• Semper Fi all, 80th Anniversary of Iwo Jima

    From a425couple@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 8 15:02:13 2025
    Semper Fi all, 80th Anniversary of Iwo Jima

    first sent about a different source. here we will go from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima

    The Battle of Iwo Jima (19 February – 26 March 1945) was a major battle
    in which the United States Marine Corps (USMC) and United States Navy
    (USN) landed on and eventually captured the island of Iwo Jima from the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) during World War II. The American invasion, designated Operation Detachment, had the goal of capturing the island
    with its two airfields: South Field and Central Field.

    My note
    Japan knew they could never win.
    Their sole goal at that time was to make US victory so expensive
    in lives (actually US had more causualties than IJA, but theirs
    were mostly deaths, while ours were mostly injuries!)
    that the US would be willing to accept a negotiated peace rather
    than continue to demand Unconditional Surrender.

    April Fool! Indeed, the US chose to not have the massive losses
    of invading Japan. They decided to use Atom bombs and continue
    to demand Unconditional Surrender.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From MummyChunk@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 3 14:52:28 2025
    a425couple wrote:
    Semper Fi all, 80th Anniversary of Iwo Jima

    first sent about a different source. here we will go from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima

    The Battle of Iwo Jima (19 February - 26 March 1945) was a major battle
    in which the United States Marine Corps (USMC) and United States Navy
    (USN) landed on and eventually captured the island of Iwo Jima from the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) during World War II. The American invasion, designated Operation Detachment, had the goal of capturing the island
    with its two airfields: South Field and Central Field.

    My note
    Japan knew they could never win.
    Their sole goal at that time was to make US victory so expensive
    in lives (actually US had more causualties than IJA, but theirs
    were mostly deaths, while ours were mostly injuries!)
    that the US would be willing to accept a negotiated peace rather
    than continue to demand Unconditional Surrender.

    April Fool! Indeed, the US chose to not have the massive losses
    of invading Japan. They decided to use Atom bombs and continue
    to demand Unconditional Surrender.





    Thank you for marking this important 80th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima.

    The statistics from Iwo Jima remain sobering - nearly 7,000 U.S. Marines and sailors killed with over 19,000 wounded, versus approximately 18,000 Japanese soldiers killed out of 21,000 defenders. These numbers indeed reflect the Japanese strategy of
    attritional defense you mentioned, though it's worth noting that by February 1945, Japan's military leadership was deeply divided about war aims, with some factions still believing in potential victory.

    Your observation about casualty ratios is perceptive. The U.S. medical evacuation system and field hospitals meant more wounded survived compared to Japanese forces, who fought essentially without medical support or expectation of survival. This
    difference in casualty handling reflects fundamental differences in military philosophy.

    Regarding unconditional surrender, the historical record shows this was indeed a pivotal issue. The Japanese government's internal communications from spring 1945 reveal they hoped to use battles like Iwo Jima and Okinawa to improve their negotiating
    position, specifically to avoid unconditional surrender which they feared might mean the emperor's removal. The atomic bombs in August 1945 did ultimately lead to surrender while preserving the imperial system - an interesting historical paradox.

    The strategic importance of Iwo Jima is sometimes overlooked. Within months of its capture, over 2,400 B-29 emergency landings occurred there, saving an estimated 24,000 U.S. aircrew lives - making the terrible cost of its capture more militarily
    justifiable in hindsight.

    We should remember Iwo Jima not just for its tactical details but for what it teaches us about the complex endgame of the Pacific War, where military strategy, political calculations, and human cost became profoundly intertwined.


    This is a response to the post seen at: http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=685261045#685261045

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to MummyChunk on Tue Apr 15 20:55:28 2025
    On Thu, 03 Apr 2025 14:52:28 -0400,
    mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) wrote:

    Regarding unconditional surrender, the historical record shows this was indeed a pivotal issue. The Japanese government's internal communications from spring 1945 reveal they hoped to use battles like Iwo Jima and Okinawa to improve their negotiating
    position, specifically to avoid unconditional surrender which they feared might mean the emperor's removal. The atomic bombs in August 1945 did ultimately lead to surrender while preserving the imperial system - an interesting historical paradox.

    Well the Japanese after Nagasaki told the US "We accept unconditional
    surrender on one condition - we keep the institution of the Emperor"
    and specifically accepted an American military governor (which ended
    at the start of the Korean War when MacArthur went to Korea and wasn't
    replaced in Japan)

    They would have accepted the abdication of Hirohito if the Americans
    said they would accept Akihito (who was 11 in the summer of 1945) but Washington decided Hirohito was more likely to keep the militarists in
    check than his 11 year old son so kept him on the throne.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)