philippines were as much USA territory as Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico were at the time. Literally tens of thousands of Americans ended up trapped there when the Japanese took control in 1942. In that sense, the USA operation to regain control of the islands can be looked upon as a rescue mission of sorts. Also, by retaking the islands, the USA was looking to make sure that it maintained influence in the mineral-rich, and highly strategic archipelago after the war. Oh, and there was an election in November. I suspect that FDR and the Dems didn't want MacArthur causing any big fuss on the eve of the vote. All in all, the invasion probably had more to do with politics, domestic and international, than with military imperative.

GaryChildress -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 11:35:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 I think some people like to judge all MacArthur's actions by his subsequent egomanic behaviour in Korea, but although MacArthur was a prima donna with a monstrous ego - I do not think he was wrong about invading the Philippines (although there is always the thought that he wanted to do it only so that he could fulfiil his "I will return" promise). When I was growing up I thought MacArthur was a great hero but I've seen a bit of MacArthur bashing on these forums so it sort of put him in a different light for me. I saw a post a while back saying when things went right MacArthur was quick to take credit but when they went wrong he always put the blame on his subordinates. Funny how major figures of history are re-evaluated periodically.

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 11:39:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius What use is Tiawan? Mostly, it's just geographically. It lay athwart the shipping lanes between the resources in the south and the Japanese home islands. Allied aircraft and subs operating from bases there could have interdicted the flow of those same supplies.

warspite1 -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 11:39:49 PM)
Re your rescue mission comment, I don't know how many POW's the Japanese left on the island to be liberated by the US forces. I have been reading Toland's Rising Sun and he devotes some space to the Japanese operations to evacuate the POW's to Japan. Absolutely horrific stories - prisoners crammed into holds of transports with no sanitation, medical supplies and little food and water. Some ships were inadvertently attacked by US aircraft and submarines.

Mobius -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 11:41:23 PM)
The US retook Attu Island. How vital was that? But is was US territory. So there is a war morale component of retaking US territory. The US had to win the war of wills back home as well as at the front.

Mobius -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 11:47:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius What use is Tiawan? Mostly, it's just geographically. It lay athwart the shipping lanes between the resources in the south and the Japanese home islands. Allied aircraft and subs operating from bases there could have interdicted the flow of those same supplies. If there was any shipping of supplies at the time which there wasn't. It leaves US forces going for Taiwan exposed from both Japan to the north and the Philippines. Plus Taiwan did not have a US friendly population. Divisions of Taiwanese could have been conscripted into Japanese forces.

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 11:48:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 I think some people like to judge all MacArthur's actions by his subsequent egomanic behaviour in Korea, but although MacArthur was a prima donna with a monstrous ego - I do not think he was wrong about invading the Philippines (although there is always the thought that he wanted to do it only so that he could fulfiil his "I will return" promise). When I was growing up I thought MacArthur was a great hero but I've seen a bit of MacArthur bashing on these forums so it sort of put him in a different light for me. I saw a post a while back saying when things went right MacArthur was quick to take credit but when they went wrong he always put the blame on his subordinates. Funny how major figures of history are re-evaluated periodically. His greatest contribution to the USA likely had nothing to do with his generalship during WW2, but rather his tenure as military governor of postwar Japan. That deal didn't have to turn out as well as it did. MacArthur gave birth to, and nurtured, the institutions that were necessary to create the stable and prosperous republic that emerged. In other words, just what the USA needed in that part of the world when it was confronted by a hostile PRC and USSR.

GaryChildress -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 11:48:30 PM)
It sounds like from a purely strategic angle the Philippines might not have been necessary to win the war but from a more political angle it was necessary to send the right messages to the right people. Not sure if that makes it a "waste of lives" or not but it sounds like the war could have been won at a bit cheaper price had only strategic considerations been taken into account.

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 11:52:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius quote: ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius What use is Tiawan? Mostly, it's just geographically. It lay athwart the shipping lanes between the resources in the south and the Japanese home islands. Allied aircraft and subs operating from bases there could have interdicted the flow of those same supplies. If there was any shipping of supplies at the time which there wasn't. It leaves US forces going for Taiwan exposed from both Japan to the north and the Philippines. Plus Taiwan did not have a US friendly population. Divisions of Taiwanese could have been conscripted into Japanese forces. I think that we agree on this. It was a bad idea, and was cancelled. Okinawa wasn't.

