History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Corregidor Necessary ?
Tojo72
Member Since: June 06, 2006
entire network: 4,691 Posts
KitMaker Network: 668 Posts
Posted: Sunday, January 29, 2012 - 12:40 PM UTC
I was watching a show on the Battle of Luzon which culminated in the taking of Corregidor by air drop and amphibious assault.It had to be murderous trying to root the Japanese out of underground positions and caves.The sacrifice and the guts of those involved is unquestionable,but was it necessary ? Once the island was blasted,by bombardment and bombing,was it really necessary for the soldiers to have to go in and get the defenders.Couldnt they just leave them there and starve them out.I mean the Japanese couldnt attack anything or sortee off the island and cause problems,or could they ?.My thought was that it was MacArthurs vanity that wanted them gone right away.Am I correct in my assumptions,I am not an expert by any means,just wandering.
Magpie
Member Since: July 10, 2011
entire network: 653 Posts
KitMaker Network: 140 Posts
Posted: Sunday, January 29, 2012 - 01:31 PM UTC
My thought has always been that the 503rd was trying to find MacArthur's ego.
Large as it was he left a fair bit of it in a bunker on "The Rock"
Large as it was he left a fair bit of it in a bunker on "The Rock"
HunterCottage
#116
Member Since: December 19, 2001
entire network: 1,717 Posts
KitMaker Network: 590 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - 02:43 AM UTC
My Dad was stationed at Ft. Hill on Corregidor. As far as I have dug into the history and things, Corregidor should have been void of US/Allied personnel at the time of "clean-up" since everybody was interned on Luzon.
I had the chance of meeting one of the guys in the 'Sleepy' 506 that liberated my Dad's camp, great guy. The 2,5 years in POW camp took more than 20 years off my Dad's life. MacArthur had many chances to turn back and give aid and help... I'd like to shove something up MacArthur's ego... but that wouldn't bring my Dad back...
I had the chance of meeting one of the guys in the 'Sleepy' 506 that liberated my Dad's camp, great guy. The 2,5 years in POW camp took more than 20 years off my Dad's life. MacArthur had many chances to turn back and give aid and help... I'd like to shove something up MacArthur's ego... but that wouldn't bring my Dad back...
retiredyank
Member Since: June 29, 2009
entire network: 11,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3,657 Posts
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 - 12:45 AM UTC
After the cowardly attack on Pearl Harbor, I believe the mindset was to make an example of the Japanese. It may have been more of a example rather than a necessity. However, on that point, we delve into philosophy. Despite whether it was neccessary or not, I am sure the troops looked forward to killing a few more IJA men. Something like you hurt us, we kill you.
Magpie
Member Since: July 10, 2011
entire network: 653 Posts
KitMaker Network: 140 Posts
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 - 11:25 AM UTC
The Attack on Pearl Harbour was in no way cowardly.
The allies sought to defeat the Japanese not make an example of them. The assault taught no more lessons to the Japanese forces than any other assault already conducted.
Few if any soldiers look forward to killing.
The allies sought to defeat the Japanese not make an example of them. The assault taught no more lessons to the Japanese forces than any other assault already conducted.
Few if any soldiers look forward to killing.
retiredyank
Member Since: June 29, 2009
entire network: 11,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3,657 Posts
Posted: Saturday, February 04, 2012 - 01:17 PM UTC
Quoted Text
The Attack on Pearl Harbour was in no way cowardly.
The allies sought to defeat the Japanese not make an example of them. The assault taught no more lessons to the Japanese forces than any other assault already conducted.
Few if any soldiers look forward to killing.
Try looking at it from the American side.
Magpie
Member Since: July 10, 2011
entire network: 653 Posts
KitMaker Network: 140 Posts
Posted: Saturday, February 04, 2012 - 03:43 PM UTC
In what way?
Is a surprise attack a cowardly act?
Is a surprise attack a cowardly act?
retiredyank
Member Since: June 29, 2009
entire network: 11,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3,657 Posts
Posted: Saturday, February 04, 2012 - 11:20 PM UTC
A unprovoked attack without the declaration of war is cowardly.
thathaway3
Member Since: September 10, 2004
entire network: 1,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 265 Posts
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 - 02:07 AM UTC
While the attack on Pearl Harbor certainly took place PRIOR to an official declaration of war, it might be argued that Japan attempted to do so, but delays in translating the coded message caused it to be delivered after the attack instead of just prior as had been planned.
But to say that the attack on Pearl Harbor was "unprovoked" is to completely ignore the events of the years leading up to the decision to go to war with the US. FDR may have stated in his famous speech that the attack was "unprovoked" but if you evaluate all the economic actions the U.S. took prior to December, 1941, from the JAPANESE perspective they were certainly "provocative".
