[F16Fighter]

"Author states the landing at Iwo Jima was a mistake and unnecessary resulting in the death of 6,000 marines. Just another article to make us feel bad about our history."

I happen to agree with the the assessment of the author which in NO way detracts from the heroism and bravery of those who fought at Iwo Jima.

The venture was not remotely "cost effective" in terms of American casualties vs. military benefit.

[Al Gator]

Hindsight is 20/20.

At the time, it did seem like the necessary thing to do.

Remember, they still were gearing up for an invasion of the main islands. Staging points were the order of the day.

No one, no one in military at all, knew that the bomb was going to change things.

[IGOTMINE]

I suspect that you would have a different opinion if you were on the crew of the "Dinah Might".

[Michael.SF.]

The venture was not remotely "cost effective" in terms of American casualties vs. military benefit.

Can you tell us how they were to predict the actual amount of casualties that were to occur before they went in?

And once in, with the casualty rate exceeding all estimates, are you suggesting they should have withdrawn?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

After the B-29 came into the war, almost all the islands near Japan could've been skipped, I suppose.

[skeeter]

The venture was not remotely "cost effective" in terms of American casualties vs. military benefit.

Okinawa served essentially the same purpose.

I can see us needing one or the other, but not both.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Not true!

More American lives were saved (US airmen landing on Iwo AFTER their planes were shot over Japan) BECAUSE we attacked that island than were lost taking it.

Plus, the three airfields on Iwo were staging areas for additional attacks AGAINST US planes coming back from Japan. Not entirely effective attacks (not as effective as the British fighters at Malta, where that single British island was the key to the central Med supply lines against Rommel, but damaging none-the less.

In fact, damaged aircraft were landing on Iwo even before the fighting stopped!

[jpsb]

Yup, MacAuthur left the Japanese to starve and rot. "Let them starve on thier island, Hungry is my Ally". Don't know if the airbase at Iwo was needed or not. But Mac Island hoping was a far better strategy then the Navy's kill'em all.

[calex59]

The taking of Iwo was enssential to winning the war. We needed the airstrip in order to fly our B-29s to Japan.

I guess we could have put them out in the ocean with pontoons on them but I think that idea was tried and it failed/sarcasm off.

It is wonderful to be able to sit around 60 years after fact and say what should or should not have been done, witness the idiots that think we should have invaded Japan without using the A bomb.The same people who scream about using the A bomb would be screaming now about all the dead Americans and Japanese that would have resulted from an invasion, far more than died in the two cities that were nuked.

What seems unecessary to YOU now seemed necessary then to the people in charge. It is easy to make decisions years later with no pressure and no lives and country hanging in the balance.

[Kozak]

"Author states the landing at Iwo Jima was a mistake and unnecessary resulting in the death of 6,000 marines.

Want to bet that on the upcomming 60th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the author bemoans the bombings as unneccesary? Despite the fact they probably saved 1 million US casaulties and God only knows how many Japanese.

[wtc911]

The estimates of the 20,000 airmen saved because we had Iwo contradict you.