Tuesday was an anniversary of Iwo Jima--something that needs to be brought to our attentions. My hat goes off to all the Americans who fought--were injured or killed there. WE remember......

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Iwo Jima is actually a very important chapter in the Pacific war. There was where amerikans realised what kind of enemy they were facing. An enemy they will defeat anyway but will sell the terrain very, very expensive.
The error of the Japanesse army was not to change their defensive tactics. they never improved them and their weaponry was very bad. We must not forget that it meant the whole Pacif war ( particulary the photo of the flag in mount Suribachi ). But the amerikans lost many soldiers for their own mistakes. The sea-artillery bombardment was not enough and things in the beach did not work as planned. The japanesse were doing their policy of defeating amerikans with casualties. Hurting USA's people's sensibility. Churchill said that: "Democracys cannot fight 7 years wars".

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Great posting and your correct. We lost over 5,000 killed in the battle and over 20,000 wounded. One of my uncles fought there, but came out unscathed thankfully.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Is it really possiblee to make that a "terrible loss"? That's an average day on the Eastern Front!

__________________
„Solange man nicht mit dem Kopf unterm Arm rumläuft geht es doch noch!" Erwin Rommel

Hallo Andreas--for the Americans--yes-this could be our version of the Eastern Front. This along with Guadalcanal, Iron Bottom Sound, The Solomons and Okinawa (where another uncle of mine was fighting at as a member of the 80th Inf Div under Simon Bolivar Buckner)

Another Eastern Front type of action that mainly Amis experianced of course was the Battle of the Bulge and the fighting at Monte Cassino in Italy.

Fortunately, for the average G.I.--the American High Command, didnt like the ideas of having too many "Little Big Horns" or "Stalingrads".

[ 24 February 2002: Message edited by: C.Evans ]</p>

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

I find the Battle for Iwo Jima unique because that was actually where the Japanese DID change their defensive tactics. In the past the Japanese had tried hard to repel landings. In this case the Japanese finally understood that defending the beaches was pointless. So they opted for the attrition strategy.(something they employed on Okinowa as well...this also means no banzai charges, which were terrifiying but in the long run helped the americans more than hurt them) They purposly let the Marines land on the beaches practicly unopposed until equipment and men were backed up on the beaches. That was when they unleashed their fury.
Also in regards to the bombardment it was very impressive! The only problem was that the majority of the enemy men and guns were underground safe from the bombardment...well relativly safe i guess!
And what put this battle on the history books was the ferocity of the battle. And the fact that so many died for an area of land about the size of New York's central park!
Due to the large amount of casualties for both sides (18,917 Japanese died out of 20,000) for such a small piece of land it also, along with Okinowa played a key role in the decision to use the A-bomb. (3 out of 4 Americans were killed or wounded)

__________________
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. -- Sir Winston Churchill

Indeed, Iwo Jima was a little battle with very few casualties compared with another battles of the war like Kursk, Stalingrad, Kharkov ( all the bloody Eastern front ), Italy, Sicily, The Bulge, etc. Let's not talk about Verdun or the Somme because it would be necessary to hit an amerikan if he cries about their 5.000 killed...

But amerikan sensibility do not bear casualties. They believe that a war must not have amerikan casualties... It is good that they can fight, if they would not, it would be a problem...

If the Japanesse changed their attack methods or not, they lost. And it was doomed, because how were they going to defend an island from the inside without any reinforcements, with tons and tons of amerikan equipment in the beaches? It was not worth it. Whether you stop them at the beaches or they will smash you. Von Runstedt did not understand it and you know what happened. He wanted to encircle the allied armies and destroy them like his men were used to. But the allied had total air superiority and he was not going to be able do do so. Rommel thought the right way, because he saw how Japanesse were swept from the Isles or how his own troops were been kicked by the Allies in Italy ( obviously, not easily ) and thought that they must have been stopped in the beach. If they would have had equally forces in the air, Von Runstedt would have been able to destroy the unexperienced allies inside france as he and his troops knew how.

But the Japanesse strategy nearly worked. Making casualties, killing and killing amerikans. Nice strategy. They wanted to hurt their sensibility and they did it in Okinawa and Iwo Jima. They would have achieved it entirely if amerikans would have invaded Japan. That was their strategy: killing amerikans and making them drop the towel because of the casualties. Aproximately they were going to be 100.000. I do not know from where the Japanesse had 900.000 men and 9.000 aeroplanes ( to use as Kamikazes ) waiting for the allies. But they had a problem: it was not only the amerikans, the soviets were ready too. And the casualties strategy was not going to work with them. Stalin did not give a damn for his men. He lost 11.000.000 soldiers against Germany. What did he care about another 11.000.000 against Japan? That was why the Japanesse made peace so quickly. What did they care about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? 60.000 in each one. Conventional bombings had been worse. Like Tokio: 100.000. Precisely, I do not know if you know that the beggining of the Soviet offensive was going to be on the 10th...

But amerikans and japanesse were lucky. It ended well and now Japan is the 2nd richest country in the world. There were no South and North Japan, no Tokio wall, etc...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Had an invasion occured the US would have accepted the casualties. The public would not have liked casualties...but they knew it would be the last battle...so the public would have accepted it.
And frankly i believe that the US's morals of taking as few casualties as possible has helped spur the creation of todays advanced technologies that help reduce losses to the US and increases losses to the enemy. For the US Army knows that massive losses would not be popular on the homefront...so it's a big motivator(among other things) to advance technology as much as possible to reduce losses as much as possible.
Besides...is that really a bad thing...not liking massive losses? If i was a soldier i'd be glad to know that my country tries hard to keep me from being killed!

