Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

U.S. Policy in the Pacific Theatre 1944/5

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Wednesday, 31st August 2005

  I have been reading a few books on the subject and wondered what peoples thoughts / opinions were on the following -
  
  There is an argument that the U.S. could of forced a Japanese surrender in 1945 without invading the islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, which resulted in arround circa 15,000 - 20,000 US casualties in some of the most bitter fighting of the whole war.
  
  This is primarily because of the lack of strength of the Japanese navy due to their losses at Midway and in the re-taking of the Philippines by the U.S. At this stage, around late 44 / early 45 i believe the Japanese navy had no aircraft carriers left and limited cruisers / destroyers.
  
  The U.S. wanted or believed they had to take Okinawa and Iwo Jima to build airbases on them so that their short range fighters could be used to provide fighter cover for the B29's bombing mainland Japan.
  
  But at this stage of the war, the Japanese were preserving their airforce for defense of the mainland from an expected U.S. invasion and U.S. B29's were flying sorties over mainland Japan untroubled by Japanese fighters.
  
  Therefore it could be argued that the U.S. could of intensifed its startegic bombing over mainland Japan and moved its navy closer to the mainland so its carrier based fighter aircraft were in range if needed to support the B29's. The argument being that the Japanese navy would of been to weak to engage. Thus Okinawa and Iwo Jima wouldn't of been required, as the A-bomb(s) still could of been deployed from Tinian Island (as what happened in real life).
  
  However i understand the Japanese still had a fleet of around 20+ submarines at that time, which could of posed problems to the U.S. deploying its carriers and pacific fleet closer to mainland Japan.
  
  Also ignoring the "atomic solution" which at that time no one obviously knew if it would work or force the Japanese to surrender. Could Operation Downfall (the invasion of mainland Japan) have proceeded in 1945/6 if Okinawa and Iwo Jima weren't in U.S.hands?
  
  I apprecite this is all posted with the benefit of hindsight, i.e. the U.S. at that time couldn't be sure of the Japanese naval or airforce strengths etc but nonetheless its an interesting topic.
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: U.S. Policy in the Pacific Theatre 1944/5

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Battlegroup (U1908324) on Wednesday, 31st August 2005

  
  If the US policy in the Pacific was to defeat Japan, why then are they still occupying Okinawa and other parts of Japan 60 years later ??
  

  Link to this forum: U.S. Policy in the Pacific Theatre 1944/5

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Thursday, 1st September 2005

  Didn't realise the US still occupied Okinawa? Is that the case for Iwo Jima too?
  
  Maybe that was the long term objective, useful bases for the US millitary even 60 years later!
  
  

  Link to this forum: U.S. Policy in the Pacific Theatre 1944/5

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Battlegroup (U1908324) on Thursday, 1st September 2005

  Hi, watched TV last night "Battlefront", the Island Hopping that the US did during WW11 was 100% the idea of Gen McArthur, who threatened to resign if it did not go through, he was jealous of Adm Nimitz getting all the praise and glory

  Link to this forum: U.S. Policy in the Pacific Theatre 1944/5

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Thursday, 1st September 2005

  Point being some of the Island hopping was neccesary, i.e. Saipan, Tinian, Philippines, Guatalmara (sp), etc to push the Japanese back.
  
  But the argument was did they need the last two taken, i.e. Iwo Jima and Okinawa and could the Pacific campaign been won without those two Islands?

  Link to this forum: U.S. Policy in the Pacific Theatre 1944/5

  Report message5

Back to top