Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StarOfAfrica2 on February 13, 2006, 12:58:25 AM
-
Wuz having a discussion on another BBS about how the bias of press coverage affects our view of battles being fought in Iraq. And how it affects politics. And what it would have been like if we'd had to put up with such reporting in WWII. Somebody posted the link to this website, and I figured yall would get a kick out of it too.
http://www.goodolddogs3.com/If-IwoJima-Happened2day.html
-
Just in case you didn't know...it all happened last summer;)
http://www.flagsofourfathers.net.
And the USMC Sergeants actually said to the cast: "Fry the SOB's"!
Here's a pic ;)
(http://www.goodolddogs3.com/IWO-beach-04.jpg)
And last summer:
(http://flagsofourfathers.net/gallery/albums/behind-the-scenes/425503727xHetgP_fs.jpg)
-
I've been following your posts on this Angus, and I'm waiting patiently for it to come out. :) Be assured I will be in line for that one.
-
I agree SA2. I was watching something about the fight for Iwo Jima a couple months ago. One thing that stuck was how the number of Japanese defenders was grossly underestimated. How would THAT have gone down today? I guess the newsies would print "Roosevelt underestimates Japanese." Followed by a daily count of our casualties. How long would the general public have been able to stomach the war especially since Iwo was assaulted almost four years after Pearl was attacked? Sure hindsight is 20/20 as they say, and we won. But how many years would it have taken after Pearl for the newsies to start questioning why we were still at war? We had one of the largest militaries in the world at that time - why after years have we still not gotten justice for being attacked at Pearl?
I think there's too much information coming from the newsies now when they cover war. Too much and too current. How long did it take to release news of what was happening at the fronts? There's a line between how much we have a "right" to know and how much we really don't need to know in my opinion. Even for us here at work, we are reminded that even though we may have clearances, we don't need to know everything - only what we need to do our job. For example, we didn't need to know so much about that Army sniper in Iraq - his name and rank, and especially the picture of his unit's "hide." I hope they were long gone when that article came out. Come to think about it, the PAO probably needs to change what it releases also..
-
Damn funny link, and it points out with parody, the agenda our media has today.
-
Its a tough call sometimes. Things DO happen that are way over the line. But guess what? We're at war. Things blow up, people get hurt and die. You cant referee a war. We should have learned that from Vietnam. People have short memories.
The objective should be winning. Period. If things happen that shouldnt, if civilians wind up as casualties, if some POW's get abused ........... whatever.
Sort it out when its over. Too many gullible people willing to believe the first thing they hear, and too many so-called "reporters" who dont so much report news as play commentator on issues they dont comprehend. Thats a bad combination. Unfortunately for us, gullible people are allowed to vote.
-
Oh, and Iraq and Iwo Jima are...OH, SO SIMILAR...:noid
Let's talk about believing the first thing they hear...how many got suckered into this war by believing Iraq:
had links to 9-11
had WMD
the oil production from Iraq's liberation will subsidize the war
Violence wil end with the fall of Fallujah
The insurgency is in its death throes (bonus points for colorful language)
Christ almighty LOL Lay off the Flavorade :)
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Oh, and Iraq and Iwo Jima are...OH, SO SIMILAR...:noid
Let's talk about believing the first thing they hear...how many got suckered into this war by believing Iraq:
had links to 9-11
had WMD
the oil production from Iraq's liberation will subsidize the war
Violence wil end with the fall of Fallujah
The insurgency is in its death throes (bonus points for colorful language)
Christ almighty LOL Lay off the Flavorade :)
Wow that didn't take long.
Personally I think the parody of the coverage is spot on. All the talking heads adding their 2 cents in all the time, trying to change public opinion to suit their agenda.
I remember a few days after the invasion of Iraq there was a sand storm and the push was halted for a day. All over the news you heard "bogged down" "quagmire" "stuck" and nothing but doom and gloom. Whats bad is the press never seems to end up with egg on their face as much as they should as the invasion of Iraq was one of the fastest known to man kind.
There's been numerous incidences afterwords, one that sticks out was the missing explosives right before the election. The press and the talking heads got that one 100% wrong.
I think it was Admiral Nimitz that said "an American flag on top of that mountain means a Marine Corps for another 200 years" referring to Iwo Jima.
Marines
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Wow that didn't take long.
Personally I think the parody of the coverage is spot on. All the talking heads adding their 2 cents in all the time, trying to change public opinion to suit their agenda.
