3 ms·

With the benefit of hindsight lots of things could have been done differently/better in many areas of life, especially war (and especially ww2). I personally g

by ejb999 3y ago

With the benefit of hindsight lots of things could have been done differently/better in many areas of life, especially war (and especially ww2). I personally give a lot of latitude to the people who had to make those difficult decisions, with terribly incomplete information, that were literally life and death for hundreds of thousands of people at the time.

pfdietz 3y ago
No hindsight was necessary. Commanders in the field (like Halsey, IIRC) were calling for Peleliu to be skipped. By this point in the Pacific War, the general rule that "when in doubt, bypass" had plenty of evidence for it.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Yep, on the Eastern Front pocketing the enemy was hard. In the Pacific, with the complete naval and air supperiority the US had, it was as easy bypassing an island garrison and cut it off from supply. The fortified islands that had to be taken were hard enough to crack. I do agree with the benefit of doubt so. Notable exceptions are all those "rockstar" generals that were better at self promotijg PR than strategy and leading men in combat. McArthur would be a prime example of one of those.
- ejb999 3y ago
  So in other words, incomplete information - or worse, conflicting information - or are you somehow claiming that 100% of the information that MacArthur had available to him at the time clearly and unequivocally pointed in one direction, and he did the opposite? Should we also, today with the benefit of hindsight, try to crucify Halsey for making the decision to not move out of the way of the incoming typhoon (Cobra) that ended up costing almost 800 US sailors/men their lives and lost several Navy ships? - certainly he had people telling him to move the fleet out of the way, but he made the difficult call to stay. Really got to love the arm-chair generals second guessing decisions made 80 years ago, by people who had no choice but to do the best they could with the information they had at the time. I am not willing to criticize either one of them, I wasn't there.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    I reject the notion that decisions in wartime cannot be criticized. Your argument would absolve any commander from being judged for any decision. Yes, information is limited. Nevertheless, commanders are expected to make the best decisions they can based on the information they have. In that light, the invasion of Peleliu was a mistake. The negative consequences of delaying the invasion of Iwo Jima were also reasonably predictable.

by ejb999 3y ago

pfdietz 3y ago

No hindsight was necessary. Commanders in the field (like Halsey, IIRC) were calling for Peleliu to be skipped. By this point in the Pacific War, the general rule that "when in doubt, bypass" had plenty of evidence for it.

hef19898 3y ago
Yep, on the Eastern Front pocketing the enemy was hard. In the Pacific, with the complete naval and air supperiority the US had, it was as easy bypassing an island garrison and cut it off from supply. The fortified islands that had to be taken were hard enough to crack. I do agree with the benefit of doubt so. Notable exceptions are all those "rockstar" generals that were better at self promotijg PR than strategy and leading men in combat. McArthur would be a prime example of one of those.
ejb999 3y ago
So in other words, incomplete information - or worse, conflicting information - or are you somehow claiming that 100% of the information that MacArthur had available to him at the time clearly and unequivocally pointed in one direction, and he did the opposite? Should we also, today with the benefit of hindsight, try to crucify Halsey for making the decision to not move out of the way of the incoming typhoon (Cobra) that ended up costing almost 800 US sailors/men their lives and lost several Navy ships? - certainly he had people telling him to move the fleet out of the way, but he made the difficult call to stay. Really got to love the arm-chair generals second guessing decisions made 80 years ago, by people who had no choice but to do the best they could with the information they had at the time. I am not willing to criticize either one of them, I wasn't there.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  I reject the notion that decisions in wartime cannot be criticized. Your argument would absolve any commander from being judged for any decision. Yes, information is limited. Nevertheless, commanders are expected to make the best decisions they can based on the information they have. In that light, the invasion of Peleliu was a mistake. The negative consequences of delaying the invasion of Iwo Jima were also reasonably predictable.