ORIGINAL: TommyG
The point of my initial posting is not that Guadalcanal was a bad place to force the fight; the point was that almost every book, movie, or documentary repeats the fiction that Guadalcanal was essential to the protection of the sea lanes to Australia. WitP disproves that overly simplified explanation. Guadalcanal was a good enough place to draw the line and force the fight, for all of the reasons posted above; the sea lanes were a minor point at best.
1st Marine Division historian George McMillian said, "There are two Guadalcanals: the battle and the legend."
I got this quote from the book "Guadalcanal" by Richard B. Frank. I think that all we hear about the battle these days, except on this forum of course, is the legend. It wasn't just about the Japanese thinking Lunga was a good place for an airfield, or the US thinking Lunga was a good place for the Japanese to not have an airfield. But it was viewed by the Japanese as an opportunity to rally after recent Naval defeats and to the US as thier first foray into offensive ground action in the Pacific. The result was an epic spitting contest.
But I think from at least the US persepective and why the battle is remembered as it is is because it was our first ground offensive, it involved the prestigious "Old Breed", it involved vast numbers of ships and planes and was the place of numerous smaller battles on land and sea and air. And finally, we (US) won. So, as we Americans are wont to do, we make a big deal out of something we are proud of. Therefore, while Guadalcanal was indeed a big deal militarily, what we tend to remember and hear about again and again is more often the legend than naked facts and statistics, or as some would say, the truth. And I think Witp does a good job of relecting that Guadalcanal was less a battle about military neccessity and more about other things.
Well, thats my opinion anyway. Have a good day, MSgt.
