Print Page | Close Window

Guadalcanal campaign

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of Oceania, South-East Asia and Pacific
Forum Discription: Discuss the history of SE Asia: Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33313
Printed Date: 22-Sep-2020 at 06:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Guadalcanal campaign
Posted By: Nick1986
Subject: Guadalcanal campaign
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2013 at 14:48

Despite what many British people think, the Americans didn't have it easy in the war. While our forces were fighting the Nazis in North Africa, the Americans, with their Anzac allies, had to capture Henderson Field airstrip at Guadalcanal. The Japanese fought savagely, deeming capture a dishonour, and breached US lines at Edson's ridge with a banzai charge. Hand-to-hand combat was particularly tough in this theatre of the war: the Japanese had longer bayonets and their officers carried katanas. Wounded enemies remained dangerous: hoping to take their captors with them, Japanese prisoners often blew themselves up with their own grenades


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!



Replies:
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2013 at 11:39
http://www.awesomestories.com/assets/guadalcanal-part-4%20 - http://www.awesomestories.com/assets/guadalcanal-part-4

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2013 at 14:18
There is one seminal work on this campaign (the first link) and a bunch of wannabes....the second link, however is not one of them.
 
A. The Struggle for Guadalcanal, August 1942 – February 1943, vol. 5 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_Naval_Operations_in_World_War_II - - The First Team And the Guadalcanal Campaign: Naval Fighter Combat from August to November 1942
 
 
Honorable mention goes to:
 
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/72-8/72-8.htm - - United States Army Center of Military History . http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/72-8/72-8.htm - .
 
 
Alone on Guadalcanal: A Coastwatcher's Story
 
 
  http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-C-Guadalcanal/index.html -
 


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: longbaby
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2013 at 01:25
Excuse me, I know little about the battles on the Pacific. Did Canadians and Australians fight together with Americans? Were American troops ever stationed in Australia?


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2013 at 08:24
Australians and New Zealanders were valuable allies in that theater. As were lesser numbers but still important members of the Dutch, Canadian and French armed forces (primarily naval and air). If you include or identify operations, as a corollary theater in China, India and Burma; then major British forces as well.
 
It depends on time period and geo-physical location both prior to Dec 7th and after.
 
 
And yes..... American troops and naval units did indeed train, recuperate, operate and, to a degree stage or provide logistical support from Australia.
 
Here are some links.
 
 
 
http://www.canadaatwar.ca/page-32-asia-pacific.html - http://www.canadaatwar.ca/page-32-asia-pacific.html
 
http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/allin/yanksdownunder.html - http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/allin/yanksdownunder.html
 
http://ergo.slv.vic.gov.au/explore-history/australia-wwii/home-wii/americans-australia - http://ergo.slv.vic.gov.au/explore-history/australia-wwii/home-wii/americans-australia
 
http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/homefront/overview.html - http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/homefront/overview.html
 
 


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: longbaby
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2013 at 19:21
Excuse me, I heard a saying that British forces didn't do any substantial fighting: they gave up too easily in front of the Japanese invasion. Japan took over Hongkong, Singapore and Malaysia without much difficulty.
During the Tokyo trial after the war, Britain was listed right after the US as the second victorious and trying nation, but the delegates from China protested violently. In the end, Chinese delegate was ranked as the second presiding judge.


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2013 at 10:18
Originally posted by longbaby

Excuse me, I heard a saying that British forces didn't do any substantial fighting: they gave up too easily in front of the Japanese invasion. Japan took over Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia without much difficulty.
During the Tokyo trial after the war, Britain was listed right after the US as the second victorious and trying nation, but the delegates from China protested violently. In the end, Chinese delegate was ranked as the second presiding judge.
 
 
There are many misstatements reference British action in the Asian theater. To say they that simply rolled over and capitulated is incorrect and inaccurate. Bear in mind they had already been at war in Europe since Sept 1939. The preponderance of their fighting effort was to insure their own home land national survival. However that's not to say they were not aware and attempting redress throughout their possessions elsewhere.
 
They were also engaged in Northern Africa....and the list of political and military decisions made; and actions rendered to defend their colonial empire viz prioritization of effort is enormous. Your best best is to review the actions from that perspective...defense of a colonial empire and prioritization of effort with an understanding that the national identification of the empire was the United Kingdom first.
 
 
The Americans did exactly the same thing...iow. prioritized efforts politically, militarily and logistically, before attempting a serious effort in the theater. Their and the British presence was never eliminated in its entirety.
 
Which is why the old age 'requiring superior if not parity sustainment' on multiple fronts indeed makes it extremly difficult to do.
 
Links:
 
 
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0394741013/militarycom/ -
[PDF]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=britains%20war%20in%20the%20pacific&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CGIQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ijnhonline.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F01%2FFord-Article_pdf.pdf&ei=7XEvUZf-Gaq3ywH1-4HoCg&usg=AFQjCNH5rRk9br_HmJhEPASQvFRu9bsUwA -
[PDF]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=britains%20war%20in%20the%20pacific&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CFIQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nids.go.jp%2Fenglish%2Fevent%2Fforum%2Fpdf%2F2011%2F14.pdf&ei=7XEvUZf-Gaq3ywH1-4HoCg&usg=AFQjCNGUSwmvoPf_8sX_rx24SALIWPkPJA -

 
Defeat into Victory, Slim William
 
 
History of the Second World War, Liddell-Hart BH



-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2013 at 17:58
Longbaby, Britain's highest priority in Asia was the defence of India. They lost the outer colonies, and Burma, but they managed to hold India, and come back to drive the Japanese from Burma. Had the bombs not dropped, they would have continued rolling the Japanese back.

You might google Slim, Mountainbatten, and Burma.

By the way, the 201st Mexican Air Force fighter squadron also fought in the Southwest Pacific towards the end of the war.


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2013 at 19:01
Out of no where he pulls that one up......LOLLOLLOL but they damn sure did....
 
The 'Aztec Eagles'...58th Fighter Group USAAF.
 
They flew support, on a number of occasions, for my ole man's beloved 'Tropic Lighting Div' (25th USA ID).
 
LL, shames me here and reminds of what I can recall when not consuming tiswin in excess...LOLLOLLOL.


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'




Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com