iwo jima on history channel

[DC Tom]

I don't know...he chose the lives of soldiers over the lives of civilians.

 

If the Allies had invaded Japan, far more civilians would have died. Estimates of civilian casualties in the invasion of Japan were 5-7 MILLION dead. Considering that the overall casualty rate for Japanese soldiers and civilians (of any race - e.g. Filipinos in Manila) in other late-war battles was about ten times American casualties, and considering the Joint Chiefs expected half a million American dead in an invasion, the numbers are probably in line.

 

Rule of thumb: long wars kill more people that short wars, regardless of how or with what they're fought. If you want to save lives in war, the only way to do it is to do everything in your power to end it as quickly as possible.

[BuffaloBill]

If the Allies had invaded Japan, far more civilians would have died. Estimates of civilian casualties in the invasion of Japan were 5-7 MILLION dead. Considering that the overall casualty rate for Japanese soldiers and civilians (of any race - e.g. Filipinos in Manila) in other late-war battles was about ten times American casualties, and considering the Joint Chiefs expected half a million American dead in an invasion, the numbers are probably in line.

 

Rule of thumb: long wars kill more people that short wars, regardless of how or with what they're fought. If you want to save lives in war, the only way to do it is to do everything in your power to end it as quickly as possible.

 

 

Good insight .. we also ted to forget with modern airpower that an invasion of Japn would litterally have been hand to hand - person to person combat. You have to remember that while it was ultimately cracked the Japanese held a belief that their emperor was a god and that it was honorable to die in his defense. They were not zealots in the sense some Muslims are today but they were resolute.

 

They would not have given up easily had we invaded and who knows how history would have changed.

 

As a side note we learned shortly before his death that my grandfather helped to design and fabricate the device that held and released the bomb from the Enola Gay.

[Jim in Anchorage]

If they were willing to fight to the last man, why did they surrender after the two bombs? I'm not being snarky here, I'm legitimately curious.

The emperor looked out the window and said uncle. The military would have preferred the to the last man[or child,or woman] approach. In your anxiousness to be pc, you forget the Japs were not just small Americans. How many US solders do you think put a rife barrel in their mouth and blew their brains out to avoid capture?

[DC Tom]

If they were willing to fight to the last man, why did they surrender after the two bombs? I'm not being snarky here, I'm legitimately curious.

 

It's complicated. Part of it was that the Japanese government wasn't necessarily monolithically supporting the war at that point anyway. Japanese politics of the time (inter-war years) was strange and dysfunctional as all hell: it was ostensibly parlimentary monarchy along English lines...except the head of state (the Emperor) was also a god, and the government required the active participation of serving military officers. The heads of the Japanese Army and Navy were ministerial positions, were required to be currently active officers, and were nominated by the services. And the Emperor, being a god, was generally forbidden from interfering in such pedestrian matters as actually ruling the country (such terrestrial matters being beneath a god's concerns.) Thus, since the Army and Navy could effectively block any coalition government simply by refusing to nominate their respective ministers, and the Emperor was forbidden from interfering, it was quite an easy matter for them to take control of the whole government...which they did. It was a seriously screwed up system - through the '30s, advancement through political assassination wasn't unheard of. In the Army, it was even common.

 

When the decision was made to surrender, the Japanese cabinet was split pretty evenly on the issue - the military leadership wanted to keep fighting, the civilian ministers wanted to surrender. What that usually would have meant is the dissolution of the government by the military, the execution of the "peace" ministers, and a new government that would vote in line with the military. Hirohito intervened, which shocked everyone (how would you feel if god suddenly told you "hey, knock this sh-- off"?), the government stayed intact (barely. Hirohito was almost assassinated - the fact that officers who "served god" would look to kill him when he disagreed should demonstrate how completely !@#$ed the system was), and voted to surrender (I think it was something like a 5-4 vote - I have the whole story here somewhere in my library, I'm just too lazy to look up the details right now.)

 

There's also a certain Anglo-centrism at work in the question. It wasn't just the atomic bombs; the Russians invaded Manchuria a few days later, and American submarines penetrated the Sea of Japan around the same time, both of which scared the hell out of the Japanese (Japan was very reliant on their Manchurian and Korean possessions; being cut off from them or losing them was basically the end of the world for them.) Personally, I think it was less the bombs than the Russians that scared the Japanese into surrendering (fundamentally, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no worse than the conventional bombings of many Japanese cities, and not a few German ones for that matter). But whatever the reason, it was basically Hirohito's reason.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

If the Allies had invaded Japan, far more civilians would have died. Estimates of civilian casualties in the invasion of Japan were 5-7 MILLION dead. Considering that the overall casualty rate for Japanese soldiers and civilians (of any race - e.g. Filipinos in Manila) in other late-war battles was about ten times American casualties, and considering the Joint Chiefs expected half a million American dead in an invasion, the numbers are probably in line.

