I can't get enough of Ian Toll. He is always coming up with things I had never heard before. Thanks for having him for this super informative presentation. As good as he always is, this one was extra great.
I know I'm late to the party, but; since I retired I now have time to read & learn more about the pacific theater. That being said, I want to put my 2 cents regarding the SWPA vs CPA debate. Having McArthur over the entire pacific would have cost us many more casualties & at least another year. On top of that the theater would have been total chaos due to McA's theatrics. Of course he probably been relieved after his total mismanagement of the Phillipines, as well as not following orders!
Ian Toll is a fantastic history writer. I DEVOURED his WWII trilogy and then had Frigates for dessert. I have been a WWII history buff since I was 6 years old (ahem, that is 49 years ago) reading Robert Leckie. My knowledge is deep and vast. But Toll brings story telling narratives and nuance to history one already largely knows with great aplomb. I can't wait for his next book.
I've never had the extreme pleasure of hearing Ian Toll explain the big picture. I'll not make that mistake again. His concise examination and explanation of the simple historical facts, including the PR, political and sundry other aspects so seldom offered in such a discussion leaves me hungry for so much more of his retelling. Shelby Foote might just have a bit of competition in my head.
Tremendous presentation that concisely explained why we had to invade that God forsaken island. I knew 2 elderly Marines who fought the entrie Iwo Jima battle and they were incredibly spry tough men. But, when I inquired about the battle their face would quickly change and it looked like the Thousand Yard Stare came back. I never probed further as the horror they experienced needed to stay buried deep in the recesses of their mind. The USMC fighters were very special and deserve our unwavering respect.
I'd love to see Mr. Toll do a vid on the USMC development from Guadalcanal and the C-100 Order of Battle in place at that time, which was nearly unchanged from WW1, to the end phase at Okinawa which was the G-100 Order of Battle. What motivated the changes, what were the issues the changes were attempting to address, what logistics costs were involved in the changes, the testing of the capability increases that came with the changes, etc, and so on. Another aspect is the USMC deciding to use combat camera men to supplement After Action reports with film of the actual battles in the holes with the infantry. Its one thing to read about the conduct of a new development in mechanized/industrialized warfare, and read about terrain difficulties and comprehensive defensive infrastructure encountered, as well as human wave attacks, it's another to actually see in on screen as a supplement to the written reports.
Fantastic presentation by Ian. He covered a number of items I previously did not know, such as the potential plan to invade Formorsa. In looking at the Pacific campaign, I believe Peleliu could have been bypassed. After today's discussion, I also wonder if Iwo Jima could also have been bypassed and go straight for Okinawa. Iwo certainly had no offensive capability, so it makes you wonder. Great program Ian! Thanks Paul!!!
I've come to the opinion that as an emergency landing spot for B29s it didn't quite pay for the attrition of Marines. But hindsight is 20-20 and logistical necessity is not something I'm familiar enough with to opine. If you break down the categories for reasons for B29s to use Iwo the fuel issue was the largest and was overstated enough to argue that Iwo didn't pay off just as an emergency landing location. To put Iwo off for months made it the bloodbath that it was. I always wondered if King was serious about Formosa or just wanted to get under MacArthur's skin just a bit for the fun of it.
A great episode again. Ian is yet another very knowledgeable guest speaker. What I love about this channel is the range of guest speakers, each with their own particular take on a subject which brings a broader spectrum to the understanding of what and why thing happened back then.
One of thee best channels on you tube hands down. I have to laugh at the typo in the title. Yeah, the Allie’s were hoping this campaign would be successful. Operation hope. Lol
Catching and keeping up with the number of quality episodes on WW2TV takes some doing. It feels that every time I take a couple of steps forward, I find there's even more episodes to watch. It will keep me occupied for months to come.
