.While I am not an expert on Iwo I did have an occasion to do some in-depth research it about and would love to share my findings with you. You can view my Iwo Jima page at: http://www.goodolddogs.com/raisedflag2.html
Posted on 02/19/2005 7:13:59 AM PST by 9999lakes
Yesterday was the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the Battle for Iwo Jima... Iwo Jima The famous battle offers lessons for us 60 years later. BY ARTHUR HERMAN Saturday, February 19, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST ....But the Marines pushed on. Over the next agonizing weeks, they took the rest of the island yard by yard, bunker by bunker, cave by cave. They fought through places with names like "Bloody Gorge" and "The Meat Grinder." They learned to take no prisoners in fighting a skilled and fanatical enemy who gave no quarter and expected none. Twenty out of every 21 Japanese defenders would die where they stood. One in three Marines on Iwo Jima would either be killed or wounded, including 19 of 24 battalion commanders. Twenty-seven Marines and naval medical corpsmen would win Medals of Honor--more than in any other battle in history--and 13 of them posthumously. As Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Command, said, "Among the Americans who served on Iwo Island, uncommon valor was a common virtue."
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
So you're saying the attack was a good idea, and the top flag officers deserve credit, not blame, for how it turned out? I'm no big-time expert, so I suppose you may be right.
General MacArthur was known for bypassing the most heavily defended islands. The Navy and Marine Corps were known for the opposite approach -- and they sure payed a huge price.
I think I meant to type "paid," but my brain isn't working right today.
I got lucky
I read just a couple of weeks ago about that newspaper in Chicago who published the story of breaking the Jap code. I just don't remember where I read it but it was online.
It was an article on the First Amendment and why FDR was talked out of pursuing the culprit.
How ironic
This being true is a sad commentary on the influential few who make the rules that govern our treatment of the most necessary members of our society, our armed forces.
Why do we allow these sorry political hacks both military and civilian to get by with their America last attitude toward our magnificent armed forces?
American people get your head out of your nether regions and take back control of the treatment of our first line of defense, our magnificent armed forces.
Allow death only to silence the voices of the "The Greatest Generation" and their supporters
America, we must win this battle for the ones who have willingly accepted "Old Glory" and what she stands from our hands with the same oath we lovingly and vehemently took when we were called upon to protect our Nation from her mortal enemies in our day!
May God continue to bless America!
This makes me deeply disappointed. However, now I'm doubly glad I dumped all my Tribune stock last year.
As noted in other posts, there were some islands that were bypassed. Three that immediately come to mind are Truk, Rabaul, and Formosa (Taiwan). They could be neutralized by air attack and isolated by sea blockade, which was a heck of a lot easier on men and material than taking them by storm.
IIRC, in the 1980s resurgence of interest in NBC (now CBR) warfare and defense, there was an article in the Marine Corps Gazette on the theoretical use of chemical weapons (nerve gas as I recall) to take Tarawa. The author argued (based on weapon effects and casualty tables) that a chemical attack would have produced fewer casualties for attacker and defender than the actual battle did.
Unfortunately (and fortunately) almost all the senior Marine and Army officers making the decisions about the use of such weapons had WWI Western Front experience with chemical warfare and had no desire to repeat it. The same can be said about senior officers in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, etc. So the chemical weapons stayed in storage and we did it the hard way, not only in the Pacific but also in North Africa, in Western Europe, and in Russia. As is frequently commented by historians, it says a lot about how horrible the experience must have been if even a fanatic like Hitler would rather see Germany defeated than resort to use of chemical weapons. (Of which, Germany had plenty.)
(In fairness, I should note in passing that the main land force opposing Germany for most of the war, the Soviet Union, had suffered tremendous chemical warfare casualties (as Imperial Russia) at the hands of the Germans and Austrians in WWI. It consequently devoted a lot of time and effort to built up a chemical offense and defense capability during the latter part of the interwar period. The Soviet Army had some hundreds of thousands of well equipped and trained soldiers ready to defend against chemical attack and to conduct chemical attacks. So any temptation German planners may have had to use such weapopns was also probably tempered by the realization that the Soviets were far better prepared to play offense and defense than the Wehrmacht was.)
.Ping!
A very humble thank you.
I preface my reason for making this statement:"History is inviolate" so is anything to be gained by being overly critical of past seemingly bad decisions and then doesn't hind sight become an exercise in futility as it revisits many sad, sad memories, unnecessarily, concerning the terrible losses incurred especially by those who lost loved ones as a result of these "decisions".
As far as we will ever know these wonderful human beings died willingly in the place of others who would benefit by their selfless sacrifice and in their stead and for them we must believe it was the right decision by their leaders or else the discussion becomes an argument with the winner being "the one who could holler the loudest"
Again, "History is indeed inviolate"!
I'm sorry that so many had to pay with their lives. If I question the leadership in a case like this, it's not to cast aspersions on anyone of any rank. I just want us to learn, so that we can do better next time. (And we all know there will be a next time in war -- there always is.)
I'm not making any statement pro or con on the tactics used to actually carry out the invasion.
Fortunately, it ultimately worked out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.