I remember a few days after the invasion of Iraq there was a sand storm and the push was halted for a day. All over the news you heard "bogged down" "quagmire" "stuck" and nothing but doom and gloom. Whats bad is the press never seems to end up with egg on their face as much as they should as the invasion of Iraq was one of the fastest known to man kind.
There's been numerous incidences afterwords, one that sticks out was the missing explosives right before the election. The press and the talking heads got that one 100% wrong.
I think it was Admiral Nimitz that said "an American flag on top of that mountain means a Marine Corps for another 200 years" referring to Iwo Jima.
Marines
I thought that was Holland "Howling Mad" Smith who said it. I can't remeber but was he the Divsion comander?
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Oh, and Iraq and Iwo Jima are...OH, SO SIMILAR...:noid
Let's talk about believing the first thing they hear...how many got suckered into this war by believing Iraq:
had links to 9-11
had WMD
the oil production from Iraq's liberation will subsidize the war
Violence wil end with the fall of Fallujah
The insurgency is in its death throes (bonus points for colorful language)
Christ almighty LOL Lay off the Flavorade :)
As far as my post went, I didn't comment on whether war in Iraq was correct or not. Although "Iraq" is mentioned, this thread seems to be more about the modern media and it's effect on the public. SA2 has it spot on:
Sort it out when its over. Too many gullible people willing to believe the first thing they hear, and too many so-called "reporters" who dont so much report news as play commentator on issues they dont comprehend. Thats a bad combination. Unfortunately for us, gullible people are allowed to vote.
to the US Marine Corps.
-
I think if Iwo Jima happened today we would not have near as many casualties. I think it is not defended with as much vigor. Probably would strain relations with Japan however.
-
^^^
ow. laughed so hard the cat freaked, went into high traction mode and did a pre-emptive launch outta my lap.
bastard.
-
Originally posted by Angus
(http://flagsofourfathers.net/gallery/albums/behind-the-scenes/425503727xHetgP_fs.jpg)
OMG!!!!!!!!!!! the American's used the 'fluffy hammer of death' on the Japanese?
:mad: :furious :mad: :furious :mad:
-
we were both wrong and I mis-quoted
The raising of that flag on Suribachi means a Marine Corps for the next five hundred years.
James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy; 23 February 1945
(the flag-raising on Iwo Jima had been immortalized in a photograph by Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal)
-
LOL
Well now we know!
-
Actually there was some bad press. According to the book Iwo Jima by Richard F. Newcomb, Page 202: (which I happen to have here on my bookshelf at work,) on February 27 the San Francisco Examiner, in a front-page editorial said that although victory was certain, "there is awesome evidence in the situation that the attacking American forces are paying heavily for the island, perhaps too heavily."
It went on to say that if Gen MacArthur was in charge of this campaign, more men's lives would have been saved. It also asked the question, "Why do we not use him more, and indeed, why do we not give him supreme command in the Pacific war."
Of course it can be pointed out that this editorial was more about MacArthur and Nimitz than about American lives but there is no doubt it caused a fire storm. Some Marines stormed the paper offices and demanded an apology from the editor, which they did not get. Police were called but the Marines were not charged.
After initial negative response from casualty reports, Nimitz kept them from the press until the end and then referred to them only as a fraction of the enemy’s losses.
It's easy to see from our view point looking back through history how necessary taking the island was, but there was a lot of anxiety at home concerning Iwo and the reaction was not always positive.
In any event, I think the parody was ridiculous because you can't compare today's political and military environment to 1945. If we were in a world wide campaign the scope of WWII right now, I can guarantee the majority of the press would not sound like cutie. We may not be able to live up to the greatest generation who ever lived, but I don't think we have sunk that far yet.
Thanks for the link though, I've added many nice Iwo pictures to my collection from it.
-
Chickenhawk,
You're absolutely right....there is no comparing the political and military climates of today with those of 1945.
The great majority of Americans in WWII clung unwaveringly to the goal of total victory, even though they realized that mistakes would be made and that casualties were going to be horrendous.
In today's environment the O'Sullivan tragedy along would be enough to sink a war effort.
Another difference between the two periods is that no war correspondents of the caliber of Ernie Pyle have emerged. That fact alone speaks volumes.
