Iwo Jima - A stupid Mistake?

LA TImes ^ | March 10, 2005 | Max Boot

[rcocean]

Our awe at the bravery of the Marines and their Japanese adversaries should not cause us to overlook the stupidity that forced them into this unnecessary meat grinder. Selective memories of World War II, which record only inspiring deeds and block out all waste and folly, create an impossible standard of perfection against which to judge contemporary conflicts.

[Strategerist]

This author either hates-America or is one of those people who thoughtlessly enjoys his freedoms won by men of greater courage. Or both.

Why do I have the feeling you didn't read the article?

[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.

[xone]

'Mustard Gas.' 'It would killed every Jap on the island in 24 hours'

No doubt it would have killed some, no way it kills all or even a large percentage. Maybe phosgene.

[skeeter]

Not completely. Most of the Pearl Harbor oil tanks were exposed to air attack.

Even more important to the Japanese war effort than the oil would have been the destruction of the PH drydocks & repair facilities that were to used to repair our sunken BBs, as well as the flattops following the first few hard months of fighting in the Pacific.

It would've been so easy to do and the effect would have been significant.

[Michael.SF.]

More casualties were suffered on Tarawa per square mile than anyplace else anywhere in World War II.

A stronger case can be made for the Tarawa high casualty rate being the result of stupidity or error, then on can for Iwo. After all, anyone can learn to read tidal charts, but no one could see underground tunnels.

[archy]

It is a fact that without Iwo Jima, they could not properly conduct air raids over Japan. They needed the runway on that island.

It is a fact that even before the island was completely secured [took over a month IIRC without reference to sources] the first crippled USAAF B-29 landed on the Iwo landing strip. The whole point of taking the island was for use by B-29s, and not having that facility available meant the loss of all the air crews in trouble who landed there...not to mention the possibility of something similar happening with a B-29 headed for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kokura or Tokyo with something on board that we'd really rather not have fall into Japanese hands in the event of mechanical trouble.

Iwo Jima was about halfway between the B-29 takeoff field on Tinian and the target areas of the Japanese home islands, and some 19,000 combat missions were launched against Japan from the island, each with a crew of eleven or twelve aboard. Accordingly, it was vital for use both by aircraft that had developed trouble on the way to Japan and by those that had sustained combat damage and wouldn't have made the longer return flight to their home field.

[Strategerist]

The whole point of taking the island was for use by B-29s, and not having that facility available meant the loss of all the air crews in trouble who landed there

The whole point of the Naval Proceedings article (written by a member of the military) that the LA Times article is based on is that the above is a complete crock.

[KC_Conspirator]

I have heard these crappy arguments from academic for years. Eposide II will be the bad decision to invade Okinawa and the final installment will be how it was not necessary to drop the bomb.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Quite probably true, but unfortunately that wasn't the main point of my post. It was more directed to the fanaticism of the Japanese soldier mentioned by the prior poster. However, total casualties and the rate of the same do have underlying causes which you're quite correct to point out.

As I'm sure you also know, Tarawa is also protected by a coral reef which made the invading forces advance through much more water, and at a slower pace, then they might have otherwise have had to traverse.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.

"...the "1 million US dead" figure is equally bogus."

The point is that people like the guy at the Smithsonian and the guy that wrote the article are too cavalier when it comes to the lives of our war fighters.

What do you base your bogus claim on?

Michael Frazier

[the lone haranguer]

Clearly, this author has no clue as to the significance of this island and its sister island. Taking Iwo provided landing strips and refueling stops for missions returning from the Japanese mainland, a place where crippled planes could safely set down, thus saving the lives of their crews, and the removal of the Japanese protected the US fleet from attack, as well as protecting our flyboys from AA fire while on missions to the Japanese mainland. ChiChi Jima, Iwo's sister island, was home to a Japanese communications and radio intercept base. It was the target a young pilot named George H.W. Bush was attacking when he was shot down. Obviously, capturing or crippling the Japanese communications was also key, but since we lost so many men, I guess, according to the author, it really wasn't worth it. IMHO, the author of this article could do with a dose of reality (and some cheese to go with his WHINE). I would suggest that he (and anyone else) read Flags of our Fathers and Flyboys, both by James Bradley. They portray the horror that faced both sides on those two islands and the honor and bravery of our Marines, which this article's author has apparently missed.

[Strategerist]

I have heard these crappy arguments from academic for years.

If you were capable of reading you'd notice the argument is from a Captain in the US Marines.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

If you want to be picky, perhaps the advance raids several weeks prior to the actual landing might be deemed a mistake because it gave the Japanese a hint as to where we might land next. Then again, we often conducted carrier raids against Japanese-held islands whether we intended to invade them or not, just to keep them off-balance.

As to why the casualties of our Marines were so high, the Japanese could read maps just as well as we could and they could figure out that Iwo was a prime target: closer to Japan than our current bases and large enough to have multiple airstrips built on it. The Japanese had ample time to fortify Iwo to the point that the entire island became, in effect, a fort. We had not faced that kind of defense on that scale before. Iwo was Okinawa on a smaller scale.

[Strategerist]

The "1 Million US Dead" actually has no actual source. It's completely false. It's a nice round number so once someone used it everyone else started using it. No one in the US military ever gave such an estimate.

First off, it was the result of the usual idiot error of people who think "casualties" equals "dead"...and then it apparently resulted from someone changing 500,000 casaulties to 1,000,000 casualties for no apparent reason.

The highest actual estimate was 500,000 US Casualties which would have meant about 150,000 US troops killed in an invasion of Japan.

[KC_Conspirator]

I missed that, but thanks anyway.

[KC_Conspirator]

And by the way, try not to be rude on FR.

[Khuey]

Max Boot can kiss my former Marine Green A$$ and the STFU!

[Strategerist]

Max Boot can kiss my former Marine Green A$$ and the STFU!

All of Max Boot's arguments are based by an article written by a Marine.