Love your channel very interesting, I was a marine in vietnam who was issued a m 14 which I though was a great weapon with tons of firepower and would penetrait the jungle forest. It with the ammo were very heavy after about 2 or 3 months they issued me an m16 which I though was a cheap piece of crap. But after carrying it a few days I realized I had a lot more energy after a long patrol. The weapon and ammo weighted a lot less. Also you could handle a lot better with more accuracy on automatic. It wasn t a long distance rifle but in Nam is was normally close fire fights. You give and take on all weapons. You channel is so great the way explain everything I look forward to tuning you channel in late in the evening and learn so much. Thank you for your info and GOD BLESS
Iwo Jima was of primary importance as an air base as it put P-51 fighter escorts and shorter-legged (than the B-29) bomber aircraft, such as the B-24, within range of most of the Japanese home islands. Of course, it was also an ideal emergency landing site for damaged B-29s which otherwise would have had to keep flying hundreds of miles farther on to their bases in the Marianas.
@@nogoodnameleft Not the USMC. The USMC had almost no say in where they went to fight and what they took with them to do the fighting. That was all USN. The only thing the USMC had a say in was the tactics used on the islands where the USN took them. The USMC was not a "senior service" at that time.
MacArthur should have been cashiered as were Short and Kimmel. He was more culpable for the failure in the Philippines than were Short and Kimmel. It was only circumstances including morale and politics that prevented it. He had the warning of the Pearl Harbor attack yet failed miserably.
Short and Kimmel were scapegoats. Navy and Us Army never told them attack was coming. Roosevelt knew attack was coming. Yamato based attack on Italy fleet and mock attack on Panama Canal from the 1930's.
Couldn’t have said it better myself sir. In fact, just to pour salt into the historical wound, they immediately gave the son of a bitch the Congressional Medal of Honor ostensively for his “courageous” leadership and performance in the defense of the Philippine Islands. Putting a finer point to the fact, it was MacArthur alone who personally initiated the request that he be awarded the MOH. It seems nobody at the time had the stones to say no to the absolutely ridiculous award recommendation, including Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall, who unexplainably gave his final endorsement to the MacArthur’s request for the medal. In my opinion, no single military administrative act has ever occurred to more smear the dignity and meaning of an award for combat courage as was that of handing that megalomaniac a Medal of Honor at his own request. Especially just on the heels of the monumental disaster that was the initial defensive response and lack of counter air attack to the Japanese invasion of Philippines.
Also quit the Philippines battlefield to Australia, leaving his troop to demise. During the Korean War he was in charge of UN troops in the Tokyo highrise while his troops were either in cold weather and dying of trench foot, while he also pleaded with Truman in having 50 nuclear bombs to nuke Manchuria-North Korean area to prevent China in crossing the border, took about 10 years for someone had the balls to remove Macarthur from the military. During WWII he also wanted the fortress Rabaul with only like 3-4 divisions and he pleaded the Navy for naval support by 3-4 carriers, attacking Rabaul before Guadalcanal invasion was suicidal.
An interesting topic was broached with the mentioning of aerial photography originally by the RAF in the early years of the war. As vital as humint and signint was in the war, the ability to see with one's own eyes is huge. Wellington was a Master of Visual observation on the battlefield. I've never seen a study of the development of aerial photography in WWII.
Has anyone written a book on the evolution of naval doctrine in the Pacific during WW2? This was such an important part of how the US Navy improved and won.
No mention of the Philippines providing air and naval bases from which the communications between the Home Islands and the resource-rich areas to the southeast could be severed?
I honor all the Marines and Corpsmen who gave their lives on Iwo. We must remember there were multiple reasons Iwo needed to be taken. It was an early radar warning site for the home island when bombers were on the way to Japan. There were also fighter planes on the island to attack our bombers to and from Japan. Also, with the massive distances between islands in the Pacific, General Lemay also wanted Iwo as a place where damaged bombers could land and save the crew. A damaged bomber that was forced to ditch in the large expanse of the Pacific almost certainly meant death for the crew. 25,000 Airmen's lives were saved by the USA taking Iwo. Lastly, General Lemay wanted a forward air base for our own fighter planes so they could escort the bombers to Japan, specifically the P-51, which had the range to escort the bombers all the way to Japan and back to Iwo.