-
I have always wondered how we could have prosecuted WWII had we had todays media. Any press conference today is so filled with stupid questions they become unwatchable. example; some nitwit ask if Cheney is going to resign over the accidental shooting, another tries to equate it with Katrina??? I wonder how they could handle allowing an attack on an English town without warning the occupants so the Germans would'nt discover that enigma had been broken. Hell the N. Y. Times would print it all over page one. Churchhill lied, people died.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
I have always wondered how we could have prosecuted WWII had we had todays media. Any press conference today is so filled with stupid questions they become unwatchable. example; some nitwit ask if Cheney is going to resign over the accidental shooting, another tries to equate it with Katrina??? I wonder how they could handle allowing an attack on an English town without warning the occupants so the Germans would'nt discover that enigma had been broken.
Hey you forgot, we'd have to get FISA court permission and go to congress to have them amend it after a lengthy congressional inquriy just to use ENIGMA
-
Oh Furby:
"OMG!!!!!!!!!!! the American's used the 'fluffy hammer of death' on the Japanese?"
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Anyway as a sidenote, us humble extras didn't really notice the cameras that much, our focus was the Japs ahead. Sometimes imaginary (except those frigging bombs that blew up 3 yards behind you and left a crate big enough for 3 to hide in, - not kidding) and sometimes those #### of ######'s opened fire from a bunker you couldn't see and everybody had to duck, dig, flank, die,or/and try to locate the bugger and take him out in the good old fireteam way.
Back to the cameras - much later we realized they were all over the place. Hidden. OMG I'll buy the first ticket for this movie......
WTG Clint :aok
-
I didn't realize he was making a second film from a jap perspective. Kinda interesting really.
-
Oh you guys:
"Originally posted by weaselsan
I have always wondered how we could have prosecuted WWII had we had todays media. Any press conference today is so filled with stupid questions they become unwatchable. example; some nitwit ask if Cheney is going to resign over the accidental shooting, another tries to equate it with Katrina??? I wonder how they could handle allowing an attack on an English town without warning the occupants so the Germans would'nt discover that enigma had been broken. "
There were some really nasty decisions made to conceal the fact that Enigma had been broken and/or a machine caught.
I presume that the raid you refer to is the raid on Coventry. Well, Enigma or not, there was not much of a chance to stop it, - happened at night you see, and the night fighting arm of the RAF was in it's infancy at the time.
If you would be referring to something else, bear in mind that even the top of the RAF's FC, Dowding himself, had no link with enigma info before the 14th of oct. 1940. By the time, LW had reverted mostly to night ops.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Oh Furby:
"OMG!!!!!!!!!!! the American's used the 'fluffy hammer of death' on the Japanese?"
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Anyway as a sidenote, us humble extras didn't really notice the cameras that much, our focus was the Japs ahead. Sometimes imaginary (except those frigging bombs that blew up 3 yards behind you and left a crate big enough for 3 to hide in, - not kidding) and sometimes those #### of ######'s opened fire from a bunker you couldn't see and everybody had to duck, dig, flank, die,or/and try to locate the bugger and take him out in the good old fireteam way.
Back to the cameras - much later we realized they were all over the place. Hidden. OMG I'll buy the first ticket for this movie......
WTG Clint :aok
I watched the invasion of Tarawa on the History channel last night. An island 1/3 the size of Central park. After 3 days of fighting 1500 U.S. marines killed over 5000 Japanese marines killed. Today 2 casualties is Front page.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
I watched the invasion of Tarawa on the History channel last night. An island 1/3 the size of Central park. after 3 days of fighting 1500 marines killed over 5000 Japanese marines killed. Today 2 casualties is Front page.
Okinawa was worse.....for both sides.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Oh you guys:
"Originally posted by weaselsan
I have always wondered how we could have prosecuted WWII had we had todays media. Any press conference today is so filled with stupid questions they become unwatchable. example; some nitwit ask if Cheney is going to resign over the accidental shooting, another tries to equate it with Katrina??? I wonder how they could handle allowing an attack on an English town without warning the occupants so the Germans would'nt discover that enigma had been broken. "
There were some really nasty decisions made to conceal the fact that Enigma had been broken and/or a machine caught.
I presume that the raid you refer to is the raid on Coventry. Well, Enigma or not, there was not much of a chance to stop it, - happened at night you see, and the night fighting arm of the RAF was in it's infancy at the time.
If you would be referring to something else, bear in mind that even the top of the RAF's FC, Dowding himself, had no link with enigma info before the 14th of oct. 1940. By the time, LW had reverted mostly to night ops.
