Pacific

As for the battles we went over this week, you can see why the Japanese had so much trouble in the later years of the war. Had America pursued a "Japan first" policy, no doubt the Empire of the Rising Sun would have crumbled even faster than it did. The Japanese land tactics seem to be well-rehearsed and trained for, but only for offense. Nearly every defensive battle they fought they lost, and lost with most of their troops. I realize that the bushido code wanted a glorious death in battle, but it seems to make little operational sense, much less strategic, to fight badly in order to die gloriously. And that is almost what it seems they did. Some of the fortresses they lost with such casualties would have been successfully defended much longer and at great cost to the attackers had they been adequately commanded. I don't doubt the Japanese infantryman or Royal Marine was not a fierce warrior, but their lives were thrown away in glorious, but operationally unsound movements.

Bougainville

Again, sorry for the late reply, and well done on the presentation. It is always fascinating to study in-depth a particular battle. Not much here, everything was covered in the presentation.

Training > Dedication

What was it that allowed the Marines in the Pacific Theater to inflict greater casualties to the Japanese in almost every major land-based conflict we've studied?

In the Battle of Tarawa, the Marines lost 1200 while the Japanese fought to the death, losing 4483 of their 4500 soldiers. During the fighting near Guadal Canal, the Japanese lost nearly 30000 men, while the Marines lost 1200, along with 560 losses from the Army.

In the first case, the Japanese even had the defensive position. Psychologically, I would expect the Japanese to have an advantage, being brought up and trained to follow bushido, they were certainly willing to do whatever it took to attain victory. Granted, the US troops were mentally tough in their own right, but nobody wanted a glorious death. The goal was victory, rather than glory.

The Banzai charges must account for most of this discrepancy, similar to "over-the-top" charges of WWI trench warfare. But even in situations where close combat was initiated by the Japanese, as in the fight on "Bloody Ridge", the Marines are able to hold off the Japanese, inflicting huge losses.

Bougainville and Nimitz Presentations

It was interesting how the Japanese-American soldiers played such an important part in thwarting the Japanese attack on Bougainville. I know during the war there was a lot of prejudice against persons of Asian ethnicity within the states, but its nice to hear that the reports from the linguistics officers were taken seriously. This battle really emphasised the importance of the element of surprise, and thus the importance of military intelligence.

Nimitz is definately an interesting fellow. How did an unassuming, quiet man who ran aground on one of his first assignments manage to rise to such a prominant position in the Navy? Were there any other major leaders in the military who had been court-martialed? Submarines were the red-headed stepchild of the Navy at the time, which adds even more mystique to the appointment of Nimitz to command.

Good work on the presentations.

Nimitz and MacArthur

I apologize for the later response here, but I did think the presentations were very complete and informative. It just goes to show you that regardless of of if you think you have a pretty good understanding of something, you can always learn more. For instance, it never occurred to me that MacArthur had graduated from West Point at the top of his class with outstanding grades. That's quite an accomplishment, and no doubt his intelligence was a reason for his later successes. I got the idea that had his personality been a little more toned down, he may have been able to achieve the same successes without the unnecessary battles he chose to fight.

Nimitz on the other hand was probably the only military commander (aside from Eisenhower, who was also a very calm individual) who could work side by side with MacArthur and actually get things done. His cool and composed character allowed a greater finesse to show in his operations, as opposed to MacArthur's bravado.

Pacific Theater

I have been really interested in the Pacific theater this year due to the fact that I did not know much about it because it was really never taught in high school. Yes we were taught about the Bataan Death March, Pearl Harbor, and the atomic bomb, but that was about it. The rest of the the classes dealt more with the war in Europe. Yet I have heard that some of the most intense fighting took place during the island hopping battles in the pacific. Also, it was very interesting to hear about the characters in the war like Nimitz and MacArthur.

March 3-5