Talk:Battle of Iwo Jima

What about the Japanese? The text right now is written from an US point of perspective. Possible topics: Why were the Japanese on Iwo Jima. How many involved, how many died... There were around 27,000 American deaths. The word 'kamikazi' on this page should be 'kamikaze'. Kami (god/divine) Kaze (wind).

Actually this entire article is about Japanese forces. American forces, and the battle itself, appear to be all but ignored. And no, there were not 27,000 American deaths. That's total casualties, including minor wounds. I take it, you're Japanese? Actually, I would be interested in something on the history of the island, and how the Japanese literally stole it.68.5.64.178 22:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Conquering lands during war is not "stealing." If it were, every single country on the planet would be guilty. LordAmeth 10:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

---

How many US casualties are there? The "aftermath" section says more than 20000, the statistics i the box used to say 6000. I cahnged that to 26000, but I'm not sure I'm right.

I looked at a couple of the web references listed and cited the U.S. casualty figures in the infobox. Please feel free to do more research and continue to improve the article, it needs it. Cla68 01:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

---

User:Raul654 removed the clause in Japan from the first paragraph and summarised thus:

While Iwo Jima is considered part of the Toyko Prefecture, calling it "in Japan" is dishonest

I am not sure I understand Raul's objection perfectly. Iwo Jima is a Japanese island, but there is not a single mention of its geography in the article. The article also needs a better context. If it was the phrase "in Japan" - that would suggest being part of the main land - that was the problem, I hope it is okay to call it a Japanese island. Chancemill 08:53, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was talking about. Iwo Jima something like 600 miles away from the main islands. Saying it is "in Japan" is like saying Guam is "in the United States" On the other hand, the new version of the article is fine by me. →Raul654 09:13, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

The Japanese government forcibly occupied it about 80 years before. It wasn't originally Japanese at all.68.5.64.178 22:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Gahh .... I just realised that I added missing info to a section that duplicates the section that I added the same missing info to ages ago. It was only when I wondered what idiot removed the bit about the picture being a reenactmemt and examined the page history that I realised that, for no good reason I can think of, there are in fact two sections about the photo. The first one is better, but the second one is in the right place. Seeing as I am tired enough to be messing up all sorts of things right now, I'll leave it to some other kind soul to make sense of this duplication. I had better get some sleep! (I hate Fridays. Tannin 10:25, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC))

Question to Gentgeen re: picture

Gentgeen - your picture looks better in the article (IE, it is better proportioned for the table), but mine definetely looks better zoomed in. Is it possible to display your picture while linking to mine? →Raul654 20:16, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

I thought the same thing to, but I don't think you can do that. I posted both pics at the picture's article Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Gentgeen 20:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Leyte

This article contained the sentences:

Months earlier, the Allies had landed on Leyte in the Philippines, only to find it empty of Japanese resistance. The timetable for the operation was sped up by 8 weeks as a result.

This is wrong: the battle of Leyte involved more than 50,000 Japanese. So what is the real version of events? Gdr 11:23, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Current and historical flag

This article uses the current Japanese flag, however the flag of the Japanese empire was different, containing additinal red beams radiating from the central red circle. They are seen as a symbol of the military aggressive politics like occupying neighbour Asian countries by the Japanese empire of that time. I think it would be more accurate to the historical context to use the historical flag.

It's not a national flag, but a naval ensign. Japan has never changed the national flag and the naval ensign.

Rewrite Feb 2005

I am rewriting this article. Incoporating text from the PD sources listed here [1] Ydorb

While the paragraphs about agriculture and biology aren't necessary, the physical geography part seems relevant, if perhaps a bit long:

While the northern part of the island was barren but habitable, the southern half of Iwo Jima was essentially uninhabitable. Near the narrow southern tip of the island stands Mount Suribachi, an extinct volcano, which rises to an elevation of about 550 feet. To the north of Suribachi, inland from the beaches, the ground terraces successively upward to form a broad tableland occupying most of the central section of the island. The area between the northern base of Suribachi and the dome-shaped northern plateau is covered by a deep layer of black, volcanic ash so soft and so much subject to drifting that even walking becomes a problem. Wheeled vehicles cannot negotiate such ground; tracked vehicles can move across it only with difficulty.

The northern plateau consists of several elevations; the highest of these is Hill 382, located just east of Motoyama Airfield No. 2, halfway between Motoyama and Minami; two other hills reach a height of 362 feet. Much of this terrain consists of rough and rocky ground, interspersed with deep gorges and high ridges. Sulphur vapor permeates the entire area with a characteristic smell of rotten eggs. The ground itself is hot in this part of the island.

