The Taking of Peleliu: Necessary? NO Unavoidable? YES

The island of Peleliu is only one of the islands in the island nation of Palau and was also a stage for one of the battles of WWII. The battle at Peleliu is still questioned today. Was it avoidable? Was it even necessary? Many answer yes and many answer no to both of these questions.

What advantages to the United States' war effort grew from the battle of Peleliu? It assured total and complete control of all the islands in the Palaus to the security of General MacArthur's right flank as he continued westward, then northward from New Guinea into his Philippines campaign. Within the Palaus group, it destroyed facilities which survived Admiral Marc A. Mitscher's devastating strike of March 1944. It insured total denial of support to the enemy from other submarine basing facilities, also decreasing the Japanese submarine capability east of the Philippines. The United States position on Peleliu completed the neutralization of 25,000 Japanese troops in northern Palau. The landing on Peleliu did not contribute to the seizure of Ulithi. Admiral William F. Halsey had believed that his forces could seize Ulithi without first seizing Peleliu.

The taking of Peleliu contained many benefits towards the United States. The biggest benefit of seizing Peleliu laid in its use as a link in the flight path and line of communications from Hawaii to the Philippines. The holding was a convenience, but not a necessity. Also having United States troops on Peleliu led to the rescue of the survivors from the sinking of the Indianapolis ship. They were only rescued because one of the naval pilots working on Peleliu managed to spot them while patrolling. They were rescued four days after the sinking.

What did the seizure of Peleliu cost? Marine casualties numbered to 6,526, including Navy corpsmen and doctors, of whom 1,252 were killed. The 81st Division totalled up to 3,089 casualties, of whom 404 were KIA (killed in action). Total U.S. troop casualties were 9,615 with 1,656 dead.

The costs at Peleliu held warnings for the remaining allied operations to be issued across the pacific to Japan. Even with local air and naval superiority, heavy naval gunfire, bombs, and napalm weaponry, the seizure of Peleliu consumed one American casualty and 1,589 rounds of heavy and light troop ammunition for each single Japanese soldier killed or driven from his prepared position. A few months later, the attacks on Iwo Jima and Okinawa would confirm this miserable and dark effort of war against determined Japanese soldiers.

The question of whether seizing Peleliu was necessary remains flat even up to today. The heroism and brave acts of the 1st Marine Division and the soldiers of the 81st Infantry Division on the miserable island are spoke of and told everywhere. The capture of Peleliu was essential, in the view of Admiral William F. Halsey's recommendation through Admiral Nimitz to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 13, 1944, which was two days before D-Day, that the landing should be cancelled, however by then, it was too late and Peleliu was added to the long list of battles in which marines fought, suffered, and prevailed.

Word Count: 521

Lenin's New Economic Policy

During this point in time, Russia had just been through a civil war. This left the Russian economy in shambles which required some form of modernization. In order to reach this goal the job was to unify the whole country, which was mainly made up of peasants and farmers. Fewer than 20 pople out of 100 lived in the cities. Out of that many people Russia still had no industrial equipment to work with. The only people in the country that were producing some kind of resources were the Kulaks who were very rich in farming. Two main people sought out to try and acheive this goal of whom were Lenin and Joseph Stalin. Lenin created the New Economic Policy (NEP), while on the other hand Joseph Stalin Created his 5 year plan. Lenin's idea focused more on a system that worked on a kind of schedule like clockwork. It didn't really involve any kind of dictatorship. Stalin's 5 year plan however focused more on him ruling as a dictator and having things his own way instead of trying to make this society a better and happier place. Which idea worked better? Which idea left the people of Russia in a richer and happier society? Who was more successful?

At the time of the bolshevik communist seizure of power in October 1917, Russia had been involved in the first world war. The turmoils associated with this major war produced much economic dislocation and many shortages of essential items including food, fuel, and clothing. Agricultural and industrial production were down from the levels of 1913. Perhaps a third of Russia's working horses had been diverted towards direct services associated with the war. The railways were suffering from disrepair and part shortages. Wartime inflation had seriously broken down the purchasing power of the Russians. In rural areas across Russia, a peasant revolution had taken place that tended towards the seizure of landed estates and the establishment of peasant ownership of small plots that would be worked with limited equipment virtually on a subsistence basis. This new system however tended to produce less of a marketable product than was required to provide the needs of the urban population. A bolshevik policy of control over the peasants newly assumed lands and actual seizure of any marketable product from the peasants resulted in a complete lack of incentive to produce any surplus in the first place.

Lenin had already been contemplating the adoption of a new approach towards the encouragement of production and had even submitted a draft outline of such a new approach to the central committee of the communist party. The serious implications of the Kronstadt revolt led to urgent political motivation to attempting to acheive some confession with the peasantry if Russia was to progress towards the revolutionary goal of communism. Given these realities, Lenin's draft outline provided the basis for the development of what became known as Lenin's New Economic Policy. The early stages of the development of this policy questioned how the peasants could be more encouraged to produce more food for the towns and, in the later stages of planning, was extended towards encouraging economic exchange between the town, country, and to encouraging industrial production.

Lenin was prepared for some adaptation away from any attempt to immediately establish communism as he fully accepted that Russia had not yet gone through the "Bougeois Capitalist" phase of the ordering of economic relations in society that was held to be strictly necessary in marxist theory in order to provide the right conditions to demand communism. As far as the encouragement of agricultural production went, the new economic policy accepted that peasants should only suffer a graduated proportion of any product they produced. It was implied that the remainder of the product was eligible to be freely marketed to the benefit of the producer. The return of the free market caused by the new economic policy gave rise, before long, to the rise of a class of whole salers known as the nepmen who soon controlled the majority of retail trade in Russia. A recovery of economic activity in both rural and urban areas and between country and town was thus facilitated.

WORD COUNT : 695