MacArthur and his Work in the Pacific

From what I understand about MacArthur, it seems like the general public looked very favorable on him.  He was generally considered to be a hero, both at home and rebuilding after the war in the Pacific.  

However, his troops seemed to have a different opinion about him, calling him things like "Dug-in Doug".  Also other armed forces seemed to dislike him after his attack on the bonus march.  My question is why is there such a disconnect here?  How can the public have such a totally opposite view of him as the armed forces?  

Nimitz Presentation

Chester Nimitz seemed like a very interesting individual.  I particularly thought it was interesting about his participation in the surrender of Japan.  Also, it is sort of impressive that he was able to work well with MacArthur.  After learning more about MacArthur, it seems like it might be difficult to have a good working professional relationship with the man.

Dumb Luck

After learning the Battle of Midway was won due to pure dumb luck, I was wondering how many times in the WWII dumb luck saved American lives. Was this limited to naval battles at the beginning of the war? Or did it play a critical role in land battles in Europe and on islands in the Pacific?

Presentations and Week

I thought the presentations were good this week. I didn't realize how outnumbered the U.S. was at the battle. It must have been a big boost to morale knowing that they won such a unfair battle. With this battle and the high amount of loses that the Japanese was facing it must have really infuriated the emperor. Do you think the code of the samuari was the downfall to the Japanese Empire?
Then to know that Nimitz was the yiang to MacArthur's yang explains why they were successful in the Pacific. Its a little weird how he rose to power even though almost 30 people were ahead of him that were more qualified. He was also considered mello, which I found a little odd for a high ranking military man that is suppose to be giving orders. I guess he just didn't fit the normal stereotype.

This week we learned more about the Pacific. I didn't realize that Alaska paid such a vital role in the war. But I found it a little odd that Japan would think that attacking the U.S. then advancing to the midway and Alaska would make us ask for peace. Did they not remember what happened in WWI and how we turned the tide? These miscalculations led to their dismise. I think that if they would have just stayed in the further Pacific and didn't threaten any US territory or its ally that they would have been successful in their expansion of their empire.

pacific theater

In the Pacific theater I thought that the most interesting aspect was the use of the Aleution Islands at the battle of Midway. I never knew that Alaska was so involved in key parts of the battle. Also I found it interesting that Japan never really did plan on invading the US and only planned to work their way down to cutting off supplies to Australia. Japan also it seems to have had a great ability in estimating US naval ship ammounts where as the US failed at this and underestimated poorly.

Presentations

The presentations this week contained a lot of good information. The presentation about Admiral Nimitz I thought contained the most interesting fact about how he ran a destroyer aground but ultimately became one of the most famous Naval Commanders in American history. Also, today we see Nimitz as a great choice but he was 28th in line for the position. I have to wonder what was the ultimate reason that FDR choice Nimitz over the others? Bougainville I thought was interesting because Japanese Americans (Nisei) were used in the Pacific theater. I always thought and heard that Nisei were only used in Europe because of the fear they would switch sides. The information gained by the Nisei soldiers turned the tide of battle for the island and lead to one of the most one sided victories in US history. I was wondering why acts like this was not highly publicized by the US government and military to help end the hysteria about Japanese Americans in the United States?

Japan

This week in class and in the reading I found things out about the Japanese I did not know. The first was the Japan used poison gas during the WWII on the Chinese. I had always thought that beside the gas chamber in Germany poison gas was not never used on the battlefield in WWII. In addition, was the number of battleships that the Japanese Navy had. I always assumed that the Japanese navy was primarily a carrier navy with other surface ships to protect the carriers. I knew they had battleships but not in the numbers they deployed for the battle of Midway. I did not think the Japanese industrial base was able to produce those types of numbers. I wonder why these facts about the Japanese military are not so well known? I can kind of see why little is known about the battleships but using poison gas I cannot. I seems like the Pacific theater was just a sideshow to the European theater.

Presentations: 2/ 27

I was not that familiar with the Battle of Bougainville.  I knew that fighting had occurred here, but not to the extent as discussed in the presentation.  I thought it impressive that even though the Japanese outnumbered the U.S. military, the U.S. troops continued to attack in an effort to protect their airfields.  From the presentation, it sounds as if the Japanese were caught off guard by the forcefulness of the U.S. troops, because the Japanese were caught off guard and 500 shells of fire descended on them quickly.  And, even with all of this, the U.S. in this battle was most successful because the casualty loss was much lower than other battles.

 

After reading about MacArthur and his problems, it was refreshing to hear about Nimitz.  It was apparent from the presentation that the two were opposites in their philosophy of war.  Nimitz believed in keeping the morale of the men high and did not believe in finger pointing when problems arose.  

Battle of Midway

I think that it was interesting that the American pilots who were under-skilled and in illequipped planes beat the best Japanese pilots. After much defeat the Japanese decided to go a second assault, and even once thier three aircraft carriers were attacked they decided to send thier last fleet to attack. These dicisions seemed irresponsible. Even American Admiral Nimtz decided to go for an all out victory and went after the last Japanese aircraft carrier. This may have been common, but was it usually the best decision? Why did they do this?

Media's effect on morale

At the end of class on Wednesday we saw a clip of a combat documentary that was shown in theaters during WWII to help people get behind the war and realize what we were fighting for. This got me thinking that since the beginning of the Iraq war there has not been a movie made showing any positives of this war(at least none that I am aware of, please correct me if there are any). Would it make a difference? In an age more driven by pop culture and movies than the 40s would seeing the positive outcomes of this war gather more supporters? Did it even make a difference during WWII?
I found this excerpt from an article at http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/ww2/combatfilms.html
"Many of our deepest images of war's glory and ugliness come from World War II combat films. They helped shape our very conceptions of courage, patriotism, and teamwork. Their images remain firmly etched in our imagination: of Axis troops torturing and mutilating prisoners...but these war films did much more: they helped educate viewers in the reasons why we fought by depicting "democracy in action."