 

Rule of thumb: long wars kill more people that short wars, regardless of how or with what they're fought. If you want to save lives in war, the only way to do it is to do everything in your power to end it as quickly as possible.

THANK YOU. you obviously get it, i tried to make this same point way back on page 1

 

The Japanese were increadibly brutal and fanatical. They gassed entire Chinese cities in manchuria, there are not even goos estimates to how many chinese civilians the japanese killed in the late 30's. I have read reports that were based on captured Japanese documents after the war that they had even stockpiked scores of chemical weapon caches they planned to use on invading americans on japanese soil.

 

To the Japanese their homeland was sacred and the presence of inferior foreigners (americans and allies) was unfathomable even in as desperate and hopeless of a situation that they were in late 1945.

 

see mass bonzai charges, see waves of kamakazi attacks, see death marchs, see chemical weapons, see brutal prisoner treatments. The Japanese were NOT going to just give up. If there was a mainland invasion it realistically would have been as SAVAGE as the fighting on the eastern from between germany and russia which has gone down in history as some of the most horrific and vionlent ever on the face of the earth.

 

I have been to islands in the pacific. I have personally been to guam and see where US marines stormed ashore and the battlefields and the caves the japanese were fighting till the last man in. There were japanese stragglers that refused to surrender until like 1980. they were still running around in the jungle because it would bring dis-honor to their family if they were to surrender.

 

Add all that up and its difficult for modern liberal America to put it into perspecitve where there was a titanic clash of opposing wills and political ideoligies where the survival of NATIONS and ways of life were at stake.

 

Truman mad the tough choice but the right choice.

[Dan]

THANK YOU. you obviously get it, i tried to make this same point way back on page 1

 

The Japanese were increadibly brutal and fanatical. They gassed entire Chinese cities in manchuria, there are not even goos estimates to how many chinese civilians the japanese killed in the late 30's. I have read reports that were based on captured Japanese documents after the war that they had even stockpiked scores of chemical weapon caches they planned to use on invading americans on japanese soil.

 

To the Japanese their homeland was sacred and the presence of inferior foreigners (americans and allies) was unfathomable even in as desperate and hopeless of a situation that they were in late 1945.

 

see mass bonzai charges, see waves of kamakazi attacks, see death marchs, see chemical weapons, see brutal prisoner treatments. The Japanese were NOT going to just give up. If there was a mainland invasion it realistically would have been as SAVAGE as the fighting on the eastern from between germany and russia which has gone down in history as some of the most horrific and vionlent ever on the face of the earth.

 

I have been to islands in the pacific. I have personally been to guam and see where US marines stormed ashore and the battlefields and the caves the japanese were fighting till the last man in. There were japanese stragglers that refused to surrender until like 1980. they were still running around in the jungle because it would bring dis-honor to their family if they were to surrender.

 

Add all that up and its difficult for modern liberal America to put it into perspecitve where there was a titanic clash of opposing wills and political ideoligies where the survival of NATIONS and ways of life were at stake.

 

Truman mad the tough choice but the right choice.

I agree with everything you've said. I also saw the program from the OP. It makes me wonder... is this the type of effort it would take to truly crush the terrorists inside Pakistan and other countries? There seem to be several parallels to the ideology and surrender not being an option. Would the world today even allow such a complete obliteration of people in those tribal regions?

[DC Tom]

THANK YOU. you obviously get it, i tried to make this same point way back on page 1

 

The Japanese were increadibly brutal and fanatical. They gassed entire Chinese cities in manchuria, there are not even goos estimates to how many chinese civilians the japanese killed in the late 30's. I have read reports that were based on captured Japanese documents after the war that they had even stockpiked scores of chemical weapon caches they planned to use on invading americans on japanese soil.

 

To the Japanese their homeland was sacred and the presence of inferior foreigners (americans and allies) was unfathomable even in as desperate and hopeless of a situation that they were in late 1945.

 

see mass bonzai charges, see waves of kamakazi attacks, see death marchs, see chemical weapons, see brutal prisoner treatments. The Japanese were NOT going to just give up. If there was a mainland invasion it realistically would have been as SAVAGE as the fighting on the eastern from between germany and russia which has gone down in history as some of the most horrific and vionlent ever on the face of the earth.

 

I have been to islands in the pacific. I have personally been to guam and see where US marines stormed ashore and the battlefields and the caves the japanese were fighting till the last man in. There were japanese stragglers that refused to surrender until like 1980. they were still running around in the jungle because it would bring dis-honor to their family if they were to surrender.

