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

[@Rimasta1]

Can’t wait for volume three of this trilogy. Capturing the Pacific War the way Toll has managed to do is no easy feat. Great writer and historian.

[@michaelcoe9824]

I have just ordered Ian's trilogy. Thank you sir.

[@jamesmarshall9598]

Pacific Crucible reads in a flowing manner where I absorbed the news as though I was reading it in the paper that day, witnessing it, or hearing about it from a neighbor.

[@litodailisan8408]

I have a copy of Ian Toll's "The Conquering Tide." Superbly written.

[@paulgee8253]

Toll's books are superb.

[@colcommissar23]

Working on his second book now. I really have trouble putting the thing down to go to sleep. They are great books.

[@serrico0869]

He's a good author, love his books.

[@davecrook8355]

All 3 books are wonderful and should be read.

[@historybuff66]

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

[@Redwaterman65]

Read his trilogy and it was wonderful, along with Neptune’s inferno great books by two wonderful writers

[@michaelcoe9824]

The most astute of any appreciation of the Naval and air war, with the neccessary acquisition of island airstrips. Land warfare in the Pacific campaign was ancillary to the combined naval air assets.

[@willboudreau1187]

Contrary to Mr. Toll's statement about plenty of war materiel available in 1944 and no such conflicts between European and Pacific theaters, the Normandy invasion was in fact delayed from May to June 1944 due to lack of landing craft consumed in the Pacific.

[@dancolley4208]

A very enlightening lecture. Toll is a very insightful historian. If you consider what the goal of the 2nd World War in the Pacific was, it seems to me that the goal was to not just beat the Japanese military and civilian organizations but render them impotent and unable to press on for a long period of time. To do that, our military had to cross the majority of the Pacific Ocean. (There seems that there was a relatively lesser threat in the eastern Pacific between California and Hawaii, including the Aleution islands thus delineating the battleground to a smaller patch os sea that is smaller than the ENTIRE Pacific Ocean, which meant, in turn, less to defend and to fight over. In short, a smaller battleground.) Logic tells us that the US Navy had, by necessity, to be the "spine" of the effort, from Hawaii to the Japanese home island. Another interesting comment was that the US "had to learn to fight by fighting". The US had never fought in a conflict so large and all-encompassing until the 1st World War and even that war paled when compared to the second "war to end all wars". The nature and magnitude was so vastly different that technologies, strategies, tactics, weaponry and trained personnel simply did not exist in the necessary quantities. The US military organization had to be re-built from the ground up. All in all, I enjoyed this lecture immensely. I have expanded my knowledge base immeasurably and it made me realize how little I actually know about the subject. Thanks Prof !!!

[@Captain_Leadbottom]

Six Frigates was fantastic. It is a naval history lesson with a minor in sailor linguistics.

[@dennisweidner288]

Absolutely.

[@casparcoaster1936]

His trilogy is a good read especially before (the new book focused on USA Army in Pacific) Fire & Fortitude. More ARMY, their than Marines- factor of 10x.

[@cheesenoodles8316]

Excellent.

[@gillesmeura3416]

Very interesting conference, in both factual contents and insights on history (imagination...). One point though: isn't there an American blind spot on the "decisive factors" that brought an end to war with Japan? The conquest of the Mariannas and the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are contenders, but there is certainly a third one: the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.

[@ajalvarez3111]

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.

[@frenchtelemarketer]

Thank you.

[@Bob.W.]

He said little during the lecture. The q and a was good though.

[@joelmccoy9969]

I still don't know: Who decided to invade Guadalcanal and when and where was it decided?

[@69Applekrate]

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.

[@dennisweidner288]

Admiral King in Washington.

[@dennisweidner288]

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

[@PaulHigginbothamSr]

Radio was at the same time a really good communication vessel, but also a wolf in sheep's clothing in that by breaking the Japanese code we were ready for Midway, and not on the airfield like at Clarke Field. What was of much greater use than radio was radio ranging for battleships and more importantly for aircraft carriers being attacked by squadrons of aircraft. In fact had our radar operators on Hawaii not had their heads up their arses on Hawaii we could have had half the fleet out of Pearl and all aircraft airborne and not lost them on the ground and served Japan our method of reducing their naval power at first brush rather than so much later at the Marianis Turkey shoot. The captains at Gaudalcanal that thought the radar was a new fangled bit of chrome and polish died like anyone does in wartime that did not move from the spear to the javelin and bow and arrow. A major component of our ability to shoot down Kamikaze was radar and a small device fitted to shells called a proximity detector. We were at this stage able to shoot down 90 to 95% of huge fleets of Kamikazi aircraft at Okinawa. We would have been blunted before we ever got to Japan by loosing most of our ships at Okinawa.

[@johanneduardschnorr3733]

MacArthur not being fired was simply due to propaganda being fed to the Home Front in the early stages of the war. His allowing of his air force to be destroyed on the ground, AFTER being warned of an imminent attack, was unjustifiable. He mishandled the defenses of the Philippines very badly. Interesting, the Japanese general who roundly kicked his ass during late ‘41/ early ‘42, was one of the few Japanese officers hung after the war....

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@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.

[@alganhar1]

@@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.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

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

[@giovannidepetris6335]

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

[@dennisweidner288]

Yamashita was hung by MacArthur.

[@dennisweidner288]

Very good point about the ghettoization of military history and the distaste that modern academia have for the genre -- the view that to study war is to glorify war, And it is a good reason that so many non-military historians make such stupid and misinformed statements about World War II.

[@dancolley4208]

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.

[@dennisweidner288]

@@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.

[@dancolley4208]

@@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.

[@dennisweidner288]

@@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.

[@dancolley4208]

@@dennisweidner288 it was my privilege.

[@ThePhengophobe]

I don't know why it'd be so out of place to study the politics at the time, or the time leading up to a war. They can very often have massive impact on how a nation fights a war, what priorities commanders are given. The politics of a war can be just as important as the individual battles.

[@jjmarr7130]

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

[@thellreed3593]

Why did they give McArthur the Medal of Honor?

[@sulevisydanmaa9981]

4 propaganda reasons, simply & only.

[@shmeckle666]

That was a very brief and braid skim of the pacific war. A lot of talking about the ideas, thought and the history behind the thought and historical work done on the war in the pacific. But, an alright and decent lecture nevertheless.

[@cheesenoodles8316]

Thank God, for Australia, that includes allot.

[@cheesenoodles8316]

25.55, that was funny.

[@johnferguson7235]

Busy selling his book.

[@patrickdoyle2510]

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

[@SerikPoliasc]

Hernandez Christopher Lewis Sharon Thompson Mary

[@The2ndFirst]

Damn dude. Get off your books and get to the history.

[@dennisweidner288]

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

[@alexmook6786]

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

[@joelmccoy9969]

The fatigue with world war two as a subject is due to its continual coverage with the overcovered subjects, the avoidance of investigating the military failures, the dangers of Propaganda, Racism in the Military, the effects on the deserted Women, Homosexuality among both sexes during the War, the failures of Leadership that delayed the repairing the Torpedo dysfunctionality for two years. The complaining about losing relevance has a lot to do with the PR nature of historians on the behalf of the MIC that fund this stuff. Focus on the reality of Americans instead.