View Full Version : So Sad To Fall In Battle
I have studied the Battle of Iwo Jima all my life, but only from the Western perspective. This battle has always been held up as the most significant battle of World War II involving the U.S. Marine Corps. The huge number of American casualties and the significance of the capture of this small volcanic island in the Pacific have forever made this victory stand out as the finest example of Marine bravery and determination to win, no matter the cost. Since my Father fought in this battle as a young Marine and was wounded and since I grew up to also serve my country as a Marine, I have a very personal interest in the Battle of Iwo Jima. I own many books on this subject, including one of the latest, Flags of Our Fathers, by James Bradley & Ron Powers. I have also seen the movie, by the same name, by Clint Eastwood and I have posted on here my opinion about it. Despite my lack of objectivity on this subject, my interest and need to better understand this battle, has encouraged me to read the book recently published about the Battle of Iwo Jima called , "So Sad to Fall In Battle" by Kumiko Kakehashi. The book is based on the letters of Lt. General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, the commanding officer of the Japanese forces defending Iwo Jima. His letters to family and communications to Imperial Army Headquarters and other letters from both Japanese survivors and those killed in action was also the basis for the recent Clint Eastwood film, "Letters from Iwo Jima." What I learned from this book in great detail, is how and why the Japanese defended this small island and how General Kuribayashi decided early on, before permission was granted from Tokyo, to fight the Americans not at the shore line or waters edge, as was the policy and expectation by both American and Japanese military commanders, but instead to fight from underground bunkers and positions that were built in depth on Mount Suribachi and accross the inner island. The objective was to fight as long as possible and inflict as many casualties against the Americans as possible before the expected defeat. General Kuribayashi and his men believed that they were protecting the homeland from American aerial attack and it was hoped that a long and costly battle would possibly give Japan time to negotiate peace terms. On March 26th, long after the official American capture of the island, General Kuribayashi himself led 400 surviving soldiers and sailors in a well planned attack against the Marines, it was not a Banzai attack. They inflicted 170 casualties on the American forces before the surviving Japanese were killed with a charge on Motoyama and Chidori Airfields. This is where, unknown to the Marines, General Kuribayashi fell and his unmarked and unranked body was never recovered. This book has given me much to think about and I will say that the Americans and the enemy they met on this terrible small island are both deserving of praise for their devotion to duty and the courage to fight until victory or death. I will now try to see the movie, "Letters from Iwo Jima", without either feelings of guilt or betrayal for my brother Marines and I'm sure, if I do view this movie, I will feel a great deal of remorse for all combatants of this battle.
Semper Fidelis
Wow! That's quite an about face and I'm also guessing, quite a big step for you 03Fox2/1!
I have read with interest your previous posts on the battle and the movies about Iwo Jima and thought that your views were very entrenched, although perfectly understandable, given your personal and historical links to the battle. I did not feel that I could, or should, comment on your feelings about the Japanese or the merits of these 2 films being made, not having any such links myself.
It was very refreshing to read your post above and I'm glad to read that you are perhaps now able to be a bit more objective about the former enemy. After all, I'm sure that every young man who fought and died on the island did their best to do their duty as they saw it, despite being frightened out of their wits most of the time, in a situation over which none had any control. For that reason at least, in my humble opinion, every one of them deserves some measure of compassion for what they suffered and endured.
Keep looking forward mate, best regards to you.
Reloader,
Not really an about-face, I'm just much more enlightened about the enemy on Iwo Jima and if you read this book, there is no way one can not give the Japanese soldier his due for the hardships endured before and during the invasion. Bravery is a personal issue, we each handle combat differently and sometimes the only difference between a hero and a coward is timing. The individual soldier or Marine followed orders but each in their own way wanted to live but was willing to die for something bigger than themselves. I still disagree with the Japanese way of waging war, especially their inhumane treatment of prisoners and their suicidal tendencies. I'm not all warm and fuzzy with them, but I will allow them the respect of one warrior for another. I still make a huge distinction between those who waited below ground and those who waded ashore with no cover or concealment.
Semper Fi
Bombardier
17-08-07, 07:56
This is a great thread and I would like to add a little to it if I may.
I still disagree with the Japanese way of waging war, especially their inhumane treatment of prisoners
The reason the Japanese soldiers treated prisoners with such disrespect was due to the strong belief that every soldier should die fighting rather than surrendering and that it was a dis-honourable thing to hand your self over to the enemy in the hope that you may survive the war. The Japanese soldier believed that anybody captured were the lowest of the low and should be treated that way.
Obviously nobody in the west would support that view however when you look at the culture of the Japanese at the time it is easy to see why they would feel that way.