Well, that was the thinking at the time and the popular sentiment of today. However, there has been more recent research that postulates a different conclusion - that Iwo may have not been worth the cost.
All false statements made after the battle to justify the huge causalitys since been proven that none of these reasons were true. Japan had early warning stations all along the way from Saipan/ the fighter escort never materialized and was rarely used and most of the B29 landings on iwo after the battle were non emergency & training flights. Total B29 crew losses for the war were under 3000 souls no way does that increase to over 25000 in the short 5 months after the island was secured
causalities is the word describing the relatipnships between cause and effect. I think you may want to use casualties, wounded or killed. Words using the same letters but in a different sequence do nor always have the same meaning.
Ian W. Toll's Pacific Trilogy is not available in Kindle format.😥 Thanks for this video, though - I never tire of hearing the history of the war in the Pacific. It all seems utterly mind-boggling in scale, etc.
I'm pretty sure the Navy and admirals Ghormley and Halsey were in command of the South Pacific area during the duration of the Solomon Islands campaign in 1942-1943 (excluding operations to take Bougainville which was part of the South West Pacific area), not the Army and General MacArthur. There was definitely a significant distinction made between the Army-led South West Pacific (SWPAC) and Navy-led South Pacific (SOPAC) commands.
@@nogoodnameleft I guess that the Navy was not particularly enamored by having to compete with McArthur for everything. I'm also convinced that the "I will return" promise was a mistake nonpariel. The magnitude of human losses could clearly have been mitigated had McArthur not been such an egomaniac. How he managed to hold onto his command has always been a mystery to me. The Army deserved better. He should have court martialed. Instead, he had the CMH pinned to his tunic.
What is interesting is that they didn’t mass their forces and strike north from Australia toward the oil fields. Then to the Philippines, Formosa, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The command is split and rivalries occur, the Navy didn’t want to be under MacArthur.
What link? I'm afraid I simply don't have the time to include links to the display materials guests use on shows - sorry. But there are plenty of good maps of the Pacific campaign online
Catching up on missed episodes. It always seemed to me that MacArthur was a similar figure in the US to Montgomery in the UK. They both assumed a larger symbolic status among their respective populations. Both figures had outsized egos that at times negatively influenced the prosecution of the war. I also tend, in broad strokes, to equate Nimitz with Eisenhower. Both of those men had a broader strategic view of how to achieve eventual success in their respective theatres and they both had to essentially subordinate the larger than life symbolic figures of MacArthur and Montgomery.
both Spruance and Halsey were lucky NOT to lose the Leyte invasion force in 1944.Halsey was hothead who was successfully mislead by the Japanese decoy-if the Japanese fleet admirals had been swapped , the Leyte gulf invasion force would have been destroyed
I wonder if 'earthquake bombs' could have been dropped such as Grandslam? Could high level earthquake bombing have neutralised the tunnels cut into the rock?
I've watched a lot of content about the Pacific theater during the second world war and something I've noticed is that the intelligence in that theater was lacking in a way that wasn't as apparent in the European theater. I know that we had broken the Japanese naval code but there still seem to always be huge gaps in what we knew about the islands that we were on the verge of invading. Knowing that Iwo Jima was lightly garrisoned by the Japanese and that they had not built up any difficult defenses could have saved so many allied lives. There are so many other bungled intelligence issues during that whole bloody saga. Far too numerous to enumerate as the phrase goes.
Agree but intelligence was likely just a lot harder to acquire in the Pacific..i.e.aerial photos of Iwo were available but how would one place intelligence operatives on the island as one might in Axis territory. Also there was no European resistance underground analog for the Pacific. If either of these was possible the number of enemy and methods and degrees of fortifications would have been much better understood. Just a thought..
