![]() ![]() ![]() So, the US couldn’t just island hop to get bomber bases. The China/Burma/India Theatre and the defense of the Austrailian region are two huge areas that come to mind. The US showed support to her allies by engaging in battles outside the island hopping. There were other considerations, too though. The island hopping campaign did this just fine. All the US had to do was get close enough to enable them to bomb Japanese cities with savage regularity. There was no need to retake every single place that the Japanese took control of. he was also a better planer because he could see the big picture. His later performance in Korea wasnot very good-his invasion of N. I got the impression that McArthur thought like a WWI general-he was willing to take massive casualties. Nimitz as a much better thinker, and much more concerned with saving his men’s lives. So who was right? McArthur or Nimitz? Again, I see Adm. I ask this bcause I caught a bit of the movie McArthure (played by Gregary Peck) on AMC-it was not one of Peck’s better roles…but he did project McArthur’s huge ego! However, Nimitz was an admiral-and ultimately, the Army would have to do the fighting. To my mind, Nimitz was a far better strategist and leader-he was very calm and cool, while McArthur was given tograndiosity and histrionics. Now, I don’t know how well defended Taiwan was, but I suspect that McArthur (with his trmendous ego) wanted to reconquer the Philippines, to erase the stain of his defeat there in 1941. The Navy wanted to bypass the Philippines, and launch an invasion of Taiwan. ![]() Pacific, McArthur wanted to invade Luzon in the Philippines, and retake Manila. Basically, after the defeat of the Japanese in New Guinea and the S. AS rge war against Japan was winding down, there was a big disafgreement between Gen. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |