soc.history.war.world-war-ii

L2007 wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:fbuup5$6tc$1@ ...
> > L2007 wrote:
> >
> >> That is point here. Taking the PI was a misuse of resources that could
> >> have
> >> done more to shorten the war elsewhere.
> >
> > Please point out precisely where those resources would have been
> > better deployed against Japan.
> >
> >> 1. Neutralising a large enemy force (without any losses to your own
> >> forces)
> >
> > Same applies to forces in India, yes?

> The point is the PI, not India.

So why did you claim India was necessary to defend?

> I'll let you go back on the thread.

Thanks large. But I could have sworn YOU claimed the point was that
anything that didn't directly contribute to a direct strike against
the Japanese mainland was a waste of resources (do you need us to
remind you of your previous statements?)

Are you abandoning your statements that the India/Burma campaign was
not a waste, or are you abandoning your statement that anything not
a direct strike against the Japanese mainland was a waste?

Mike