The beaches of Iwo Jima from Kitano Point, the northernmost tip of the island, to Tachiiwa Point, two miles to the southeast, are steep and narrow with many rocky shoals offshore. They border terrain that rises sharply towards the northern plateau. Rough and broken ground is typical of all beaches on northern Iwo Jima, in numerous instances with cliffs that drop off sharply towards the water's edge. Beaches along the southwestern and southeastern shores of the island vary in depth from 150 to 500 feet and generally are free from rocks offshore. The terrain would be level, rising gradually towards the interior, if it were not for the existence of sand terraces created by the action of waves. These terraces, which differ in height and width, are undergoing a constant change depending on the surf and winds. Surf conditions at Iwo are unfavorable, even under normal conditions. The island does not possess any anchorage or other inlets to protect ships from the fury of the sea. Steep beaches bring breakers close to the shore.

—wwoods 18:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How Many Soldiers

I was kinda wondering how many soldiers were in the battle. It might be in the article but could somone post it soon. THNX

Jakob03 12:15, 23 MArch 2005

WHAT ABOUT THE BATTLE?

The article is very lop-sided in favor of "preparation for the battle". I'm surprised it doesn't say which Japanese soldier dug how many square inches in which cave. There is all of this build-up about who was brought in, what their objectives were, how they carefully planned everything out...then, it's over. The only thing I remember reading about the actual Battle is, they used "flame-throwers and grenades". It doesn't say what happened to any of the specific players in the battle, you know, from the point-of-view of the actual participants? Nobody said what it "felt like" to be there. There isn't a single, subjective account by a single Marine, Japanese soldier or general, which would have been very interesting, to bring the account to life. For example, I read a book about Iwo Jima when I was a kid, and it said, when the Marines waded ashore, there was no sound, just an "eerie silence": no bombardment, no shooting, no banzai attacks...(Sept.)

Yeah, I agree with the guy above here, or girl, it seems like an anti-climax, theres a huge build up, knowing seeminlgy, every detail about the preparations, contrastly, a very short recount of the actual seizure of the island

My impression too. A bit more geography ? Where were the landing strips ? A map perhaps ? Sub-headings on the preparation section ? Wizzy…☎ 17:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is bizarre. It's very well written, good language, entertaining, interesting, detailed - and then BOOM - nothing - wtf? Gardar Rurak 07:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me that someone was working hard on the article, but stopped after finishing the "preparation" section and never finished the actual "battle" section. There was a lot more to the battle that isn't mentioned like the last "Banzai" charge that took the U.S. by surprise, thinking that they had the island secured and that came from an area of the island that the U.S. thought no longer was occupied by Japanese troops. Hopefully, all of this information will be added soon. There's plenty of resources out there with info on this battle to use. Cla68 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternate plan

"which provided for acbcvbcv landing on the western beaches." Can someone please correct this? Skunkoceros 11:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Last Japanese Soldier

User: Sigmund1989 I found out last year that there was one soldier from the Japanese Imperial Army that remained hidden until the late 60's. He thought that the war was still going on. When American troops went to set up the memorial, he fired on them. They called out to him telling him that the war had been over for nearly 20 years. Amazing, huh?

I don't believe this is true. Do you have a reference? However, Japanese stragglers were found into the 1970's. On Guam there was Shoichi Yokoi and Hiroo Onoda was in the Phillipines. Ydorb 18:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The probability of anyone "firing on them" with 25 year old ammunition under those conditions is supremely unlikely.

How many US soldiers?

This [2] reference lists the US forces as 30,000 Marines landed the first day. I believe that the number of US Marines on the island reached a maximum of about 70,000. (Can't find a reference right now.) If you include all the sailors and airmen supporting the operation, the number could be in the 100,000 neighborhood. Ydorb 17:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The number should relfect the total number of men that fought - i.e. the sum of all reinforcements. I see various numbers from:

• "More than 100,000" total [3]
• "More than 100,000 US" [4]
• 100,000 US [5]
• "More than 75,000 US" [6]
• 75,000 US [7]
• 70,000 Marines [8] [9]

I just read William Manchester's WWII autobiography "Goodbye, Darkness" and I think he said 100,000 (I'll check later).

Stating Day 1 numbers is a little misleading since it doesn't reflect the actual number of men that it took to take the island. Does anyone have a definitive source(s) for total numbers (including replacements sent into units) ? Megapixie 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Flags of our Fathers (pgs 126-127) puts the number at a combined 100,000, of which 70,000 were "assault-troop marines". Raul654 00:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Schmidt deserves credit

I think General Schmidt deserves the respect and credit for the Command of the Amphibious Operations on Iwo Jima.