Just like the Germans treatment of the Jews and other groups that they dis liked i dont think we can blame an singular japanese soldier for the way they behaved, perhaps moreso the indoctrination of belief and culture from there leaders and indeed their society.
It is a very complicated situation and I agree with the comments so far in that every soldier deserves the compassion of us all including those that we fought against. They after all were only doing what they believed was right at the time albeit misguided.
Obviously my comments are made based on what we know now of the Japanese conduct and the reasons they behaved in that way. Im sure if I was involved in the war at the time i would not be able to reason in this way as my experiences would not allow me to.
Im not condoning the way they treated POW's and still find it very offensive that they cannot even have the grace to admit what they did.
It is also prudent to add that we are discussing the japanese culture during WW2, the Japanese people of today, from my experiences are a great people and country and to some degree are trying to make good the errors of WW2.
This has been a enjoyable read. The clash of the two cultures, the needs of war to kill your enemy and then the frailty of the human mind.
My dad was in the China fleet before the war and eventually retired in 1957. He was on the USS Alden. I remember as a child listening to those who faught the Japanese. Another friend knows a man who is one of the few artist that survived Japanese POW camps, he was on the Bataan death march. A lot of his paintings are reminders of the Japanese treatment of POWs.
A Japanese soldier could show mercy and kindness to one POW and in the next moment bash the head open of another POW, killing him, with his rifle.
There is always a healing process after war. I have met men who fought in Europe, some became friends with German soldiers after the war. I think it is like what Bombardier is talking about, the cultures. Japanese culture was much different than the German culture.
It is sad when leaders squander men and women for their designs of conquest. One critic of WWI stated, "If the Armies did about face, their rifles would be pointed in the right direction."
I think sometimes that holds true and sometimes it does not.
Erich Remarque's book, "All quite on the Western Front.", A soldier questions why would a German farmer want to kill a French farmer when they have so much in common. It is also interesting that the books focus' on the German soldier, Remarque served in the Allies.
War seems to breed the future animosity needed to insite others to future wars.
H.
It goes without saying that any discussion about any battle or historical event from long ago should be based on the context of the reality than, not now. Hindsight and current access to records and documents, that long ago were either confidential or non-existant, can give us a much better understanding of why and how distant events happened. This is what I gleemed from the book, "So Sad To Fall In Battle".
This does not remove the responsibility or accountability of ones behavior during the time-line of this event, especially concerning war crimes. It is for history to judge the merits of a nations intentions and conduct and it is also the responsibility of later generations to accurately and honestly account for these actions. It is unacceptable to rewrite history for political expediency or to manipulate facts in order to deny crimminal behavior or to justify the actions of the few or the many.
I am familiar with the Japanese code of conduct, as taught and used during World War II, referred to as Bushido. This code was used by the Japanese military to control all behavior of their fighting forces. It is my opinion that the Japanese military, starting with Tojo, manipulated this code, which had the Emperor and worship of the Emperor by the nation, as the underlying reason for the unquestioned loyalty and obedience to all orders. This was ingrained in the culture and character of the Japanese people, in 1945. Because of this, there was no such thing as a criminal order or a war crime. The crime was only committed when an order was not followed. Death before surrender was the only honorable choice, even if this meant suicide. From the Japanese soldiers manual "Bear in mind the fact that to be captured means not only disgracing the Army but your parents and family will never be able to hold up their heads again. Always save the last round for yourself." In my opinion, this code does not release from prosecution or explain away the conduct of Japanese military forces during and before World War II. In 1937-39, the Japanese army occupied China and just in the city of Nanking, over 370,000 civilians and P.O.W.'s were killed, mostly by slaughter. Over 80,000 women and girls were raped by ordinary soldiers. To this day, the Japanese government has refused to apologize to China and there are many in the elected government of Japan that even deny these crimes. Korea was occupied and treated the same way, with the same results, and still no accountability from Japan. After the fall of Corregidor and the soon to be Bataan death march, orders were issued by Colonel Tsuji that this was a racial war and that all prisoners in the Philippines should be executed: Americans because they were white colonialists and Filipinos because they had betrayed their fellow Asians. Before his arrival in Manila, Colonel Tsuji was in Singapore, where he had over 5,000 Chinese murdered because they had supported British colonialism.
The personal bravery of the individual soldier is easier to digest and admire than the inflated bravery of a nation that vilified all of it's enemies and continues to hide behind a mask of manipulated Bushido.