@@oilsmokejones3452 I think one interesting aspect that most people wouldn't even think about is the amount of American or American Allies who naturally speak and understand Japanese as opposed to those who speak and understand German or italian. If you just look up the immigrant makeup of the United States the Asian community is much smaller than the German or european community. So that alone is going to affect intelligence gathering. It's one thing to break a code but if you've only got 25 guys that have a really good understanding of Japanese then that's going to work a lot worse than say all of those German speakers at bletchley Park in England. I know this isn't at all the full answer but it's just something that occurred to me as I was starting to write this.
@@bookaufman9643 Good point, and an intel operative would have to appear Japanese and infiltrate prior to being assigned to combat location, even train with the troops as members on a island location would be sure to ID him as not one of them..very hard to get precise local intel..
Breaking the code did not mean you read it like a book. You could read bits and pieces and the Japanese would change codes from time to time meaning you spent time breaking that.
@D Staff Well aren't you loveable? Counter-factuals about what Forces should and could have done is always interesting but we can only draw conclusions abouit what actually played out rather than what didn't
@WW2TV I'm Genuinely Curious to Why United States Didn't Utilize Alaska as a Staging Grounds For Direct Assualt into Japan. Hindsight 20/20 Nimitz Should have Build Up Hawii n Midway Defensively. Then STAGED A Sizeable Force Out of Alaska Even as a DIVERSIONARY force. Forcing the Japanese to SPLIT thier Forces Even Thinner Across the Pacific for MacArthur To Bring His Forces Up From Australia... Then Used the Bulk of the Navy As HARRASING force To Japan Counter Offensive Tatics against MacArthurs Push... IDK 🤷♂️ yes I'm a Lovable Guy Who says Whats on my Mind. THANKS for the Content You Deliver Though...
Spruance is overrated -he stuffed up at Iwo Jima-he stopped the battleship bombardment early unnecessarily-he was lucky at Midway-incredibly lucky his subordinates made the right decisions in the air-the midway attacks were poorly coordinated resulting in the loss of the torpedo bomber squadron's and the marine squadrons
“As Americans in particular, we’re a continental country, and it’s very natural to think of war first as war on land.” That’s a very strange claim to make. We only think of war as war on land when we fight each other.
The U.S. should have destroyed then bypassed the Palau Islands, just as they did with previous Japanese strongholds on Truk and Rabaul. The loss of lives there were totally avoidable and unnecessary.
I can't get enough of Ian Toll. He is always coming up with things I had never heard before. Thanks for having him for this super informative presentation. As good as he always is, this one was extra great.
I know I'm late to the party, but; since I retired I now have time to read & learn more about the pacific theater. That being said, I want to put my 2 cents regarding the SWPA vs CPA debate. Having McArthur over the entire pacific would have cost us many more casualties & at least another year. On top of that the theater would have been total chaos due to McA's theatrics. Of course he probably been relieved after his total mismanagement of the Phillipines, as well as not following orders!
Ian Toll is a fantastic history writer. I DEVOURED his WWII trilogy and then had Frigates for dessert. I have been a WWII history buff since I was 6 years old (ahem, that is 49 years ago) reading Robert Leckie. My knowledge is deep and vast. But Toll brings story telling narratives and nuance to history one already largely knows with great aplomb. I can't wait for his next book.
Awesome program Paul. You get the most out of your guests.
I've never had the extreme pleasure of hearing Ian Toll explain the big picture. I'll not make that mistake again. His concise examination and explanation of the simple historical facts, including the PR, political and sundry other aspects so seldom offered in such a discussion leaves me hungry for so much more of his retelling. Shelby Foote might just have a bit of competition in my head.