I don't think it was Coventry. A smaller coastal town that had Radar positioned there. They knew that a large raid was planned and when it would occur, and did not warn the civilians because they feared that German spies would know that the only way they could know was to decode enigma.
-
Well dig it up then will you.
They would need the town name to have been sure - it's too short for a proper interception say alone at night.
Anyway back to the pacific. The US used some clever stunts to stay off uneccesary casualties. Island "hopping" meant that you would only capture the key island and leave the others alone. But with IWO there was no option.
Tarawa was bad. Iwo was much worse. Palau was pretty bad. And Okinawa was really really bad. And a huge operation. From those stepping stones the U.S. along with the U.K. from other fronts went on calculating the cold costs of bending the Japanese homeland in conventional warfare. Rough estimate - US and UK servicemen dead 1 million plus, japanese soldiers 1-2 millions plus, japanese civilians 3-4 millions plus. Something like that. No wonder they went to the nuke - but wonder what the news would say...
-
Originally posted by Angus
From those stepping stones the U.S. along with the U.K. from other fronts went on calculating the cold costs of bending the Japanese homeland in conventional warfare. Rough estimate - US and UK servicemen dead 1 million plus, japanese soldiers 1-2 millions plus, japanese civilians 3-4 millions plus. Something like that. No wonder they went to the nuke - but wonder what the news would say...
It's ironic that the atomic bomb saved millions of Japanese lives.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
It's ironic that the atomic bomb saved millions of Japanese lives.
Oh boy, now you did it, opened Pandora's box again! :rofl
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well dig it up then will you.
They would need the town name to have been sure - it's too short for a proper interception say alone at night.
Anyway back to the pacific. The US used some clever stunts to stay off uneccesary casualties. Island "hopping" meant that you would only capture the key island and leave the others alone. But with IWO there was no option.
Tarawa was bad. Iwo was much worse. Palau was pretty bad. And Okinawa was really really bad. And a huge operation. From those stepping stones the U.S. along with the U.K. from other fronts went on calculating the cold costs of bending the Japanese homeland in conventional warfare. Rough estimate - US and UK servicemen dead 1 million plus, japanese soldiers 1-2 millions plus, japanese civilians 3-4 millions plus. Something like that. No wonder they went to the nuke - but wonder what the news would say...
You where right ..it was Coventry. Should have checked first.
He let Coventry burn. (http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=107)
Still one of my favorite historical figures to read.
-
weeks in the battle of Okinawa.
IIIIIIIIII
Weeks in the invasion of Iraq.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII
How much suport do you think the Invasion of Okinawa would have had if it stretched half way to the Korean war with no end in sight.
And no Japanese were ever found there?
-
In WWII there was an army to fight against, an army that was a direct threat to the USA and allies - It had to be dealt with to end the war.
The army in Iraq dissapeared in the first few days of the war - a war is still going on, with more casualties than in the war.
Not a big wonder which one causes more complaining.
-
Originally posted by Angus
The US used some clever stunts to stay off uneccesary casualties. Island "hopping" meant that you would only capture the key island and leave the others alone. But with IWO there was no option.
Yes, there was an option after the debacle was over.
Iwo Jima had no strategic purpose and food and supplies were cut off to the Japanese troops there. The options at the time under consideration were to either:
1. Court martial the people who stubbornly turned a meaningless island into a meatgrinder, or...
2. Turn it into a patriotic public relations campaign.
Court martialing would not bring back the dead or reattach arms and legs, so the latter was chosen. Even Truman marveled at the Marines' ability to muster such a successful public relations effort.
The reason for 'needing' Iwo Jima was framed (after it was over and Congress was looking for scalps) as necessary to provide an emergency landing site for damaged B-29s returning from sorties over Japan. No battle-damaged airplane ever landed there.
Rough estimate - US and UK servicemen dead 1 million plus, japanese soldiers 1-2 millions plus, japanese civilians 3-4 millions plus. Something like that. No wonder they went to the nuke - but wonder what the news would say...
Well, the media indeed questioned where this 1 million casualty number came from, but soon the myth took on a life of its own.
There is not one study, analysis, estimate, document or quote by any general or admiral who ever said, or even thought that. Truman made it up on the spur of a moment during a speech and the myth has perpetuated to this day.
-
"No battle-damaged airplane ever landed there."
huh?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Yes, there was an option after the debacle was over.