GaryChildress -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 11:56:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius quote: ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius What use is Tiawan? Mostly, it's just geographically. It lay athwart the shipping lanes between the resources in the south and the Japanese home islands. Allied aircraft and subs operating from bases there could have interdicted the flow of those same supplies. If there was any shipping of supplies at the time which there wasn't. It leaves US forces going for Taiwan exposed from both Japan to the north and the Philippines. Plus Taiwan did not have a US friendly population. Divisions of Taiwanese could have been conscripted into Japanese forces. I think that we agree on this. It was a bad idea, and was cancelled. Okinawa wasn't. Was Okinawa a bad idea? I know it was horribly costly in men and material. All for a base so a relatively few bomber crews could operate from there.

warspite1 -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 11:56:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 I think some people like to judge all MacArthur's actions by his subsequent egomanic behaviour in Korea, but although MacArthur was a prima donna with a monstrous ego - I do not think he was wrong about invading the Philippines (although there is always the thought that he wanted to do it only so that he could fulfiil his "I will return" promise). When I was growing up I thought MacArthur was a great hero but I've seen a bit of MacArthur bashing on these forums so it sort of put him in a different light for me. I saw a post a while back saying when things went right MacArthur was quick to take credit but when they went wrong he always put the blame on his subordinates. Funny how major figures of history are re-evaluated periodically. His greatest contribution to the USA likely had nothing to do with his generalship during WW2, but rather his tenure as military governor of postwar Japan. That deal didn't have to turn out as well as it did. MacArthur gave birth to, and nurtured, the institutions that were necessary to create the stable and prosperous republic that emerged. In other words, just what the USA needed in that part of the world when it was confronted by a hostile PRC and USSR. Warspite1 Do you know any good books on that subject? I have often wondered why it turned out so well. How much was that down to MacArthur? I would love to know just how did the Japanese people go from being a people that would not surrender, who piloted Kamikaze aircraft in their hundreds and who behaved with such barbarity, to such willing acceptance of the US as an occupation force. As I say, I would be really interested in reading about that post war period and how the US managed Japan in the aftermath of WWII. P.S Sorry - taking a little OT.

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 11:57:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius The US retook Attu Island. How vital was that? But is was US territory. So there is a war morale component of retaking US territory. The US had to win the war of wills back home as well as at the front. Probably not terribly important, strategically. You're likely aware that the Japanese couldn't provide proper supply to its garrison there, let alone use it as a springboard for further advance. So, yeah, politics likely played a big role in the decision. And don't forget that those islands are closer to Russia than Japan.

GaryChildress -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/11/2011 11:59:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 I think some people like to judge all MacArthur's actions by his subsequent egomanic behaviour in Korea, but although MacArthur was a prima donna with a monstrous ego - I do not think he was wrong about invading the Philippines (although there is always the thought that he wanted to do it only so that he could fulfiil his "I will return" promise). When I was growing up I thought MacArthur was a great hero but I've seen a bit of MacArthur bashing on these forums so it sort of put him in a different light for me. I saw a post a while back saying when things went right MacArthur was quick to take credit but when they went wrong he always put the blame on his subordinates. Funny how major figures of history are re-evaluated periodically. His greatest contribution to the USA likely had nothing to do with his generalship during WW2, but rather his tenure as military governor of postwar Japan. That deal didn't have to turn out as well as it did. MacArthur gave birth to, and nurtured, the institutions that were necessary to create the stable and prosperous republic that emerged. In other words, just what the USA needed in that part of the world when it was confronted by a hostile PRC and USSR. Warspite1 Do you know any good books on that subject? I have often wondered why it turned out so well. How much was that down to MacArthur? I would love to know just how did the Japanese people go from being a people that would not surrender, who piloted Kamikaze aircraft in their hundreds and who behaved with such barbarity, to such willing acceptance of the US as an occupation force. As I say, I would be really interested in reading about that post war period and how the US managed Japan in the aftermath of WWII. P.S Sorry - taking a little OT. No doubt propaganda had a lot to do with both cases. When Japan was under the control of their military dictators they were constantly told how dishonorable it was to lose and how the Americans would rape their women and eat their babies and all that sort of stuff. Propaganda can work wonders.