But to say that the attack on Pearl Harbor was "unprovoked" is to completely ignore the events of the years leading up to the decision to go to war with the US. FDR may have stated in his famous speech that the attack was "unprovoked" but if you evaluate all the economic actions the U.S. took prior to December, 1941, from the JAPANESE perspective they were certainly "provocative".
spiralcity
Member Since: October 14, 2012
entire network: 150 Posts
KitMaker Network: 43 Posts
Posted: Saturday, October 27, 2012 - 05:39 PM UTC
Quoted Text
In what way?
Is a surprise attack a cowardly act?
The attack came in the midst of peace talks. It was cowardly and underhanded.
Magpie
Member Since: July 10, 2011
entire network: 653 Posts
KitMaker Network: 140 Posts
Posted: Saturday, October 27, 2012 - 09:23 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextIn what way?
Is a surprise attack a cowardly act?
The attack came in the midst of peace talks. It was cowardly and underhanded.
Diplomatic discussions on Imperial intentions are a long way from Peace talks ,which were a front for the real acts between the two countries anyway. Japan had long since declared it's imperial intentions and the US Oil Embargo was a direct response, as was moving the Pacific Fleet to Pearl harbour in the first place !
Also never forget that the US Intelligence services and the President himself knew the contents of the Japanese Declaration of War long before the Japanese Ambassador.
The only real surprise was that the Japanese struck Pearl Harbour the US was expecting the first blow to be in the Philippines.
retiredyank
Member Since: June 29, 2009
entire network: 11,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3,657 Posts
Posted: Sunday, October 28, 2012 - 04:12 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextIn what way?
Is a surprise attack a cowardly act?
The attack came in the midst of peace talks. It was cowardly and underhanded.
Diplomatic discussions on Imperial intentions are a long way from Peace talks ,which were a front for the real acts between the two countries anyway. Japan had long since declared it's imperial intentions and the US Oil Embargo was a direct response, as was moving the Pacific Fleet to Pearl harbour in the first place !
Also never forget that the US Intelligence services and the President himself knew the contents of the Japanese Declaration of War long before the Japanese Ambassador.
The only real surprise was that the Japanese struck Pearl Harbour the US was expecting the first blow to be in the Philippines.
Tell that to the crew of the Arizona.
spiralcity
Member Since: October 14, 2012
entire network: 150 Posts
KitMaker Network: 43 Posts
Posted: Sunday, October 28, 2012 - 05:10 AM UTC
Scott, thats truly a silly reply.
Please....
The attack took place before any formal declaration of war was made by Japan, but this was not Admiral Yamamoto's intention. He originally stipulated that the attack should not commence until thirty minutes after Japan had informed the United States that peace negotiations were at an end.[52][53] The Japanese tried to uphold the conventions of war while still achieving surprise, but the attack began before the notice could be delivered. Tokyo transmitted the 5,000-word notification (commonly called the "14-Part Message") in two blocks to the Japanese Embassy in Washington, but transcribing the message took too long for the Japanese ambassador to deliver it in time. (In fact, U.S. code breakers had already deciphered and translated most of the message hours before he was scheduled to deliver it.)[54] The final part of the "14 Part Message" is sometimes described as a declaration of war. While it neither declared war nor severed diplomatic relations, it was viewed by a number of senior U.S government and military officials as a very strong indicator that negotiations were likely to be terminated [55] and that war might break out at any moment
Please....
The attack took place before any formal declaration of war was made by Japan, but this was not Admiral Yamamoto's intention. He originally stipulated that the attack should not commence until thirty minutes after Japan had informed the United States that peace negotiations were at an end.[52][53] The Japanese tried to uphold the conventions of war while still achieving surprise, but the attack began before the notice could be delivered. Tokyo transmitted the 5,000-word notification (commonly called the "14-Part Message") in two blocks to the Japanese Embassy in Washington, but transcribing the message took too long for the Japanese ambassador to deliver it in time. (In fact, U.S. code breakers had already deciphered and translated most of the message hours before he was scheduled to deliver it.)[54] The final part of the "14 Part Message" is sometimes described as a declaration of war. While it neither declared war nor severed diplomatic relations, it was viewed by a number of senior U.S government and military officials as a very strong indicator that negotiations were likely to be terminated [55] and that war might break out at any moment
spiralcity
Member Since: October 14, 2012
entire network: 150 Posts
KitMaker Network: 43 Posts
Posted: Sunday, October 28, 2012 - 05:25 AM UTC
Quoted Text
While the attack on Pearl Harbor certainly took place PRIOR to an official declaration of war, it might be argued that Japan attempted to do so, but delays in translating the coded message caused it to be delivered after the attack instead of just prior as had been planned.
