Re: Invasion of Okinawa, Iwo Jima instead of Philipines
- From: "Andrew Clark" <aclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:41:06 -0400
"David Thornley" <thornley@xxxxxxxx> wrote
(snip)
Besides, the Japanese committed atrocities in the Philippines before
the invasion, and could be expected to continue to do so in the
absence of an invasion. If the war moved closer to the Japanese
homeland, and the Philippines cut off, I doubt anybody in Washington
could reliably predict what the atrocity rate could be.
It's clear from a number of sources discussing Allied policy toward Japan
(see, for example, "The Treatment of Prisoners of War in World War II",
Mackenzie, Journal of Modern History) that the Allies were aware from MAGIC
that external threats such as an attack almost always triggered a
significant increase in Japanese atrocities against POW and civilians
compared to the 'background' level of routine occupation. This phenomenon
was so well-known - at least to the British - that tactical plans were
sometimes made to try to prevent atrocities against POW consequent on an
attack, as happened for example in Burma.
This is why I think it is reasonable to assume that MacArthur would have
known that attacking the Philippines, and engaging in a bitter street battle
for Manila in particular, would lead to a much higher level of Japanese
atrocities against Filipino civilians (some 100,000 civilians were
deliberately murdered in the Manila battle). It's also reasonable to assume
that MacArthur knew that while bypassing Manila would not have eliminated
the risk of similar atrocities, it would have significantly reduced the risk
of such mass murders.
Given the negligible military value of Manila at this stage of the war, I
think legitimate criticism can be made of the US command not just for the
unnecessary collateral military damage to Manila and its occupants, but for
failing to reduce the predictable likelihood of Japanese atrocities in the
city.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Invasion of Okinawa, Iwo Jima instead of Philipines
- From: mtfester
- Re: Invasion of Okinawa, Iwo Jima instead of Philipines
- References:
- Invasion of Okinawa, Iwo Jima instead of Philipines
- From: Yau
- Re: Invasion of Okinawa, Iwo Jima instead of Philipines
- From: mtfester
- Re: Invasion of Okinawa, Iwo Jima instead of Philipines
- From: Mike Muth
- Re: Invasion of Okinawa, Iwo Jima instead of Philipines
- From: Andrew Clark
- Re: Invasion of Okinawa, Iwo Jima instead of Philipines
- From: David Thornley
- Invasion of Okinawa, Iwo Jima instead of Philipines
- Prev by Date: Re: Humour
- Next by Date: Re: Education in England 1939-1945
- Previous by thread: Re: Invasion of Okinawa, Iwo Jima instead of Philipines
- Next by thread: Re: Invasion of Okinawa, Iwo Jima instead of Philipines
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|