| Total Comments 20 | Start A New Comment |
| Post Info | Comment |
| Posted By: Mike Z Posted On: Jul 3, 2007 Views: 8 | Unnecessary MacArthur's bid to "Liberate" the Philippines in 1945 was an unnecessary move, militarily speaking. The concept of "Leap Froging" should have been applied and Manila should have been bypassed in favor of Formosa which was closer to the Japanese Mainland. I believe MacArthur's ego was a major factor in his bid to invade Manila in 1945. It was more of a morale booster rather than a strategic move. General Eisenhower also had the same thought. Some historians believe that bypassing Manila would have ended the war much sooner. Formosa would also have served as an excellent launching pad for the invasion of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. |
| Posted By: Michael Tecson Posted On: Nov 3, 2004 Views: 200 | Battle for Manila gen. mccarthur had really no choice because he was fearful of what might happen to the POW's inside UST and of course the inhabitants of Manila. he really loved the philippines and wanted Manila badly because of the defeat he suffered in 1942 when he was forced to leave bataan and corregidor to their fate. the US commanders wanted to lessen their casualties and put their troops first rather than historical buildings and places. but i think the massive use of heavy artillery pieces during the battle could have been avoided especially at Intramuros. we cannot blame the americans for that because the longer the battle continues meant more atrocities committed by the japs to the civilian population. |
| Posted By: hayashi Posted On: Sep 3, 2003 Views: 234 | Yes, in hindsight But he was under pressure and was being criticized for withholding artillery and aerial bombing. The Americans didn't want to go 'mano a mano' and block by block. In South Manila the Japanese did 15% of the damage by burning and shelling, the Americans 50% by shelling, and looters cleaned out what remained during the battle and for a few weeks after it. |
| Posted By: Paul Whitman Posted On: May 25, 2003 Views: 241 | BATTLE OF MANILA What a load of rubbish that there were only "a few" Japanese inside Intramuros! Clearly that fellow does not have access to a map of Intramuros showing the defenses actually encountered there! Oh, how many people there are who feel that they could outwit MacArthur, never having the faintest idea what they were truly up against! |
| Posted By: Malcolm Ritchie Posted On: Jan 3, 2003 Views: 249 | Manila, 1945 If Macarthur would not have taken Manila, he would have been criticized for allowing Japanese atrocities against Fillipino's to continue. There is really no way to be sure how many citizens of the city were murdered prior to the battle. What choice did we have? |
| Posted By: Eman Tonogbanua Posted On: Jan 3, 2003 Views: 251 | Battle of Manila Yes, the Americans could have avoided the carpet bombing and use of heavy artillery in destroying the Japs. Most of the successfull clearings were done by soldiers carrying thompsons, machine guns, bazookas, flamethrowers. All that the bombings made by the Americans accomplished was to shellshock the Japs beyond reason. Why didn't they bombed Paris or Italy when it was occupied by the Nazis? Would they have bombed the Japs crazy if the city in questions was New York? |
| Posted By: vincent enriquez Posted On: Jul 9, 2002 Views: 261 | re vote on dest of manila swpa supreme commander, gen. mac arthur had no choice but to lift the ban on using field artillery during the second week of the seige. it is stupid to say that there are other ways of trapping the nips, pushing them back into a certain line etc. the manila naval defense force totalling 17,000 men (12,500 navy and 4,500 army) is pretty dug in in every street corner, building, church, ditch, alley you name it!!! adm. iwabuchi decided to fight to the death and there is no way of talking them out of it. i suggest that people read "triumph in the philippines" by robert ross smith. mabuhay! |
| Posted By: Posted On: Jun 9, 2001 Views: 268 | MacArthur was heavily magnetized recaptured Manila. However, I still believe the use of heavy artillery was unnecessary. The destruction of Manila IS heartwrenching... |
| Posted By: Posted On: May 18, 2001 Views: 268 | Is there some way to obtain comments from surviving Japanese who surrendered in Manila why the city was torched as soon as American troops entered the city. MacArthur saw Manila burning miles before he entered the city. |
| Posted By: Posted On: May 18, 2001 Views: 268 | It may be an interesting idea to ask surviving Japanese generals and admirals who were in the Philippines about the Battle For Manila. |
| Posted By: Posted On: May 9, 2001 Views: 268 | I reckon not. |
| Posted By: Posted On: Mar 22, 2001 Views: 268 | My opinion is that he should controlled the area commanders: Gens Griswold and Beightler who seemed anti-McArthur. They disregarded his orders from using heavy artillery on all buildings. There were few Japs in Intramuros and 75 in the Fin. Bldg. |
| Posted By: Posted On: Mar 13, 2001 Views: 268 | No, because of the mentality of the Japanese military. Torturing, killing, and destructionwas second nature to them. There so fearful of the Filipino guerillas that they chose death to capture. They were paranoid thought everyone else were the enemy. |
| Posted By: Posted On: Mar 13, 2001 Views: 268 | Even if the Japanese could have retreated to the East it's destruction was inevitable. Japanese Military Regulations required demolition of all installations and occupied private property. Large sections of Manila was a firetrap. |
| Posted By: Posted On: Mar 10, 2001 Views: 268 | Yes, by allowing an escape corridor for the Japanese to the Shimbun Lines, East of Manila rather than trapping them in Manila. However, the Japanese started large scale destruction of the city even before the main battle started. |
| Pages [ 1 2 ] Next Page -> |