__________________
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. -- Sir Winston Churchill

For Friedrich:

Question?

Why is it so bad that we Americans do NOT want to have a needless amount of casualties?

Im NOT attacking you in any way--im just wondering why that is so wrong?

And DEFINATELY, I am not attacking Germans for taking such huge losses during the war--simply, I was trying my best to answer a posting from Andreas.

Everyone here on these forums knows how I feel about Germans and knows of my interests in German history specializing on the Eastern Front and ESPECIALLY...Stalingrad. Some of my best friends are German ww2 vets who fought in some of the biggest battles anyone at anytime ever fought in.

I am friends with more than a few Ritterkreuztrager. I spent the day with a VERY fine gent and his frau in Hagen who is Sturmbrigade Langemarcks only RKT. I ate dinner with another RKT, who was a Gebirgrjager RKT.

I spent 2 days with all the surviving vets from U 181 who served with Wolfgang Luth and Kurt Freiwald. I am now an honorary member of their crew.

I am in contact and friends with one of Germany's top scoring Night Fighter Pilots. I was friends with the senior surviving officer from the Schlachtschiff Bismarck--Burkhard Frhr v. Mullenheim-Rechburg.

But back to my point and question:

Why is it so bad that we Americans CHOOSE not to needlessly waste our soldiers lives in a useless situation?

I am just as angered as you are in the fact that so many--WAY too many--good German soldiers lives were thrown away in many usless situations--like Stalingrad and all those Festung cities.

I welcome your reply either here or in private. Bis Bald--Carl.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Haha i always assumed your forte was the War in the Atlantic Carl! Learn something everyday!

Hello Ron--it is, but I got my starting interests on the war in the Pacific. I grew up reading books about Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal and the Kokoda Trail. I graduated to the European Theatre of Operations though.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

In agreement with Carl, why fight hard when you can fight smart. The smart fight will cost less in casualties. Is this not the goal in a war of attrition? The Germans losses were high because they were outnumbered at the time. Look at their losses in the campaigns of 39 - 41 when they had numerical superiority. Quite different than their losses during the campaigns of 42 - 45 when they were outnumbered. The Americans fought when they had to. Look at the Ardennes campaign. A fight not of their choosing yet the Germans had more losses. The Americans chose to fight smarter, not harder. Good reply Carl.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

PzJgr--thank you.... Im also hoping that if Friedrich comes back here and reads our postings--maybe he can see it from our point of views. [img]smile.gif[/img]

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Carl, I agree. I think it also helps when we are exposed to sources on both sides. You with your veteran collegues on both sides, me an my grandfathers. We are conditioned not to be biased. Makes us valuable in a sense. Don't you agree?

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

It is excellent for a country to worry about its soldiers, its youth. Some did not worry about it in WW1 and an entire generation was anhilated. I admire Adolf Hitler but I hate knowing that he killed and wasted his own men in Stalingrad and Kursk and things like that.

But my point is that I cannot bear also when an amerikan is crying ( I had a fight with a guy in ICQ ) for those 300.000 soldiers in WWII, those 350.000 in WWI and those 15.000 in Viet Nam. ( I know I must not say it but I will ) For the 4.000 on 11/09/2001... They were extremly lucky. They did not have a single city bombed, a single woman raped, nor millions of young men to cry for. Please do not misinterpretate it. I am not seeking for a fight or for someone saying the thing about the 10.000.000 Jews... OK?

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Not looking for a fight either but find it difficult to understand how it would bother anybody for a country to mourn it's loss regardless of how much or little it is. Even if the losses are under 100 as in the Gulf War. In war, there are no winners, just losers.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Dear Friedrich--who is complaining about losses? I havent complained about anything I have no control of.

This stuff happened 57+++years ago--their is no way of changing facts.

In ww2--we lost over 400,000 killed, in Korea we lost over 50,000 killed, in Vietnam we lost 58,000+++ killed. I think those are high numbers but not compared to Japanese German Russian French and British losses. Yes these are extremely high numbers for us--not by European standards. (I know this will be misinterpreted so I will explain as I get them in.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

You know, when the US public cries about 450,000 deaths in ww2 or just 100 or so in the Gulf War we are not crying and saying to the whole world look oh my god american's died feel bad for us. We are just MOURNING the dead whether it be 450,000-60,000-or 3.

I get your point about how the eastern front was SO much worse than say Iwo Jima. But i guess the point is battles like the bulge or Iwo Jima are to Americans like Stalingrad is to Germans. Those who are well educated know that the US lost a small # of men compared to Germans, Japanese or Russians.
So when Americans cry about those battles they aren't trying to say they were worse than say stalingrad...but to americans...the scale of loss on Iwo Jima or in the bulge was high...so thus we mourn just as much.
I guess the way countries of ww2 mourn there dead and battles is relative to how many losses they suffered...the germans, russians and Japanese suffered tremendous losses...so thus the battles they mourn are larger than say the one's Americans mourn...But psychologically when an American mourns for Iwo Jima...it is with the same heavy heart that a german will mourn stalingrad. That is because for the american iwo jima and the bulge mean the worst in american terms. and when germans think stalingrad they also think "the worst" too..it's all relative...did you get that?

__________________
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. -- Sir Winston Churchill

VERY well said Ron--I couldnt have said it better had I thought about it for quite sometime before posting. [img]smile.gif[/img]

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

I perfectly have gotten it. I accept that, every country has its own standars and I am sorry about all of the killed, whether they were Germans or British or Amerikans...

I will keep quiet and not fight with Amerikans, thta's why we fought 60 yeras ago for. Enough fighting.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun