This says it all.I guess this guy doesn't seem to remember (or acknowledge) the DESPERATION people felt in fighting that war.
Leave it to a British guy to reflect on mistakes in WW2.
Note the number of dead, Freepers. Now listen to Hannity, Ingraham, Rush, etc., etc. Consistently, day in and day out, year after year, these guys will tell you that 60,000 Americans died at Gettysburg, 20,000 dead at Iwo, 50,000 at Normandy, 40,000 at Antietam. It's a bee in my bonnet you might say, how I get irritated at talking head types for always lumping ALL casualties (killed, wounded, missing) in with the dead.
I was offended when the US returned this island to Japan. We paid too high of a price for the real estate in 1945.
Working midnight shift and the Jim Beam is beginning to take affect.
Say what you like the courage and competence of those Marines was monumental.
It's a shame that so many sentimental tributes to the veterans of the Good War elide this unpleasant reality, [combat causalities] leaving us a bit less intellectually and emotionally prepared for the trauma of modern war.
War means death and destruction but freedom, and security, are only for those who are willing to pay the price for it. That the price is always high does not dimish the truth of the statement.
Just one more "deconstructionist" pissed off that America is number one, and feels compelled to do something about it.
I'm just glad I had the honor of knowing my grandfather. That is enough for me.
Sure, given what we know now, almost every battle in every war was a madhouse of error and illusion. But the people on the ground at that time, on that particular day of that particular battle, didnt have the luxury of such hindsight.
So, right off the starting line I tend to take such sniping as the first indicator of contempt and disdain.
The rationales for taking the island were shaky at the time and utterly specious in hindsight. The original impetus came from the U.S. Army Air Corps, which wanted a base from which fighters could escort B-29 Superfortress bombers on missions over Japan. But Iwo Jima was so far away from most Japanese targets — a 1,500-mile round trip — that even the newest fighter, the P-51D Mustang, lacked sufficient range and navigational equipment for that purpose. In any case, Japanese air defenses were so weak that B-29s didn't need any escort; they were able to reduce Japanese cities to ashes on their own.
Iwo Jima, or any other particular base, does not have to reach 'most' potential targets to be useful or strategically necesary. Take a look at a map of the PAcific ocean SE of Japan sometime. There are not a lot of islands to choose from. No one knew if we would be able to take Okinawa, so Iwo Jima might have been all we had available to hit the southern reaches of the Japanese main islands.
It is totally NOT necesary for Iwo Jima to be within range of ALL possible targets in Japan to be useful, even required, for an invasion of the southern shores of Japan.
Also, we wanted to have fighters capable of shooting down kamikaze pilots to protect our fleet off shore when the invasion started. Islands cant be sunk, so having Iwo Jima would be a great asset in protecting any offshore fleet.
When the fighter-escort mission didn't pan out, U.S. commanders had to come up with another rationale for why 26,000 casualties had not been in vain. After the war, it was claimed that Iwo Jima had been a vital emergency landing field for crippled B-29s on their way back from Japan. In a much-quoted statistic, the Air Force reported that 2,251 Superforts landed on Iwo, and because each one carried 11 crewmen, a total of 24,761 airmen were saved.
Burrell demolishes these spurious statistics. Most of those landings, he shows, were not for emergencies but for training or to take on extra fuel or bombs. If Iwo Jima hadn't been in U.S. hands, most of the four-engine bombers could have made it back to their bases in the Mariana Islands 625 miles away. And even if some had been forced to ditch at sea, many of their crewmen would have been rescued by the Navy. Burrell concludes that Iwo Jima was "helpful" to the U.S. bombing effort but hardly worth the price in blood.
Give me a break.
According to this type of logic, most fire trucks are unecesary unless they go to put out fires most days of the week! What utter nonsense.
I am so sick of these 'myth busters' trying to rewrite history so they can sell some cheap book. The same kind of BS has led some historians to claim that Crocket was captured and executed at the Alamo when the majority of surviving eye-witnesses say he died fighting.
The constant and continual destruction of our national symbols and memories proceeds uninteruptedly due to the kabal of anti-American 'former' Marxist hippies like Ward Churchill that now control our history proffession across this nation.
Dont believe any historical works if they are under 30.
My grandfather will be happy to know that he lost his friends, his innocence, and part of his left leg for nothing. I can't wait to tell him...
Yes, it's always a lot easier in hindsight.
And it was stupid the first time!
This says it all.We should consider ourselves, as a country, brave and lucky. The weapons being developed at the end of WWII could have drastically changed the outcome or at the least killed thousands or millions more than the wars toll took. America exists today because of its citizens who have given their lives so that we are free today. We have also given this cherished freedom to millions of non-Americans since WWII and we continue to do so. Freedom is what we stand for and at times we are the only thing between freedom and death in the world. Not everyone appreciates what we do, the ones who appreciate it the most are the ones who actually get to taste the freedom we give and as generations pass some loose their ability to appreciate it. I doubt anyone who faced the blackouts in London during German bombing runs would fail to appreciate our entry into the war to stop Hitler and the ravage he raged on Europe. In the U.S. today we have people who don't support our war effort, don't understand why we must act and when, and whether or not the realize it or willing to admit it, they don't appreciate their freedom, they take it for granted, and in doing so put us all at greater risk.
What "myths" of Iwo Jima? This was truly a fight to the death, by an enemy who gave no quarter and expected none.
One does not fight a gentlemanly war against those who consider the art of being a gentleman a weakness. Weak people in those circumstances are simply slaughtered. The "Bushido" training and the "Samurai" code did not allow for this aspect of human nature.
Of course, not all Japanese soldiers were Samurai, and not all the fighting they did was Bushido. But to die in battle in defense of the Emperor was held to be the most exalted form of devotion to the Rising Sun, and enough of the soldiers bought into this version of patriotism, that the diminutive Imperial Japanese soldier could be a most formidable opponent. Not all of them, but you did not know if the next one would turn out to be a total fanatic.
How many is "most of these landings"?
I wonder if this fellow would feel the same way if a relative had been aboard a B-29 that was forced to land because of damage or lack of fuel.
Does anyone take seriously any comment uttered by Ted Kennedy?
Irrefutably so.
Ahh yes, hindsight armchair generals, where would we be without them?