But to say that the attack on Pearl Harbor was "unprovoked" is to completely ignore the events of the years leading up to the decision to go to war with the US. FDR may have stated in his famous speech that the attack was "unprovoked" but if you evaluate all the economic actions the U.S. took prior to December, 1941, from the JAPANESE perspective they were certainly "provocative".
IN OUR RELATIONS with Japan the United States Government sought constantly and consistently to protect this country's nationals and rights, and to uphold the principles of peaceful and orderly international conduct which Japan was violating by its attack on China. At the same time, in keeping with overwhelming public sentiment, this Government endeavored to prevent the development of a situation which would be likely to involve the United States in hostilities. It consistently protested against and declined to give assent to actions on the part of and situations brought about by Japanese authorities or agents in China in violation of treaties and international law and through the unwarranted use of force. While resolved not to compromise the principles of United States policy-much less abandon those principles-it sought to avoid closing the door to such chance as there might be, however small, for peaceful negotiation of differences and general pacific settlement.
AFVFan
Member Since: May 17, 2012
entire network: 1,980 Posts
KitMaker Network: 409 Posts
Posted: Sunday, October 28, 2012 - 02:29 PM UTC
Actually someone needs to take this "discussion" to a new thread. 
I believe Anthony's original query was about whether the US retaking of Corregidor was necessary. In that, I would imagine it would have depended on what the Japanese had on the island in the way of active long range armament. If none existed that would create problems with shipping around it, then I'd say the invasion might have been more of a vanity move on MacAuthur's part. The Japanese garrison could have been left intact with the US air and naval arms just using the island as a "practice" target until starvation set in. Of course, on the other hand, no commander likes leaving a large number of enemy combatants in their rear areas, even if they are supposedly "bottled up".
I believe Anthony's original query was about whether the US retaking of Corregidor was necessary. In that, I would imagine it would have depended on what the Japanese had on the island in the way of active long range armament. If none existed that would create problems with shipping around it, then I'd say the invasion might have been more of a vanity move on MacAuthur's part. The Japanese garrison could have been left intact with the US air and naval arms just using the island as a "practice" target until starvation set in. Of course, on the other hand, no commander likes leaving a large number of enemy combatants in their rear areas, even if they are supposedly "bottled up".
spiralcity
Member Since: October 14, 2012
entire network: 150 Posts
KitMaker Network: 43 Posts
Posted: Sunday, October 28, 2012 - 03:48 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Actually someone needs to take this "discussion" to a new thread.
I believe Anthony's original query was about whether the US retaking of Corregidor was necessary. In that, I would imagine it would have depended on what the Japanese had on the island in the way of active long range armament. If none existed that would create problems with shipping around it, then I'd say the invasion might have been more of a vanity move on MacAuthur's part. The Japanese garrison could have been left intact with the US air and naval arms just using the island as a "practice" target until starvation set in. Of course, on the other hand, no commander likes leaving a large number of enemy combatants in their rear areas, even if they are supposedly "bottled up".
lol, yep, sorry. It went a bit off topic.
I'm done.
dioman13
Member Since: August 19, 2007
entire network: 2,184 Posts
KitMaker Network: 356 Posts
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2012 - 03:30 AM UTC
Personaly I don't believe that it was needed. Mac had a real ego problem as indicated by many of our troops and history. He didn't care one way or the other how many troops got killed so long as the objective was taken. He told one comander in N.G. to take a village from the I.J.A. or don't come back alive. He also had no understanding of the terrain these troops fought through. To releive a comander because they could not make it to the jump off point by such a time because the were traveling through jungle swamp and not giving them enough time is dumb and reflects on his ego. I have tromped through the swamps in the south here and I'll tell you it is hard and if you think anyone could do it faster than they did loaded down with equipment and being sniped at by I.J.A. is just plain foolishness. But, back to the rock. No, we could have starved them out like we did on many islands that were by-passed to whither alone. The more I read (from our guys and acounts from the I.J.A.)the more I personaly hate the guy and his ego. Unfortuneatly, many officers are like that, then and even today, my CO when I was in the army too! Like the sign at our local watering hole says, check egos in at entrance and there will be no problems. Egos get troopers killed for no good reason but to advance someones position and Mac's ego was one of the worst. Maybe it just came down to his saving face as he screwed up so bad in the begining.
beachbm2
Member Since: December 21, 2002
entire network: 400 Posts
KitMaker Network: 243 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 - 08:03 AM UTC
While I am no MacArthur Fan I think taking Corregidor from the Japanese was necessary as it controls the entrance to Manila Harbor. And the Harbor was required to be used. I am sure it could have been neutralized by shelling but you had to root out the enemy as they could report ship movements and other intelligence. While bloody it was most likely necessary just on security concerns.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.