Quoted from:

CLOSING IN: MARINES IN THE SEIZURE OF IWO JIMA

MARINES IN WORLD WAR II COMMEMORATIVE SERIES

BY Colonel Joseph H. Alexander, U.S. Marine Corps (RET)

Printed in 1994 Marine Corps Historical Center Building 58, Washington Navy Yard Washington, D.C. 20374-5040

Unfortunately, two senior Marines shared the limelight for the Iwo Jima battle, and history has often done both an injustice. Spruance and Turner prevailed upon Lieutenant General Holland M. Smith, then commanding Fleet Marine Forces, Pacific, to participate in Operation Detachment as Commanding General, Expeditionary Troops. This was a gratuitous billet. Schmidt had the rank, experience, staff, and resouces to execute corps-level responsibility without being second-guessed by another headquarters. Smith, the amphibious pioneer and veteran of landings in the Aleutians, Gilberts, Marshalls, and the Marianas, admitted to being embarrassed by the assignment. "My sun had almost set by then," he stated, "I think they asked me along in case something happened to Harry Schmidt." [...] General Schmidt, whose few public pronouncements left him saddled with the unfortunate prediction of a 10-day conquest of Iwo Jima, came to resent the perceived role Holland Smith played in the post-war accounts. As he would forcibly state: "I was commander of all troops on Iwo Jima at all times. Holland Smith never had a command post ashore, never issued a single order ashore, never spent a single night ashore....Isn't it important from an historical standpoint that I commanded the greatest number of Marines ever to be engaged in single action in the entire history of the Marine Corps?" General Smith would not disagree with those points. Smith provided a useful role, but Schmidt and his exceptional staff deserve maximum credit for planning and executing the difficult and bloody battle if Iwo Jima.

All of the above was but a small excert from the very informative and interesting commemorative series written by Colonel Alexander(Ret). I think it is vitally important that the person that was the backbone of such an operation is not overlooked. Clearly General Schmidt was the driving force of this operation and deserves the majority of the credit. H60Hadgi 03:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this information very usefull for my Social Studies project at school!

Not accurate to say Japanese only used ground units.

There is a statement: "Japanese only used ground units; no planes or boats of any kind were involved" My father told me that he witnessed kamikazi attacks on ships at Iwo. I believe I also read this in a biography of Nimitz.

You are correct. The Saratoga was damaged and the Bismark Sea sunk by enemy aircraft while providing direct combat air support for the Marines on Iwo Jima. On 21 Feb, Japanese aircraft ("Kamikaze") did attack landing and naval craft at the Island of Iwo Jima. (See pages 171-174 of "The Sacred Warriors: Japan's Suicide Legions", Warner, Denis, and Peggy Warner. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1982.) - Thaimoss 13:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Question on Numbers on Troop strength, casualties, prisonser

What references is being used for the number in the infobox? From the University of San Diego History Department, casualties:

• U.S. personnel casualty total = 28,686 — 6,821 Killed 19,217 Wounded 2,648 Combat Fatigue
  • Marine Casualties 23,573
• Japanese personnel: 1,083 POW and 20,000 est. Killed

— ERcheck (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

B-quality

Why is the article B-quality? It seems much better than that. Colonel Marksman 21:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Most are, no matter how good. Join the wikiproject, write some articles and you'll see why.--Buckboard 12:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at why it failed, and fix it. I think this could absolutely be an A-class article or better relatively easily. It just needs more inline citations, and a better balance towards the battle itself (over preparations). LordAmeth 10:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

US force strength

I have changed the US force strength to

77,000 marines
100,000 total

Which I believe accurately reflects the sources listed in the above sections. Megapixie 02:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

---

There's a discrepancy in the article. The 2nd paragraph says there were 6k allied losses, but in the aftermath, it says 27k? Am I missing something? Nm, I misinterpreted a casualty as a death.

---

Yes, you are misinterpreting. Casualties, the larger figure, commonly refers to both deaths and injuries. Typically, injuries which require retiring from the field of battle. The losses, obviously, are deaths.

There is a spelling mistake on the Japanese commander's name on the right under the picture of the raising of the flag. It isn't Tadfuamichi, it's adamichi. I don't know how to fix it. Thanks

Sorry, I meant Tadamichi...

Protection

I temporarily protected the article due to frequent vandalism. -- Kguirnela 02:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)