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/12/2011 12:04:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Do you know any good books on that subject? I have often wondered why it turned out so well. How much was that down to MacArthur? I would love to know just how did the Japanese people go from being a people that would not surrender, who piloted Kamikaze aircraft in their hundreds and who behaved with such barbarity, to such willing acceptance of the US as an occupation force. As I say, I would be really interested in reading about that post war period and how the US managed Japan in the aftermath of WWII. P.S Sorry - taking a little OT. If you can find a copy, try American Caesar.

Mobius -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/12/2011 12:12:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress Was Okinawa a bad idea? I know it was horribly costly in men and material. All for a base so a relatively few bomber crews could operate from there. I think is was used as an emergency landing field for damaged bombers. And you don't want any Japanese fighters to be based there, but they may find themselves short on fuel in short order.

GaryChildress -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/12/2011 12:21:13 AM)
If the war in the Pacific could have been fought without political considerations etc, what would have been the best, least costly strategy to bring about victory for the Allies?

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/12/2011 12:26:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress Was Okinawa a bad idea? I know it was horribly costly in men and material. All for a base so a relatively few bomber crews could operate from there. It's possession brought Allied tactical air forces within range of Southern Japan. If it had proven necessary to carry out Operation Olympic, the Allies could hardly have gotten along without it. Okinawa became the home of the 7th Air Force, BTW.

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/12/2011 12:28:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius I think is was used as an emergency landing field for damaged bombers. That sounds like Iwo Jima.

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/12/2011 12:38:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress If the war in the Pacific could have been fought without political considerations etc, what would have been the best, least costly strategy to bring about victory for the Allies? From day #1, deploy submarines, lots of submarines, and more submarines with aggressive skippers and a good torpedo. Place them in patrol lines between Formosa and Luzon island. Concentrate on tanker traffic. The USN wasn't able to fully execute this strategy until 1944, but when they did, the Japanese war effort suffered irreparable harm.

jomni -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/12/2011 12:54:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress I would assume Taiwan was more important to Japan than the Philippines. They had industry and important bases there. Mobius is right. Taiwan is a Japanese colony for so long already. I think the population would be hostile to the US if they were to invade. The Philippines is the other way around.

ilovestrategy -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/12/2011 1:27:44 AM)
My wife's grandmother, who was born and raised in the Philippines, told me what during the occupation they had no doubt in their minds that we would retake the Philippines. That right there is reason enough to retake it. They had the faith that we would not let them down. And we didn't.

freeboy -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/12/2011 1:46:35 AM)
the "best" least costly to whom? we could have stopped the japanees before the rape of nanking.. saving what one million Chineese? from a stricly military cost of lives.. build the bomb drop the bomb threaten them with more if they do not leave therre ocopied lands.. The Empire went from Mongolia to near india.. and most of the Pacific.. they did not hold it for long.. but the battles fought across the pacific including the firebombing of cities in Japan makes your question one that leads to more questions? like Could a strong US interventionalist policy have stopped Japan before war, and if not would the war have raged on for years? hindsight I know.. its a bitch

jwilkerson -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/12/2011 3:40:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress Just saw part of World War II in color. It raised the question of whether or not the invasion of the Philippines was necessary. apparently the Navy plan was to bypass the Philippines and go straight to Taiwan. But MacArthur schmoozed Roosevelt into going with his plan to invade the Philippines. What do others think about the Invasioin? Was it necessary? Was it a waste of lives? [&:] Which "invasion of the Philippines" are you referring to? If the Japanese had not "invaded the Philippines" certainly Roosevelt would have had a tougher time getting USA into the war with as much support - especially had Pearl Harbor also not happened. But, I think as a general rule, we could say ALL military invasions (or other operations) are a waste of lives. There are no "good wars".

freeboy -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/12/2011 4:13:46 PM)
exceipt the war on my mother in law... if ever there was ajust war.. lol[:-][:D][:-]

KG Erwin -> RE: Was the Invasion of the Philippines Necessary? (12/12/2011 4:36:46 PM)
Actually, the Battle of Peleliu was the most useless action of the entire lead up to the Philippine campaign. It was allegedly to protect the flank of the invading forces, but it took on a life of its own. Of course, the planners of the Peleliu operation thought it would take only a couple of days to subdue the defenders.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.6875