Posted on 03/10/2005 7:10:45 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
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.
Well, I think there is a larger issue and its people becoming emotionally wedded to "facts" because they make them feel good...which is dangerous.
Long before I saw this article, every time I watched an Iwo documentary or read an Iwo article I saw the claim in every single one regarding 20,000+ US B-29 crewmen being "saved" by taking Iwo and cringed each time because I knew the claim was bogus...
No we didn't. We flew them from Tinian in the Marianas.
I DID read the entire article (though I think I need a bath after visiting the LA Slimes) and I did not get the sense that he was ignorant of facts or glossing over them. I took from his piece that he was trying to illustrate the absurdity of the left's bitching over every aspect of the WOT by showing how "mistakes" were made by men generally regarded as brilliant military strategists. He walso stated that his facts came not from his own research, but from that of a Marine historian working for the military.
I am somewhat of a WWII buff, so in MY studies about the war, I have come across many instances where planning and intel was comletely wrong and probably cost many lives. Such was the problem with intelligence in that day. I think the difference is that in that day, the people involved in planning knew that the odds were not always good and that intel was often sketchy at best, but there often was no other way to do it. Also, the people of this country knew that war was brutal, mistakes would be made and things didn't always go as planned. They accepted this as just a reality of life in war. For some reason, people today seem to have forgotten all of that and we expect our wars to go like both sides are controlled on some scaled-down model with little toy soldiers moved around the board.
As for Iwo, the justification for taking it had more to do with it's importance to the Japanese than it's importance to us from what I have read on it. They needed the bas a lot more than we did and we knew it. There were also political reasons within the military community that played a part in the decision to go ahead with the invasion as well. As for planning the invasion, our intelligence told us that they would concentrate their forces on the airfield (flat) side of the island. What the Marines found out real quickly was that they were on the Suribachi side and entrenched so well that any bombardment by naval ships prior to boots hitting the sand were largely ineffective. We also cannot discount the tenacity of the Japanese defenders who were told to die either fighting or by their own hand. They defended the island to the bitter end. They had planned for the landings and had established "kill boxes" that were extemely effective.
As with Normandy and the European theater in general, we eventually overwhelmed them with sheer numbers and our own tenacity and innovation. In Europe, we had inferior tanks that went up against the Panzers and Tigers, but defeated them by overwhelming them, learning their weaknesses and developing tactics in the field to beat them. That is the nature of our military and always has been. We adapt & we overcome. On Iwo, just like Normandy, we adapted to their defenses and overcame them. Whether or not it was "worth it" is and always has been debatable. How do you measure the loss of 6000 Marines versus airmen suposedly saved by having the airfield? I don't know, but I believe in my heart that taking Iwo, though maybe not the most vital objective, most definitely WAS worth it and probably DID save many many more lives than we lost. I feel the same way about D-Day, the Dolittle raids, taking Italy, defending Bastogne in the dead of winter (and severly understocked and cut off from supplies) and all other battles in WWII. Some were planned and executed better than others, but ALL were worth it in the end.
I don't really think the author was disputing this notion as much as he was pointing out the idiocy of the arguments the loony left has made about our objectives and losses in the WOT.
Sorry this was so long!
No.....hindsight is 20/10.
Yeah, we already established that many times. Your post does not explain the discrepancy between this columnist's discussion of a lack of island bombardment, which the Marine historian himself detailed via another article/author.
Nor the LA Times, a worthless left wing rag.
The author fails to note the political and psychological benefits of the successful campaign.
The LA, NY, and Washington Post aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
No, the argument is from a columnist supposedly basing his column on that Captain's research.
I don't feel awe for the "bravery" of the Japanese on Iowa Jima. They were murderous fanatics who invaded our country and were now hoping for personal rewards from killing as many as they could.
The Marines were courageous men doing a terrible duty for the good of others and the world. There can be no comparison.
I'm suspicious about the author's prejudices from this statement.
And yet, we kicked their a$$es! Ooh-rah, Race!
Everyone here can continue to bicker and rehash the decision to take Iwo Jima.
The Facts remain.
1. Iwo Jima WAS Taken by the US Marines
2. The taking of that Island DID save hundreds if not thousands of American Airmen
3. The Japanese DID get their asses kicked in grand fashion.
4. Americans DID use the Island to land crippled bombers.
5. There WILL be a Marine Corps for the next 500 years because of it.
Furthermore
Since the summer of 1944, the Japanese home islands had been reeling from strikes by the new, long range B-29's. The US, however, had no protective fighters with enough range to escort the big superfortresses. many bombers fell prey to Japanese fighter-interceptor attacks. Iwo, with its three airfields, was ideally located as a fighter-escort station. It was also an ideal sanctuary for crippled bombers returning from Japan.
It's pointless at this point to sully the memory of these brave men who took that sandpile by sitting here comfortably in your chairs far from the front, far from any danger and Monday Morning Quarterbacking what the war planners decided on in 1945.
Semper Fi
However, FDR on his way to Yalta, disapproved of the plan for political reasons. I guess dropping the A-bomb, or firebombing Dresden was OK, but using Poison Gas on Iwo would have made us look bad. Of course, FDR was sick man at this point, and died a couple months later.
we knew the germans had poison gas before ww2 started but they never used it because hitler feared retaliation. even as germany was collapsing they didn't use poison gas. if fdr had used it, it would have opened the door for the germans to use it.
this is a good article about decision making and, in no way, insults the courage of the men fighting there. when studying the past too many revisionists think in terms of 2001 morality instead of trying to understand the decisions in the times they were made.
The problem I (and many historians) have with the Phillipine invasion was that it did little to shorten the war and it diverted precious resources from that goal. While humanitarian concern for the victims of Japanese occupation is valid - the Japs were bastards, no question - the consequences of the invasion both for the Troops involved and the damage to the infrastructure and people was huge. Hong Kong, for instance, was freed with the fall of Japan without the accompanying colleratal damage.
While invading "The Rock" may or may not have been a tactical blunder, the motivation was to advance the cause of victory, not to promote the public image of any particular commander. Even if the Iwo invasion was a tactical mistake, it was in some sense a strategic victory. It was the first of the Japanese home islands to fall. The resolve demonstrated in taking it showed the Japanese that we meant business and would not be detered from taking Japan just as we had taken Germany. They might have convinced themselves that they could ride out any amount of stategic bombing, but we made it clear that we were coming for them.
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.