Read his trilogy. Excellent work
Tremendous presentation that concisely explained why we had to invade that God forsaken island. I knew 2 elderly Marines who fought the entrie Iwo Jima battle and they were incredibly spry tough men. But, when I inquired about the battle their face would quickly change and it looked like the Thousand Yard Stare came back. I never probed further as the horror they experienced needed to stay buried deep in the recesses of their mind. The USMC fighters were very special and deserve our unwavering respect.
Thanks!
Excellent program- thanks!👍
I'd love to see Mr. Toll do a vid on the USMC development from Guadalcanal and the C-100 Order of Battle in place at that time, which was nearly unchanged from WW1, to the end phase at Okinawa which was the G-100 Order of Battle. What motivated the changes, what were the issues the changes were attempting to address, what logistics costs were involved in the changes, the testing of the capability increases that came with the changes, etc, and so on. Another aspect is the USMC deciding to use combat camera men to supplement After Action reports with film of the actual battles in the holes with the infantry.
Its one thing to read about the conduct of a new development in mechanized/industrialized warfare, and read about terrain difficulties and comprehensive defensive infrastructure encountered, as well as human wave attacks, it's another to actually see in on screen as a supplement to the written reports.
It is a rare gift, the foresight to predict things that are unpredictable.
Fantastic presentation by Ian. He covered a number of items I previously did not know, such as the potential plan to invade Formorsa. In looking at the Pacific campaign, I believe Peleliu could have been bypassed. After today's discussion, I also wonder if Iwo Jima could also have been bypassed and go straight for Okinawa. Iwo certainly had no offensive capability, so it makes you wonder. Great program Ian! Thanks Paul!!!
I've come to the opinion that as an emergency landing spot for B29s it didn't quite pay for the attrition of Marines. But hindsight is 20-20 and logistical necessity is not something I'm familiar enough with to opine. If you break down the categories for reasons for B29s to use Iwo the fuel issue was the largest and was overstated enough to argue that Iwo didn't pay off just as an emergency landing location. To put Iwo off for months made it the bloodbath that it was.
I always wondered if King was serious about Formosa or just wanted to get under MacArthur's skin just a bit for the fun of it.
A great episode again. Ian is yet another very knowledgeable guest speaker. What I love about this channel is the range of guest speakers, each with their own particular take on a subject which brings a broader spectrum to the understanding of what and why thing happened back then.
Much appreciated!
One of thee best channels on you tube hands down. I have to laugh at the typo in the title. Yeah, the Allie’s were hoping this campaign would be successful. Operation hope. Lol
Ha! thanks for pointing that out, I've corrected it
Excellent discussion guys👍
God bless you Mate and your great work
Catching and keeping up with the number of quality episodes on WW2TV takes some doing. It feels that every time I take a couple of steps forward, I find there's even more episodes to watch. It will keep me occupied for months to come.
Well, it will keep you off the streets as we say in England
@@WW2TV Judging by my avatar that must be Bash Street or close
Love your channel very interesting, I was a marine in vietnam who was issued a m 14 which I though was a great weapon with tons of firepower and would penetrait the jungle forest. It with the ammo were very heavy after about 2 or 3 months they issued me an m16 which I though was a cheap piece of crap. But after carrying it a few days I realized I had a lot more energy after a long patrol. The weapon and ammo weighted a lot less. Also you could handle a lot better with more accuracy on automatic. It wasn t a long distance rifle but in Nam is was normally close fire fights. You give and take on all weapons. You channel is so great the way explain everything I look forward to tuning you channel in late in the evening and learn so much. Thank you for your info and GOD BLESS
Thank you very much
Iwo Jima was of primary importance as an air base as it put P-51 fighter escorts and shorter-legged (than the B-29) bomber aircraft, such as the B-24, within range of most of the Japanese home islands. Of course, it was also an ideal emergency landing site for damaged B-29s which otherwise would have had to keep flying hundreds of miles farther on to their bases in the Marianas.