 

Add all that up and its difficult for modern liberal America to put it into perspecitve where there was a titanic clash of opposing wills and political ideoligies where the survival of NATIONS and ways of life were at stake.

 

Truman mad the tough choice but the right choice.

 

 

Actaully, I think we're making different points. I said the casualty estimates are realistic based on previous battles in the war, and that wars, when fought, should be ended as fast as possible (e.g., "shock and awe"), as the only thing that really correlates with casualties in war is the length of the war.

 

YOU, on the other hand, seem to be saying that the Japanese were bastards, so !@#$ 'em.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Actaully, I think we're making different points. I said the casualty estimates are realistic based on previous battles in the war, and that wars, when fought, should be ended as fast as possible (e.g., "shock and awe"), as the only thing that really correlates with casualties in war is the length of the war.

 

YOU, on the other hand, seem to be saying that the Japanese were bastards, so !@#$ 'em.

 

no i agree with your point 100% if you are capable of dealing an enemy a rapidly decisive crippling blow to make them surrender early there might be a large loss of life in the short term, but over the long term many times more people woulr die in a protracted lengthy war.

 

the only problem with shock and awe was that equipment/geogrpahic locations and tactics during the 1940's made "shock and awe" difficult. it was succesfully employed with the nazi blitkreig against inferiorly equipped poles and russia in the early stages of the war but germany couldnt maintain their advance as soviet resistance sitffened.

 

the japanese were superior after the suprise attack on pearl harbor and it took some time to get our country organized to retaliate and counter attack and from 42-45 it took 3 bloody years to fight the japanese back. with the technology available there was no available way to "shock and awe" japan in 1942.

 

The 2 atomic bombs were looked at in context of just being "a really big bomb" they had no idea of any types of radiation at that time. It seemed like the best available tool to quickly break the enemys will to continue the fight.

[dib]

You're both right. Nobody should ever have to make that decision

But alas, circumstances dictated that somebody did have to make that decision. And he made the right one

 

 

Japan made that decision on Dec. 7 1941

[tennesseeboy]

I think an important point is being missed here. Sometime in the middle of the invasion of Europe a decision was made to target large civilian populations with carpet bombing. The firebombing of Dresden and later the firebombings of Tokyo and other cities caused far more civiliam casualties than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. The fact is that suddenly civilian non-military casualties became much more effective than traditional military targets. Unfortunately I think this is accepted thinking as our and our nuclear enemy's targets are primarly large civilian populations. For what its worth both the carpet bombing of Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary given what happened more on Okinawa than Iwo Jima.

[DC Tom]

I think an important point is being missed here. Sometime in the middle of the invasion of Europe a decision was made to target large civilian populations with carpet bombing. The firebombing of Dresden and later the firebombings of Tokyo and other cities caused far more civiliam casualties than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. The fact is that suddenly civilian non-military casualties became much more effective than traditional military targets. Unfortunately I think this is accepted thinking as our and our nuclear enemy's targets are primarly large civilian populations. For what its worth both the carpet bombing of Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary given what happened more on Okinawa than Iwo Jima.

 

Well before that, actually. Witness Cologne (1942) and Hamburg (1943). But the flip side of that "morale bombing" is that cities, as manufacturing and transportation centers, were arguably legitimate military targets (Dresden certainly was).

 

It's important to note, too, that the American Eight Air Force in Europe never officially embraced any doctrine of "area bombing" - to the end, American bombers at least targeted individual industrial complexes rathern than whole neighborhoods (the fact that they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside, and thus bombed neighborhoods anyway, is indisputable, but doesn't bely the intent.) Area bombing as American doctrine was specific to the Pacific (and as I understand it, specifically LeMay's decision).

[dib]

Maybe read: 'The Burning Mountain' and 'Light as a feather' both fictional accounts but I'm sure based in reality.

[MarkyMannn]

So here is a true war story...........

 

My father was in the army in WW2, and at least of the Pacific islands he served and saw action on was Okinawa. Dad was infantry and artillery. They were clearing caves of Japanese soldiers, using grenades and flame-throwers. As he approached one cave, an explosion went off inside. He went in to find only one Jap soldier in it, who committed suicide as they came near, by holding a grenade to his body. One of the "souvenirs" he took off the soldier was a Japanese flag. The flag is about 4'x6', is significantly blood stained, and in the white of the flag is "writing" of the soldier, who he was, his family, love for country, etc...... Dad had it translated in the 80's when a visiting Japanese business man was at his company. When my Dad passed away in '94, that was the one momento of him I made sure I got. I just think of the history and meaning behind it, and wanted to be sure to preserve it, as opposed to it going to my sister and then Ebay for $10.