Iwo Jima had no strategic purpose and food and supplies were cut off to the Japanese troops there. The options at the time under consideration were to either:
1. Court martial the people who stubbornly turned a meaningless island into a meatgrinder, or...
2. Turn it into a patriotic public relations campaign.
Court martialing would not bring back the dead or reattach arms and legs, so the latter was chosen. Even Truman marveled at the Marines' ability to muster such a successful public relations effort.
The reason for 'needing' Iwo Jima was framed (after it was over and Congress was looking for scalps) as necessary to provide an emergency landing site for damaged B-29s returning from sorties over Japan. No battle-damaged airplane ever landed there.
I would have to respectfully disagree with you. I'm not sure where you’re getting your information but from what I've read, it was a very important strategic location. It was the closest island to Japan from the east capable of supporting runways big enough for B-29's. And I've seen pictures of battle damaged B-29's at Iwo. One published source I've read said that 2400 American airmen made emergency landings at Iwo Jima.
But my question to you would be, if it wasn't a strategic location, then why did the defenders fight so tenaciously for it?
-
2400 American airmen made emergency landings at Iwo Jima
2400 american planes made emergency landings. That's a lot more then 2400 men.
-
Wow, did I write that? Sorry, a first-class mistake on my part. It was about 2,200 planes iirc, in total that landed there. Most were usual mechanical failures, but that is not relevant.
The debate at the time was that the Japanese were running out of food fast, and a few weeks of air and ship bombardment might have meant substantially less casualties. I think US casualties were about 38,000 and that was a huge shock to Washington.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
weeks in the battle of Okinawa.
IIIIIIIIII
Weeks in the invasion of Iraq.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII
How much suport do you think the Invasion of Okinawa would have had if it stretched half way to the Korean war with no end in sight.
And no Japanese were ever found there?
You are dead wrong.
Invasion of Iraq:
II
The occupation has lasted as long as you say, but let's compare apples to apples.
Rolex,
24,000 airman owe their lives to the emergancy strip at Iwo.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Yes, there was an option after the debacle was over.
Iwo Jima had no strategic purpose and food and supplies were cut off to the Japanese troops there. The options at the time under consideration were to either:
1. Court martial the people who stubbornly turned a meaningless island into a meatgrinder, or...
2. Turn it into a patriotic public relations campaign.
Court martialing would not bring back the dead or reattach arms and legs, so the latter was chosen. Even Truman marveled at the Marines' ability to muster such a successful public relations effort.
The reason for 'needing' Iwo Jima was framed (after it was over and Congress was looking for scalps) as necessary to provide an emergency landing site for damaged B-29s returning from sorties over Japan. No battle-damaged airplane ever landed there.
Well, the media indeed questioned where this 1 million casualty number came from, but soon the myth took on a life of its own.
There is not one study, analysis, estimate, document or quote by any general or admiral who ever said, or even thought that. Truman made it up on the spur of a moment during a speech and the myth has perpetuated to this day.
Rolex, you have at times enlightened me before on subjects that would otherwize not have gotten a second thought. Could this be one of those times?
My father in law; now pushing into his eighties was a gun director on a Tin Can in the pacific. His view 'We had our tulips kicked at Okinawa' flew in the face of 'history' 40 years ago when I heard him describe it; it meshes TODAY with what I've been able to discover.
Now this view of yours regarding Iwo.... I gotta confess, I'm less pre-disposed than ever to just buy into WWII era battle propaganda but what your touting really flies in the face of currently accepted pacific battle dogma as we know it today.
Here's how I understood Iwo Jimas significance:
Air Power. B-29 strikes out of China against Japan; logistics, range and losses- the Air Force needed to stage and strike from the south rather than the west. After the capture of the Mariana Islands, the US 20th Air Force could mount a large-scale campaign against the industrial centres of Japan. The only obstacle to this was the strategically important island of Iwo Jima that housed two airfields, with a third under construction, as well as a radar station that could give up to two hours warning of an impeding raid. The Air Force needed to eliminate the fighter threat to their bombers and neutralise the radar station there. The island would also be useful as a refuge for damaged aircraft returning from raids, as a base for air-sea rescue flying boats and for P-51 long-range fighters to escort the B-29 bombers. On 3rd October 1944, the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a directive to Admiral Nimitz to take Iwo Jima.
In carefully evaluating a map of the Pacific, considering where American forces were at the time and the end-game invasion of Japan warplan, Iwo does not appear to be anything other than what we've been taught it was... Necessary. I've never once heard it mentioned that Iwo was a strategic blunder, never heard it mentioned that Iwo did not serve as a forward base for bomber escorts or a recovery point for damaged B-29's, never heard it suggested before that these two crucial logistical elements were 'unnecessary' or 'not worth the cost'.