Good points, as usual, there's only so much we can cover in one show
@@nogoodnameleft Not the USMC. The USMC had almost no say in where they went to fight and what they took with them to do the fighting. That was all USN. The only thing the USMC had a say in was the tactics used on the islands where the USN took them.
The USMC was not a "senior service" at that time.
MacArthur should have been cashiered as were Short and Kimmel. He was more culpable for the failure in the Philippines than were Short and Kimmel. It was only circumstances including morale and politics that prevented it. He had the warning of the Pearl Harbor attack yet failed miserably.
Short and Kimmel were scapegoats. Navy and Us Army never told them attack was coming. Roosevelt knew attack was coming. Yamato based attack on Italy fleet and mock attack on Panama Canal from the 1930's.
Couldn’t have said it better myself sir.
In fact, just to pour salt into the historical wound, they immediately gave the son of a bitch the Congressional Medal of Honor ostensively for his “courageous” leadership and performance in the defense of the Philippine Islands.
Putting a finer point to the fact, it was MacArthur alone who personally initiated the request that he be awarded the MOH.
It seems nobody at the time had the stones to say no to the absolutely ridiculous award recommendation, including Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall, who unexplainably gave his final endorsement to the MacArthur’s request for the medal.
In my opinion, no single military administrative act has ever occurred to more smear the dignity and meaning of an award for combat courage as was that of handing that megalomaniac a Medal of Honor at his own request. Especially just on the heels of the monumental disaster that was the initial defensive response and lack of counter air attack to the Japanese invasion of Philippines.
Also quit the Philippines battlefield to Australia, leaving his troop to demise. During the Korean War he was in charge of UN troops in the Tokyo highrise while his troops were either in cold weather and dying of trench foot, while he also pleaded with Truman in having 50 nuclear bombs to nuke Manchuria-North Korean area to prevent China in crossing the border, took about 10 years for someone had the balls to remove Macarthur from the military.
During WWII he also wanted the fortress Rabaul with only like 3-4 divisions and he pleaded the Navy for naval support by 3-4 carriers, attacking Rabaul before Guadalcanal invasion was suicidal.
He only left the Philippines after being ordered to by Roosevelt.@@ramal5708
An interesting topic was broached with the mentioning of aerial photography originally by the RAF in the early years of the war. As vital as humint and signint was in the war, the ability to see with one's own eyes is huge. Wellington was a Master of Visual observation on the battlefield. I've never seen a study of the development of aerial photography in WWII.
Has anyone written a book on the evolution of naval doctrine in the Pacific during WW2? This was such an important part of how the US Navy improved and won.
Individual aspects of definitely. Check our playlists
No mention of the Philippines providing air and naval bases from which the communications between the Home Islands and the resource-rich areas to the southeast could be severed?
I honor all the Marines and Corpsmen who gave their lives on Iwo. We must remember there were multiple reasons Iwo needed to be taken. It was an early radar warning site for the home island when bombers were on the way to Japan. There were also fighter planes on the island to attack our bombers to and from Japan. Also, with the massive distances between islands in the Pacific, General Lemay also wanted Iwo as a place where damaged bombers could land and save the crew. A damaged bomber that was forced to ditch in the large expanse of the Pacific almost certainly meant death for the crew. 25,000 Airmen's lives were saved by the USA taking Iwo. Lastly, General Lemay wanted a forward air base for our own fighter planes so they could escort the bombers to Japan, specifically the P-51, which had the range to escort the bombers all the way to Japan and back to Iwo.
Yep, all good points - thanks
Well, that was the thinking at the time and the popular sentiment of today. However, there has been more recent research that postulates a different conclusion - that Iwo may have not been worth the cost.
All false statements made after the battle to justify the huge causalitys since been proven that none of these reasons were true. Japan had early warning stations all along the way from Saipan/ the fighter escort never materialized and was rarely used and most of the B29 landings on iwo after the battle were non emergency & training flights. Total B29 crew losses for the war were under 3000 souls no way does that increase to over 25000 in the short 5 months after the island was secured
causalities is the word describing the relatipnships between cause and effect. I think you may want to use casualties, wounded or killed. Words using the same letters but in a different sequence do nor always have the same meaning.
