8 Bells Lecture | Ian Toll: War in the Pacific Island, 1942-1944 

Finishing up the 3rd volume in a week-quite the wild ride.

Absolutely.

Not a contender at all. The US was poised, able and supplied to step onto Japanese soil and to continue dropping hell from above (incendiaries or atom bombs, didn’t much matter) AND able to cut off all shipping/imports to starve the nation. The Soviets had no capability to do any of that and the Japanese knew it. The US was the immediate and deadly threat. That the Japanese surrendered because of the Soviets is not only revisionist history at its worst, it’s ridiculous when measured against the US sea/air power and proven ability to execute amphibious landings.

from what I have learned it was Admiral King who wanted to start an offensive after the Midway victory. this was the June/July time frame.

Admiral King in Washington.

@@69Applekrate King believed that it was important to stress the Japanese and seize the initiative.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means" - Carl von Clausewitz

@John Schnarr "MacArthur not being fired was simply due to propaganda being fed to the Home Front in the early stages of the war." When Exactly was That? Cite Source.

@@stevenwiederholt7000 Other than the minor fact that the host of terrible command decisions he made were not made public you mean? One hardly needs to look very far to see that they were not made public. One can hardly quote sources for things unsaid by the media, or unsaid on official reports, one can only mention the fact those things were NOT said and infr from that. The OP's view is not an uncommon one, officers were certainly fired for screwups of a far lesser nature than the ones MacArthur made, the fact he was not was almost certainly down to the fact it was politically difficult to do so until he *really* went off the rails during the Korean War and a US President finally had what he needed to fire the mans ass.... MacArthur had his good days, but when that man screwed the pooch he tended to do it to an impressive degree. Losing his entire damned airforce on the first day despite the fact he had advanced warning of the Japanese attack because he refused to disperse the aircraft for example was a screwup that impacted his ability to defend the Phillipines tremendously. Not to mention the fact that he left the decision to fall back to Corregidor far, far too late so all the defences and supply depots that he had been advised to build were not, leaving his troops in an exposed position with inadequate food, ammunition and other essential supplies. It does not take a particular genius to see the way MacArthur mishandled the defence, and had he not been politically powerful it is pretty much certain the man would in fact have been sacked.... Generals had certainly been sacked for a LOT less in the US Army prior and afterwards.

@@alganhar1 I see a lot of thoughts, opinions what I don't see is anything resembling a source.

Steven Wiederholt you seem determined to avoid seeing what is obvious.

Yamashita was hung by MacArthur.

4 propaganda reasons, simply & only.

The view that to study war is to glorify it tells me that some history writers and not playing with a full deck. I suspect that their choice of topics is akin to going into a buffet and select what suits their tastes. That style certainly leaves out the most critical and informative subjects. War is ugly ... without doubt. It is a disservice to their readers to omit the most important subjects .. the subjects that are the most informative. Leaving them out will proffer a distorted view of actual history. Thanks for your candor. I only hope that we are not doomed to repeat the errors of history.

@@dancolley4208 You are absolutely correct. Just typical woke nonsense. One thing worth noting is that I find the history professors involved in military history tend to be a lot more honest than most other history professors in other areas, many of whom promote woke ideas without historical rigor like the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory. Military historians truly try to understand history while many other history professors today consider themselves to be Social Justice Warriors. I don't think that it is not that they are not playing with a full deck. They know very well what they are doing. It is that they want to manipulate history and the other social sciences to conform to their left-wing narrative. In addition, advancement means that they have to avoid conservative/non PC stands.

@@dennisweidner288 its patently obvious that there is a crowd of "historians" who are manipulating history. I guess I was stretching it a bit by saying they weren't hauling a full load. You're right. They know exactly what they are doing ... and why. Its nauseating to me. I'm thankful that there are people who are obsessed with accuracy through research and do not use some perverse agenda to fill in the blanks. I'm a Vietnam vet and I began to see this historical dishonesty almost as soon as I got back to the world. People were telling me what happened who never left the US. I laughed at one guy who tried to convince me of incorrect info about an action that I was involved in. I knew ... he was making it up. This entire move to alter history is such a disservice and insult to those vets who were there.

@@dancolley4208 Absolutely. Tragically, it is more than a crowd. I listen to C-Span which show videos of university lectures. And it is a rare lecture that does not include some touch of woke nonsense. Sometimes just offhand remarks. Often a major part of the lecture. And not a whiff of reaction from the students. And thank you for your service.

@@dennisweidner288 it was my privilege.

Glad he is. I love this guy's stuff.

I agree. The talk was a little disappointing. More about history than the War.

Oh yes, talk about the Pacific war in one hour. Go buy some Cliffs Notes if you want that.