I fear we're trying from the narrative of the AAR. However, I'll try to suggest an answer or two.
The Philippines were US territory and there's a strong part of no part of my country shall remain occuppied. If the Philippines had not been liberated , the Filiinos would have concluded that the US promise of independence was false.
New Guinea was a bastion preventing the fall of Australia.
The Japanese need to be encouraged to put effort into defending their empire. They had to be convinced that their conquered territories that provided tthem with their raw materials were the allied target. Once the allies had them back, they could blockade Japan and starve them into surrender.
It was the dual approach that forced the Japanes to split their forces. Victory over the Japanese in Burma and the Philippines proved that the Japanese were no longer masters of the battlefield.
And Kaisermuffin, you're doing it again. The Monty v Patton debate is another that just descends into flame and personal attacks. If there comes to be a time where such a discussion based on events in the AAR and arguments are marshalled solely from the evidence presented in this AAR, we can then debate the relative merits of one over the other. Til then, it's not somewhere any of us ought to go.
Oh, another vote for tractors.
- 1