@@johnspurrell1200 Thanks captain grammar. Was actually hoping you had something to add to the discussion
Ian W. Toll's Pacific Trilogy is not available in Kindle format.😥 Thanks for this video, though - I never tire of hearing the history of the war in the Pacific. It all seems utterly mind-boggling in scale, etc.
The whole trilogy is available in kindle format on Amazon.
@@JS-fe8sx - I still don't see Kindle versions available on UK Amazon.
I'm pretty sure the Navy and admirals Ghormley and Halsey were in command of the South Pacific area during the duration of the Solomon Islands campaign in 1942-1943 (excluding operations to take Bougainville which was part of the South West Pacific area), not the Army and General MacArthur. There was definitely a significant distinction made between the Army-led South West Pacific (SWPAC) and Navy-led South Pacific (SOPAC) commands.
@@nogoodnameleft I guess that the Navy was not particularly enamored by having to compete with McArthur for everything. I'm also convinced that the "I will return" promise was a mistake nonpariel. The magnitude of human losses could clearly have been mitigated had McArthur not been such an egomaniac. How he managed to hold onto his command has always been a mystery to me. The Army deserved better. He should have court martialed. Instead, he had the CMH pinned to his tunic.
History hindsight is 20/20.
What is interesting is that they didn’t mass their forces and strike north from Australia toward the oil fields. Then to the Philippines, Formosa, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The command is split and rivalries occur, the Navy didn’t want to be under MacArthur.
Hoping we never have to take an island iike Iwo again.
Yes Peliellu was unnecessary but initiated by the transfer of aircraft to biak island via pelelieu by the japanese
Thank you for this review. Where is the link to click to download and print that map?
What link? I'm afraid I simply don't have the time to include links to the display materials guests use on shows - sorry. But there are plenty of good maps of the Pacific campaign online
Sorry. We’ll done.
Catching up on missed episodes. It always seemed to me that MacArthur was a similar figure in the US to Montgomery in the UK. They both assumed a larger symbolic status among their respective populations. Both figures had outsized egos that at times negatively influenced the prosecution of the war. I also tend, in broad strokes, to equate Nimitz with Eisenhower. Both of those men had a broader strategic view of how to achieve eventual success in their respective theatres and they both had to essentially subordinate the larger than life symbolic figures of MacArthur and Montgomery.
both Spruance and Halsey were lucky NOT to lose the Leyte invasion force in 1944.Halsey was hothead who was successfully mislead by the Japanese decoy-if the Japanese fleet admirals had been swapped , the Leyte gulf invasion force would have been destroyed
Halsey was in charge of that one, not Spruance. They alternated back and forth at that time as Fleet command.
Plus, many of the ships there were 7th fleet, not under Halseys 3rd Fleet command. I agree, Halsey was suckered by the Japanese and he fell for it.
I wonder if 'earthquake bombs' could have been dropped such as Grandslam? Could high level earthquake bombing have neutralised the tunnels cut into the rock?
Grandslam not operational at that time the Battle stared. Lancaster not got the range to get there and back while carrying the weapon.
Ian Toll said something about eto very early in the vid. what is (an) eto ?
ETO is European Theatre of Operations, PTO is Pacific Theatre of Operations
I've watched a lot of content about the Pacific theater during the second world war and something I've noticed is that the intelligence in that theater was lacking in a way that wasn't as apparent in the European theater. I know that we had broken the Japanese naval code but there still seem to always be huge gaps in what we knew about the islands that we were on the verge of invading. Knowing that Iwo Jima was lightly garrisoned by the Japanese and that they had not built up any difficult defenses could have saved so many allied lives. There are so many other bungled intelligence issues during that whole bloody saga. Far too numerous to enumerate as the phrase goes.
