Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Iwo was used by thousands of B-29s, saving ten times the lives lost.
Let's not get carried away.
Approximately 6800 soldiers and sailors died taking Iwo Jima. Precisely 2251 B-29s landed on Iwo Jima. At eleven crewmen per aircraft, that comes nowhere close to 'tens times the lives lost'. And that's even if you assume that every one of those 2251 aircraft would have been lost at sea (an obvious incorrect assumption) with the loss of all crewmen (ditto).
First, B-29s put in at Iwo if there was any question at all about their fuel load, or some mechanical issue, or battle damage preventing them from making it back to base in the Marianas. Many of those landings were made in a very justifiable abundance of caution, but nevertheless the aircraft would have made it back to base if they had to push on. Second, many air crew were rescued after ditching their airplane, so the assumption that a lost aircraft meant eleven dead crew is obviously wrong. Finally, it should be noted that the total B-29 landings on the island included training flights and landings other than emergencies of any degree. These were not B-29s in distress.
It is also worth noting that Iwo Jima as an emergency landing strip for returning B-29s was used as a post-battle justification for the terrible cost of taking the island. The primary rationale for the invasion was as a base for fighters to escort B-29s to Japan. However, this ultimately proved impractical because P-51 simply weren't suitable for the mission (too high and too far), and the plan was scrapped - few fighter escorts from Iwo Jima actually took place. It was then that the casting about for some application to justify almost seven thousand dead was undertaken. And that's where the dubious "Every B-29 that landed at Iwo would otherwise have been lost with no survivors!" claim arises.
My dad used to tell me McArthur wanted to go to war with China and use nukes to win it. I know it was widely discussed at the time, but if McArthur ever recommended that, it was behind closed doors.
I recall reading that somewhere.
He was embarrassed that he'd been wrong on Chinese intervention in Korea. He was also friendly with Chiang Kai-Shek who was itching to get at Mao, for obvious reasons.
He wanted to blockade China, use Chiang's troops, and nukes if necessary.
The British and everybody else balked, not wanting to start WWIII.
Add that to the crap he was giving Truman and it is no surprise he was relieved.
I remember Mac having a very good vibes with personel in Japan when I was there. When he left Ridgeway took over and things went downhill as far as morale was concerned. He (Mac) was still OKAY in my book.
I have a theory regarding both Patton and McArthur. They were both effective war generals. The problem arose after the war. Both men wanted to keep fighting....keep killing enemies that no longer existed. Such men can be valuable assets during true global threats. Such men are inclined to become macro killers when the threat is imagined more than real.
The NSA had a listening post in Japan after WWII. Did they intercept McArthur's communications and forward them to Truman? I find this theory to be somewhat plausible.
Before panties get bunched up. I have no access to classified material. I do read books...while books are still available.
I think any soldier who wants to use weapons of mass destruction on innocent targets needs to be relieved. Civilians with similar goals? Why....we sometimes elect them. Murderers are rank amateurs..until they get elected. Or become the "power behind the throne".
Iwo was used by thousands of B-29s, saving ten times the lives lost.
Sorry not to have gotten back to this earlier, but my reply would have been mostly along the lines of Unsettomati's post. I won't cover the same ground. I'll just use the opportunity to ask you a question, if you don't mind.
As I try to track back to the truth about Iwo Jima, I find conflicting information, but quite a lot of what I find is pretty solidly aligned with Unsettomati's post, and what would have been my next post had he not beaten me to it. Trouble is, I've had trouble properly sourcing that argument. Most of it always seems to trace back to Burrell, and when i try to find confirmatory data, the trail always seems to go cold. I'm sure you're familiar with Burrell's position on this... what's your opinion of it?
Not familiar with Burrell. I deal with primary sources for the majority of my work. When I read secondary works it's mostly to see what sources they're citing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