MacArthur

I knew that MacArthur had his problems, but I apparently did not know that they were severe enough to warrant concern early on in WWII combat.  In A War to be Won, it lists several problems such as a strong desire for personal publicity, political ambition, wanting and maintaining a structured and comfortable life-style even in war, hypochondria, precarious emotional balance (becoming ill at times of crisis), and claustrophobic panic as concerns that should have raised questions about his military competence.  Instead, President Roosevelt and his staff celebrated him as a national hero.  It is apparent after reading this that MacArthur and his Corregidor Gang were too powerful at the time to be removed.  It further says that MacArthur was the least qualified of the senior commanders in the Pacific to play a major role in the crisis.  It is disheartening to think that one person (representing the U.S.) was able to wield so much power over the military even in his unstable and/or unsavory condition.  Would the U.S. have been more successful in their battles or in their offensive attacks had MacArthur been dismissed more quickly that he was?  Did he commit more soldiers to death than necessary through his selfish tactics?  I wonder.  Considering that it further states that he did not want any direct contact with combat troops, especially the sick and wounded, it is hard to fathom exactly why he was left in command for so long.

Presentation Comments for 2/27/08

The Battle of Boganville was another example of America's good luck. By discovering Japanese plans through interrogation the Americans were able to prevent attacks. American fighters were much more prepared for the comming Japanese attacks. The US was more successful because of luck.

Nimtz was most interesting because he did porely in the beginning of his career and became so successful by this point. After being demoted to a submarine unit, he worked to become a warfare submarine expert. What was meant to be his punishment became his glory. He worked hard to excell in the navy. Even when he did not get a position that he wanted (ended up in the navy / demoted) he made the most of what he did get. His calm and collected manner as well as his submarine expertise led him to a perfect collaboration position with McArthur. His attitude and motivation was key to his and America's success.

Strategic Bombing

The whole purpose of the island hopping campaign was to gain airfields that would be in closer striking distance of our bombers to attack Japan.  This along with attempting to win the war as soon as possible made strategic bombing the primary tool to break Japan's will.  My question is: How effective was the bombing efforts at the time?  I know that the technology of the time was crude when compared with todays military, but how often would these bombs actually hit their targets?

Nimitz

Admiral Chester Nimitz seems like he was an intersting military leader. I like most about him that he was a great strategist who specialized in logistical planning. His ability to plan what would happen in both the south and north Pactific enabled the United States forces to win the ware in the Pactific.
I think it is further intersting how Nimitz was the opposite of McCarthur. Nimitz was a calm and collected person who was not nearly as artciulate as the personality of McCarthurs was.

the Pacific Theater

The Pacific Theater was a dangerous front to fight in. America lost many people during the various battles but we seemed to have had some big wins as well. The islands presented some challenging climates to fight in. It could not have been easy to try take control of some of the islands that had dense jungles. The Japenese seemed to be surprised that we would fight as hard as we did.
Were we pretty much split in our numbers between the Pacific and the European fronts? Do we still have military presence on some of the islands that we were in control of during the war?

Nimitz was a good officer to have commanding opposite of MacArthur. He had a great deal of training that prepared him for the roles he would play in the war.

I didn't know much about the war we fought in the Pacific before this class, so the Battle of Bogenville was new to me. This battle is a great example of the importance of the military foreign intelligence operators.

in deadly combat-epilogue

any thoughts on the Soviet soldiers digging through the German POW latrines for money and pay scripts used by the German captives as toilet paper in order to clean them and exchanges them for rubles? What might this suggest about pay in the Red Army and the economy of communist Russia at the time?

presentation

hearing about the language specialists at Bouganville was not only new information to me but also reminded me instantly of what we refer to today as the Navajo Code Talkers and the important role they too played in the campaigns they were involved in.
Hearing about the character of Nimitz was informative and an interesting contrast to that of MacArthur, yet they worked together and achieved victory

The Pacific Theater

We have learned about many altercations in the Pacific this week and I am still surprised at how uncoordinated the US seems in their battles. I realize the US was somewhat in its infancy of Naval battles, but it seems the disorganization came more from the different departments rather than lack of skill. The US would have been much better off if the Army, Navy, and Marines could have cooperated better and if they realized that the war will won more effectively if they help each other. The US had some well qualified men in charge, but when they didn't work together, more soldiers were killed.



The presentations in class this week discussed Chester Nimitz and a battle in the Pacific. Nimitz sounded like a calm individual and he had a successful Naval career (minus running a destroyer aground).

Death Tolls

Just realizing how many thousands of casualties there were in virtually every battle puts current warfare in a different perspective. The death toll in the WW2 in general was horrific, but the number of soldiers that were killed while island hopping is mind-blowing. What if these numbers were taking place in the current military operations, we cant fathom it. So many people were dying in attempt to seize control of islands that are a mere dot on the map, that we have never heard of, it just illustrates what a horrible period the world was in, and shows the sacrifices that were made.

The Pacific

So we've seen the Battles of Midway and Guadalcanal. It is absolutely incredible the way the US (which was unskilled, poorly trained, and poorly supplied) showed incredible tenacity. How many times was Henderson Airfield rebuilt? They were sick, they were malnourished and yet they persevered.

Feb 25-27: Pacific War

Regarding the Critical Review:
Everyone should have a book approved by me no later than Monday, March 10.
The book you are to critically review should pertain to the Holocaust. It may NOT be a memoir, diary, or novel. It must be a historical analysis. Make sure the book you would like to use has a bibliography before you submit it to me for my approval.
A guide to writing a review is under course documents on Blackboard.