User talk:Pottersville

Heya Pettersville, I just want to make clear that I am in no way denigrating Amercian troops when I criticise MacArthur. American troops did an amazing job in the Second World War. However, my problem with the neutrality of the Douglas MacArthur article is that it seems to be written from the POV that he could do no wrong and doesn't cover the numerous historians who were critical of him at Kokoda. From my reading, which is limited, I understand that when the Americans first appeared at Kokoda things weren't too good. However, that was also not entirely their fault because they were inexperienced. They later highly distinguished themselves in later fields of battle along Kokoda. There is no doubt in my mind that Australia needed (and still needs) the U.S., and I, for one, am greatful for many things that America has done for Australia. However, I feel that we should be correcting the record on MacArthur!

I hope you understand where I'm coming from here! :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 23:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Kokoda Trail Tango
Hey there dude. no worries about that Dougout Doug article. From the original entry, i'd understand why'd that stilted biography elicited such emotional responses, and the clarifications I entered were never really intended to get you or anyone worked up. I'm very, very far from being jingoistic, but i just needed to correct the historical record on the SWPA in OZ. Because I addressed issues directly related to the disposition of Australian and American forces in New Guinea, one cannot help assuming that my responses were purposefully adversarial. Mac is a polarizing figure to say the least, and yes, that article should express the diversity of opinion that currently exists on him. He remains one of the most complex figures of the twentieth century, but to reduce him into a Manichean figure serves history very little.

Yes US SWPA troops at the commencement of hostilities in the PNG phase of the campaign through mid '43 were very green when compared to contemporaneous units from the AIF that arrived from the ETO/MED, or to the lead USMC divisions and raiders of the POA, but teething problems were ultimately overcome. These certainly came at a very real cost, and inexperience led to quite a few collateral deaths, but I cannot imagine how these troops could have hindered the Australians, especially since support comes in so many different forms. The terms of Stalin's "lend-lease" with America had the FDR administration sending the USSR hundreds of thousands of boots and millions of tins of SPAM, apart from 4 x6 trucks and other hardware—materiel that ensured an allied victory in the ETO. But Russia received only a third of what the US sent to the British Commonwealth. ($11B vs 31 Billion in 1945 dollars).

A large portion of this wound up as direct aid to OZ. The collapse of Singapore and the relative remove of the Indian Ocean meant that a great deal of what sustained the Royal Australian army in the field depended less on British, but increasingly on American largesse for sustenance—with SWPA as quartermaster. What with Mac bitching constantly about his considerable logistical disadvantage, his megalomania would have ironically sped things along.

below are images of lend-lease boxes found in a warehouse in Queensland in 2002. They look nice. Will fetch good prices on Ebay. http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/usarmy/lendlease02.jpg http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/usarmy/lendlease01.jpgPottersville 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)