Agree but intelligence was likely just a lot harder to acquire in the Pacific..i.e.aerial photos of Iwo were available but how would one place intelligence operatives on the island as one might in Axis territory. Also there was no European resistance underground analog for the Pacific. If either of these was possible the number of enemy and methods and degrees of fortifications would have been much better understood. Just a thought..
@@oilsmokejones3452 I think one interesting aspect that most people wouldn't even think about is the amount of American or American Allies who naturally speak and understand Japanese as opposed to those who speak and understand German or italian. If you just look up the immigrant makeup of the United States the Asian community is much smaller than the German or european community. So that alone is going to affect intelligence gathering. It's one thing to break a code but if you've only got 25 guys that have a really good understanding of Japanese then that's going to work a lot worse than say all of those German speakers at bletchley Park in England. I know this isn't at all the full answer but it's just something that occurred to me as I was starting to write this.
@@bookaufman9643 Good point, and an intel operative would have to appear Japanese and infiltrate prior to being assigned to combat location, even train with the troops as members on a island location would be sure to ID him as not one of them..very hard to get precise local intel..
Breaking the code did not mean you read it like a book. You could read bits and pieces and the Japanese would change codes from time to time meaning you spent time breaking that.
I liked Nimitz plan better by going through central Pacific and Formosa bypassing Philippines
What were Japanese defenses like in Formosa?
If the allies could bypass Truck they should have easily bypassed Peleliu.
Why Didn't The Navy Take Diversionary Tatics or Strategy From The NORTHERN sector of Japan?? Coming In from North East to Hit Japan?
I'm sure the Chiefs considered multiple options
@WW2TV No Shxt Sherlock, I'm asking WHY?? seems Like a option to Come Down from Alaska after Staging Up forces...
@D Staff Well aren't you loveable? Counter-factuals about what Forces should and could have done is always interesting but we can only draw conclusions abouit what actually played out rather than what didn't
@WW2TV I'm Genuinely Curious to Why United States Didn't Utilize Alaska as a Staging Grounds For Direct Assualt into Japan. Hindsight 20/20 Nimitz Should have Build Up Hawii n Midway Defensively. Then STAGED A Sizeable Force Out of Alaska Even as a DIVERSIONARY force. Forcing the Japanese to SPLIT thier Forces Even Thinner Across the Pacific for MacArthur To Bring His Forces Up From Australia... Then Used the Bulk of the Navy As HARRASING force To Japan Counter Offensive Tatics against MacArthurs Push... IDK 🤷♂️ yes I'm a Lovable Guy Who says Whats on my Mind. THANKS for the Content You Deliver Though...
Now I'm genuinely curious about why you are capitiziling words that don't need to be lol. But thanks for watching the channel
5556 views, 223 likkes, spooky
Spruance is overrated -he stuffed up at Iwo Jima-he stopped the battleship bombardment early unnecessarily-he was lucky at Midway-incredibly lucky his subordinates made the right decisions in the air-the midway attacks were poorly coordinated resulting in the loss of the torpedo bomber squadron's and the marine squadrons
“As Americans in particular, we’re a continental country, and it’s very natural to think of war first as war on land.” That’s a very strange claim to make. We only think of war as war on land when we fight each other.
The U.S. should have destroyed then bypassed the Palau Islands, just as they did with previous Japanese strongholds on Truk and Rabaul. The loss of lives there were totally avoidable and unnecessary.
Great channel. Host talks too much
Some guests, like Ian specifically request a chst. With other guests I barely say a word. Its all about what the guest prefers
I like this guy's content but his constant reminding us that he is an "ETO" guy is really annoying. He says it at least 10x per video
An exaggeration I think
Please be quiet and let your guests speak. It is highly unlikely that you know more than your guest.
Okay, but what some guests specifically request is a chzt
nitpicking but he seems dismissive of the army’s contribution
Thanks!