Sorry, Buck, I may have expressed myself clumsily. Even if it may not have been the Japanese intention to occupy Mindanao as a whole in December/January they triedBuckrock wrote: As far as I knew, there was no historical Japanese "advance on Mindanao" that needed to be broken off to free up resources for the
"southbound stage". If you go by the Japanese plans (such as covered in Japanese Monograph Series No. 1) the initial phase of operations for Mindanao involved
only the capturing of the Davao area (and the island of Jolo) for use as a staging base for the later DEI operations. This phase was completed by the 1st Jan '42
and the responsibility for the Davao area was handed over to Homma's 14th Army (main force Miura Detachment). There never appeared to be any plans to use those
forces earmarked for the DEI (16th Army) in any further Mindanao "advances" after the initial phase.
pretty hard to push inland up to the time that they went for Menado/Kendari. After that only the Miura Detachment and local Japanese conscript units held the area.
Are you saying that it was only the Miura Detachment that participated in the push past Malalag/Digos up till January 8th? Even so, the fact that Mindanao was
supposedly to be left alone till April is a sign of weakness – or over-stretch. More so when one considers the fact that the Japanese southward advance went
quicker than what they themselves expected. Did this happen because the Japanese were better or the Allies “worse”?
To take it a step further; As part of the forces taking Davao (area) were also planned to participate in taking Menado (and/or Tarakan), an inability to occupy
those places, either because of losses suffered in the process or because the Japanese found it necessary for future operations, would also influence on the
occupation of Ambon and Kendari. Those two bases were crucial for the leap across the Banda Sea to Java and Timor. This is what has happened in my scenario.
I cannot list any references other than referring to Morison, who is mentioning this point. I do not remember the text exactly but the point was that of several USBuckrock wrote: Can you list the references for these? I've read before about Eisenhower's planning involvement and also about some of the pre-war Estimates
of Japanese capabilities but hadn't come across anything that would suggest what you seem to be using them for in your project.
Thanks.
analysts (or people that had the credibility of one) only one, I do not remember his name, I think it was the USN CO of the China station, considered that the
Japanese had the capability to execute more than one major operation beside their engagement in China.
One can discuss what a major operation is, but for the attacked nations the Japanese operations had to look like several even if the Japanese themselves considered
the operations of the Southern Force as one. There were offensive actions against Hawaii, Guam, Wake, Hong Kong, The Philippines, Borneo, Malaya and Thailand.
Eisenhower in his report concluded that the only viable supply route for The Philippines was through the Torres Strait and along the western side of PNG – that is
The Moluccas. IOW, that would be the route to secure. Eisenhower, of course, does not elaborate on this, with the course taken by the USN he had no influence on
this other than participate in the quest for civilian, unescorted transports to try their luck.
“My” aggressive and determined US leadership, however, has a Navy and also some US troops to start with. With their influence as the possible great savior for the
Dutch and the Aussies they also have the weight to make these nations support the US view, and defense plans, rather than the British that Singapore was the key to
saving them. With the loss of POW and Repulse this was only amplified.
To simmer it down a little….these points are my justification for a viable aggressive US leadership, with the President on the bottom of it. Like an inverted
triangle.
Fred