 

 

Continuing with the cave part, another soldier who my Dad said was a little nuts, had some pliers or some tool and used it to take out of the dead Jap soldier's mouth his teeth that had gold fillings. He got one tooth out, before the other soldiers stopped him. My Dad ended up with the tooth for some reason, held on to it for all his years, and took it with him to his grave. His logic being when he got to the other side, he would some how meet up with this soldier and return his tooth. A little bizarre for me, but those were his I guess well intentioned thoughts

[tennesseeboy]

Well before that, actually. Witness Cologne (1942) and Hamburg (1943). But the flip side of that "morale bombing" is that cities, as manufacturing and transportation centers, were arguably legitimate military targets (Dresden certainly was).

 

It's important to note, too, that the American Eight Air Force in Europe never officially embraced any doctrine of "area bombing" - to the end, American bombers at least targeted individual industrial complexes rathern than whole neighborhoods (the fact that they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside, and thus bombed neighborhoods anyway, is indisputable, but doesn't bely the intent.) Area bombing as American doctrine was specific to the Pacific (and as I understand it, specifically LeMay's decision).

you hit the nail on the head with LeMay...but he had been an advocate in Europe as well. Hiroshima was picked and "saved" from our carpetbombing campaign specifically because it had NOT been a military target but rather a major cultural capital. The thing about the carpet bombing in Europe (official or not) is that it was designed to kill civilians en masse. The fact that there were legitimate military targets was simply not all that relevant. As to Tokyo, the surprising thing is that great pains were taken to AVOID the major military and government areas.

[tennesseeboy]

In Viet nam it was ears and noses. God knows what they'll be doing in the next war. You had better believe humans become very very unappealing in combat...on either side.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

In Viet nam it was ears and noses. God knows what they'll be doing in the next war. You had better believe humans become very very unappealing in combat...on either side.

No one is saying war is glamorous or appealing... its horrible. but unfortunatly sometimes necessary.

 

The objective of war is to empose your will on the enemy to kill people and break things. it's not plesant.

[Steely Dan]

So here is a true war story...........

 

My father was in the army in WW2, and at least of the Pacific islands he served and saw action on was Okinawa. Dad was infantry and artillery. They were clearing caves of Japanese soldiers, using grenades and flame-throwers. As he approached one cave, an explosion went off inside. He went in to find only one Jap soldier in it, who committed suicide as they came near, by holding a grenade to his body. One of the "souvenirs" he took off the soldier was a Japanese flag. The flag is about 4'x6', is significantly blood stained, and in the white of the flag is "writing" of the soldier, who he was, his family, love for country, etc...... Dad had it translated in the 80's when a visiting Japanese business man was at his company. When my Dad passed away in '94, that was the one momento of him I made sure I got. I just think of the history and meaning behind it, and wanted to be sure to preserve it, as opposed to it going to my sister and then Ebay for $10.

 

 

Continuing with the cave part, another soldier who my Dad said was a little nuts, had some pliers or some tool and used it to take out of the dead Jap soldier's mouth his teeth that had gold fillings. He got one tooth out, before the other soldiers stopped him. My Dad ended up with the tooth for some reason, held on to it for all his years, and took it with him to his grave. His logic being when he got to the other side, he would some how meet up with this soldier and return his tooth. A little bizarre for me, but those were his I guess well intentioned thoughts

 

Great story sorry to hear your dad passed on. If he was Okinawa then he did his part for sure in the war.

 

BTW, what did the translation say?

[Beerball]

BTW, what did the translation say?

"Steely Dan Sucks Exhaust Pipes"

[DC Tom]

In Viet nam it was ears and noses. God knows what they'll be doing in the next war. You had better believe humans become very very unappealing in combat...on either side.

 

Anyone who wants to know how utterly miserable the Pacific War was should read Touched With Fire by Eric Bergerud. Excellent book - analyzes and evaluates the ground war at a low level (i.e. squad to company level) with much reliance on first-hand interviews, and though specific to the South Pacific in '42-'43, much if it is still relevant to warfare today (e.g. the surprising prevalence of "friendly fire" casualties). Plus, Bergerud is very readable.

 

You just reminded me of it, because I was leafing through it yesterday (looking for data on friendly fire casualties on New Georgia), and caught a part about how the Marines on Guadalcanal would pin Japanese ears to their belts as trophies. War is a pretty goddamned miserable event.

[DC Tom]

BTW, what did the translation say?

 

"Make easy money at home. Send 200 yen for details."