To this point, as far as I was aware, the biggest 'controversy' regarding Iwo was in the flag rasising.. myth and facts; there were two flags raised.. a small battle flag, later a larger replacement. War-Time reports and photo's overlooked the earlier flag and the hero's that raised it. Our Marine Memorial and the famous Rosenthal Photo capture the second flag going up.
There was no small amount of consternation over the truth when it was published; debate still goes on about this and I look forward to the movies treatment of the truth surrounding the incident... but Rolex, what your talking about goes so far beyond what we've all come to see Iwo as that I gotta beg... what are your sources?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
2400 american planes made emergency landings. That's a lot more then 2400 men.
Apologies, you are correct. It was 2400 B-29's with 27,000 crewmen who used the Iwo Jima airbases after the capture.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
Apologies, you are correct. It was 2400 B-29's with 27,000 crewmen who used the Iwo Jima airbases after the capture.
Everytime I come across figures like these from WWII it still shocks me. Two-thousand four hundred sorties with twenty seven thousand crew. Thousands of casualties in the span of a few weeks for each island hop. That's just in the Pacific too.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
the Marines' ability to muster such a successful public relations effort.
The reason for 'needing' Iwo Jima was framed (after it was over and Congress was looking for scalps) as necessary to provide an emergency landing site for damaged B-29s returning from sorties over Japan. No battle-damaged airplane ever landed there.
Late to the party but how many photos of battle damaged B29s that landed on Iwo do you want to see?
They sure didn't seem to mind the Mustangs of the 15th, 21st and 506th Fighter Groups that escorted the B29s that were based on Iwo either. Throw in the P61s and the P47Ns based there as well along with ASR birds that supported the 29s.
First damaged B29 landed on the strip at Iwo while the shooting was still going on.
-
Was gonna say that Guppy!
The first one landed actually, while there was fighting going on around the island. And there were many to come, as well as other sorts of aircraft.
Then there is the factor of Iwo being disabled as an airbase for interceptors.
Rolex, - better read up a bit.
-
Oh, and here is the best part.
The last Japanese on Iwo surrendered in 1949....
-
this thread has quickly turned into a super tall stupid tree and Im having hellfun watching some of you dorks fall hard and fast hitting every branch on the way down :rofl
-
Guppy and Angus: You are correct and I apologized for the mistake in a later post. I was going to look up the number of planes landing there and put, "No" as a place keeper until I looked it up. I couldn't remember how many at the time, and "No" seemed funny to me at the time. I got distracted and accidentally submitted it.
I did not say that this debate over the strategy used at Iwo Jima, or the measure of its importance, was my opinion, or that I agreed with all of it. There were people who disagreed with the strategy at the time. Some were using Iwo Jima as a call for elevating Gen. MacArthur to run the entire Pacific war, saying that under his leadership, better use of resources would reduce casualties and be more effective.
There was debate in Washington about court martials over what was perceived as a stubborn refusal to rethink the plan after the strength of the Japanese positions was known after the first assaults on the beach. There is a good case made that it could have been delayed a few weeks and larger scale bombing and more naval bombardment used to substantially reduce the Japanese capability and US casualties. Naval bombardment was for 3 days prior to landing - woefully too short.
There was criticism that Adm. Spruance failed to make it clear that the defense of Iwo Jima was nothing close to estimates and was politically unable to sell the need for more support. There were conflicting priorites between Gen. Arnold and Adm. Spruance. Gen. Arnold and Gen. Lemay were fixated on firebombing Tokyo and Yokohama and those raids occurred while the battle on Iwo Jima was still raging. Some said it was great for publicity, but killing Japanese soldiers and reducing capability on Iwo Jima would have saved more American lives than killing 100,000+ civilians in Tokyo did.
The courage of those landing on Iwo Jima was beyond words, especially since it was soon known that 1/3 would not make out of there unhurt. Even though the US outnumbered the Japanese 2:1, one American was killed or wounded for each Japanese defender killed. Securing Guam and the Mariannas was not easy, but far easier than Iwo Jima, and the lack of flexible thinking when faced with the Iwo Jima resistance and underestimation of Japanese forces is a common point used by those who analyze the past to make better decisions and be better leaders in the future.
