Quote:
Originally Posted by copeab
In a paper for a high school history class, I argued the turning point was the Battle of Coral Sea. Until that point, the Japanese had been running free in the Pacific. While tactically the battle was a draw (or arguably a Japanese marginal victory), it was a strategic loss for them. For the first time in the Pacific war, Japan had failed to mount a successful invasion of significance.
(in that same class, I also wrote a paper where I asserted the sinking of the Lusitania was legally justified)
|
Coral Sea was a turning point in the Pacific War for a number of reasons. Firstly it was the first time that the Japanese navy was effectively challenged in the Pacific. Secondly it demonstrated to Japan that Allied resistance or/and offensives would be better organised and more formidable than they previously had been. Thirdly it confirmed to Japan that New Guinea was the absolute outer limit of what it could hope to conquer, and that an invasion of Australia was beyond its capabilities. The fact that Japan actually invaded New Guinea has always puzzled me as it it had few exploitable resources at that time, and only limited logistical capabilities from which to attack Australia. It has always seemed to me to have been a waste of Japanese resources, and I can only think that they went there to disrupt and delay any build up of Allied forces in Australia which would threaten their forces in South East Asia and the Pacific.
I think the sinking of the Lusitania was legally justified, but not morally.