It should be noted that the statistics about 'emergency' landings at Iwo Jima were part and parcel of a campaign to justify the human costs of the battle - after the battle was over and criticism began about the strategy.
The sole reason used by the planners of the Iwo Jima invasion was to seize the airstrips for use by long-range fighter escort for B-29s over Japan. The problem here is that only P-51s had that range - as long as they flew there, turned around and came straight back. There would be no fuel to engage any targets. Plus, pressurized B-29s flew too high for P-51 pilots to withstand the physical stress of 1,500 mile unheated, unpressurized flights at 30K.
Only 10 escort missions were ever launched from Iwo Jima before they were stopped.
They used all landings in the statistics and most were not 'emergency' landings where the crew faced certain death if they didn't land at Iwo Jima. Training missions, scheduled refueling stops and even layovers waiting for weather problems over Japan are included in the 2,2,00+ bomber landing statistic.
Saying 22,000 flyers owe their life to Iwo Jima is a fallacy. But, it sounded good and was, and still is, easily picked up and spread since it is almost as many as the Marine casualties on Iwo Jima. But, one cannot compare lives of one branch against lives of another as valid, even if it were true.
To Hangtime: I appreciate your intelligence to understand that I look beyond the obvious and dig toward the 'whys' of events or people. I, like you, may not always agree, but listening and weighing a variety of views cannot hurt us, it only makes us stronger.
This topic is still discussed today at the USNA and at the Naval War College. Not surprisingly, most start out with the obvious opinion we have all been led to believe from high school history texts, but, over time, they begin to understand the need to be critical in order to improve. One common result is that they reluctantly agree that very basic mistakes were made, but the net overall result that the patriotic images of sacrifice we live with today have unmeasurable value.
Here are 2 interesting sources.
"The Ghosts of Iwo Jima" by Robert S. Burrell (He is a former Marine officer and history instructor at the USNA)
"The Journal of Military History,"
-
Yes Rolex but what does it all mean............whats the bottom line.
I found your write up very interesting, very intriguing. I have been fascinated by the battle for Iwo Jima since my youth. I have read countless articles, watched every biography on the battle that I think exists in western culture, and own three Iwo classic writings: Bill Ross "IwoJima Legacy of Valor", Richard Wheelers "Iwo" and James Vedders "Surgeon On Iwo" and have read these front to back every few years for the past few decades.
Some of what you speak of is familiar to me, I suspect I have picked up some details through osmosis over the years but I cant help but get the feeling that all too often history is over analyzed by factoid specialists to the point where the core reality of the moment is so diluted by hyperbole as to render the historical facts almost meaningless.
Iwo Jima is a classic example of what happens when two great nations find themselves at odds and end up in a state of total war. Two great military machines experiencing a brilliant life all their own, that will no matter what, find a path to spark into great conflagarations and all the analysis from wars long past lose meaning as men clash into each other, trying to destroy the other before he himself is destroyed.
Still, interesting reading, thanks
-
Maybe with full knowledge and confidence in the atom bomb the invasion of Okinawa would have been unnessasary, but even with that it probably was neccessary for both sides.
-
"The occupation has lasted as long as you say, but let's compare apples to apples. "
I missed where you earlier said the events were not comparable, in fact you seemed to enjoy comparing them. I am just comparing them based on their real characteristics not their imagined ones.
-
Thanks Rolex.
I can't help but point out that the Pacific War was an arena where many thousands of lives were wasted by piss-poor planing; half assed execution; cowboy leadership and innefective or out of place support elements.
It's also the place where our blunders often turned into spectacular Victories... Doolittles Raid was just a start. Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Sungo Straight; Tarawa, Leyte to name but a very few.
I can easily accept that Iwo was poorly chosen, that the defenses were underestimated, that the support bombardment was off target and not long enough... and that due to piss-poor planing; yet again; Marines died.
It's a sad commentary that our Mistakes; covered in Glory; routinely became the 'Go-To' examples for Patriotism, Valour and Bravery. Pretty much the norm for our war history; ain't it?
Again, thanks for the window, Rolex. I might not like the view; but regardless; there it is.
-
Since you mention it, are there any good videos or documentaries on the invasion of Leyte? I've read a couple of good writeups on it, but never seen much on video about the fighting in the Philippines. I try to grab ahold of whatever I can find, since my grandfather was there. It just seems kinda overlooked when it comes to the Pacific war.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Since you mention it, are there any good videos or documentaries on the invasion of Leyte? I've read a couple of good writeups on it, but never seen much on video about the fighting in the Philippines. I try to grab ahold of whatever I can find, since my grandfather was there. It just seems kinda overlooked when it comes to the Pacific war.
Try TAFFY 3 Traditions Military Videos; http://www.militaryvideo.com; VHS; 68 minutes; $19.95.
Classic screw up; complete with Hero's all around and a hail mary save. This one action epitomises the mind set of Idiot Leadership vs the ferocity and bravery of the men in the line of fire. The more I dig up on this action, the more incredulous I become...
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I didn't realize he was making a second film from a jap perspective. Kinda interesting really.
"tora, tora, tora" was filmed as two movies and then edited into one.
-
Rolex
Interesting stuff.
I can not remeber what book I read it in, but and they didnt get in an investigation in the US over Iwo, but it did talk about how many of the troops on the ground were unhappy about the bombardment and that the fast carriers left the area after the first day or so.
Leaving only escort carriers behind for air support.
-
From Rolex:
"The courage of those landing on Iwo Jima was beyond words, especially since it was soon known that 1/3 would not make out of there unhurt"
Good point. You know, when the film was being shot (I was an extra there), just climbing the first berm, our sergeant picked out ecerybody born in January and February and said: "you're dead". As soon as you are over the berm you take the first opportunity to drop like a sack of potatoes.
Then he pointed at several others depending on their positions near bombs, machine gun trails and so on and said, you, you etc etc are dead too!!!
The Japanese were well hidden some of them I didn't realize that one of the dunes was a bunker before it started shooting at us!
And mortar fire all over the place. Was a massacre.
-
Okinawa was an intense battle. The Kamakazi was used there for the first time in massive attacks. Just off the top of my head I think 27 US navy vessels were sunk and many more damaged. Cost in sailors lives was somewhere in the several thousands.......On the ground the army suffered severe casualties (30k dead and wounded) and the highest ranking general officer of the US military to die as a result of enemy action died on Okinawa.
Its no wonder the atomic bomb looked so good to US military strategists. The Japanese were putting up an insane resistance. Thank Cod they surrendered after two atom bombs were detonated.
-
Yeah Okinawa was terrible.
I knew an old Marine who was on Palau and Okinawa. Still brought tears into his eyes. It was ugly he said.
And the Japanese casualties: always in the excess of 90%. Civilian casualties in Okinawa were also very big. A lot of the population had been brainwashed into beliving that the US would kill them all and there also was a lot of starvation.
It was Okinawa as well as Iwo and perhaps Tarawa as well as the Philippines and Burma that formed the calculation formula of how many lives would be lost bending Japan and I am afraid they were not too high on their estimations.
BTW, not many people know that when the US conquered Manila the Japs went on a killing orgie. Some 100.000 civilians dead if I remember right. They basically fenced themselves in the middle town/citadel with all those people and killed almost all. If you think of that, there is no wonder the Nuke was feasible. More dead in Manila than Nagasaki. More dead on Okinawa then Hiroshima.
Cold blood....:(
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Okinawa was an intense battle. The Kamakazi was used there for the first time in massive attacks. Just off the top of my head I think 27 US navy vessels were sunk and many more damaged. Cost in sailors lives was somewhere in the several thousands.......On the ground the army suffered severe casualties (30k dead and wounded) and the highest ranking general officer of the US military to die as a result of enemy action died on Okinawa.
Its no wonder the atomic bomb looked so good to US military strategists. The Japanese were putting up an insane resistance. Thank Cod they surrendered after two atom bombs were detonated.
"The United States Navy sustained the largest loss of ships in its history with thirty-six lost and 368 damaged. The Navy also sustained the largest loss of life in a single battle with over 5,000 sailors killed and an equal number wounded. At Okinawa, US ground forces would incur its greatest losses in any campaign against the Japanese. 183,000 army and marine personnel were landed during the invasion. During those eighty-two days, the Tenth Army lost 7,613 men KIA/MIA and over 31,000 men would be evacuated due to wounds. Moreover, the largest numbers of U.S. combat fatigue cases ever recorded would occur on Okinawa."
Like Gramps said. "We had our tulips handed to us".
We sit on our fluffy couches watching our boys 'n girls an Iraq on TV behind the somber talking head, nod sagely when the president calls it a 'war' and 'tut-tut' about the poor leadership, abu graves, the mounting cost in lives.
It's a skirmish in comparison to fighting the Japanese.