Yes, it is a very complicated situation, but the correct and honorable response from Japan is actually simple to achieve and obvious to me. As I have stated before, I have no axe to grind with the modern country of Japan or the citizens of this prosperous and highly educated nation. But my position and feelings on their conduct during WW II and consequential lack of culpability has not changed. I still believe that the most dishonorable and heinous crimes were committed against American and British and other enemies of Japan during World War II, by a Japanese military that hid behind a false code of honor, non-existant for anything except justification for criminal conduct. Pretending this didn't happen, won't change the facts.
Semper Fi
That is a good point, even the most noble of human attributes will be/can be perverted by some despot to control others.
H.
Bombardier
17-08-07, 18:19
Japanese military that hid behind a false code of honor, non-existant for anything except justification for criminal conduct. Pretending this didn't happen, won't change the facts.
I agree with most you have said, however I think that to the individual soldier in the Japanese army of the time the code of honour was very real and either embraced whole heartedley or because of fear for ones self or family should they not do so.
I agree that in such a closed society and with so much peer pressure and intimidation, the code of honor was very real to the average Japanese soldier. Hence my earlier comments about those in power that used this code to manipulate the actions of those they led. Brutality was a way of life to the average Japanese soldier and they found it easier to follow orders than take the initiative on their own and act or think differently. Conformity was the norm. The attack on Pearl Harbor was successful beyond the wildest dreams of the Japanese military planners, yet the one midget submarine that was captured intact, the crew that surrendered and their families became dishonorable non-persons to the nation forever more. Their names were removed from the village register.
I believe most of the personal blame for this misuse of traditional Bushido lies at the feet of Prime Minister Tojo, someone that also used the Emperor and the power and prestige of his office to achieve unrealistic goals and sacrifices by the Japanese people. It was Tojo, in reality a dictator, that counseled for war when Emperor Hirohito wanted to negotiate peace in 1941 and it was Tojo who wanted to fight to the death in 1945, when Emperor Hirohito stepped in and stopped the war to prevent total destruction and death of the Japanese nation. I believe, after the war, Tojo was eventually hung or shot as a war crimminal. Small price to pay for so much death and suffering.
Another factor in the use of Bushido, besides peer preassure, was the initial success of the Japanese military. Why change anything that appeared to work so well and accomplish all of the military goals.
In addition, I have always wondered why the apparent lack of backbone by most of the civilized world when it came to the occupation of China by the Japanese army and the slaughter of the Chinese people, before hostilities by Japan against America and Britain. This had to encourage the rampant nationalism that fed the Bushido craze in Japan.
All of this reminds me of the genocide going on in Darfur, Africa now. We all look the other way until the collective conscience of humanity says enough !
Semper Fi
Private Parts
17-08-07, 23:56
You write with intellect and intelligence, your understanding of a fellow warrior is a credit to you as is your obvious abhoration of war.
I am UK based, but have spent the best part of forty years trying to fathom the reason for the American Civil War. Not a very civil war by any means. Talking to so many and reading a great deal, as well as looking behind the spin, I can only conclude that it came about because they were ready for it.
But I don't want to digress from your thought provoking dissection on the battle of Iwo Jima.
We all come with baggage, and our political baggage weighs heaviest of all. Film makers and authors all have such baggage, so you will never get the unbiased slant on Iwo Jima, any more than I will on the American Civil War, because authors and film makers inadvertently put their own slant on the affair. So watch: "Letters from Iwo Jima," but keep an open mind. Remember that the recent movie: "Pearl Harbour," portrayed the Japanese airman as a brave and noble warrior, when in fact, it was a cowardly attack, by cowardly aircrews. So much for Bonzai!
Private Parts,
It's hard to have one without the other and I'm pleased if you think I have both. My own opinion is that I lack many skills neccessary for public consumption but what I lack in intellect or articulation, I make up for, with passion and conviction. There are many things in life that I care not about and conversely, there are only a few things that have real significance to me. Besides the love for my wife and family, these things are the intangibles such as faith and honor and tradition and living by principles, instead of by convenience. Sometimes it is a difficuit road to be on, especially when it seems that no one else seems to care. That's why I speak up for those that need protection from revisionist historians or those that care more about pretense than fact. Most wars are fought for political or religious reasons but it is not the politicians that die in wars, it is the average man who is willing to face an unknown enemy and sacrifice his very life if need be. Bravery is a personal issue, it is not decided by who directs or plans a war but by those who fight the war. It is posessed and displayed by the participants and as such, should be recognized for what it is. They deserve to be honestly remembered for their deeds, not by the words of those who crave attention for themselves. All men are not heroes and all men are not cowards but all men are capable of heroic deeds, under the right circumstances. It is the average unknown hero who gets lost in the shuffle after the smoke has cleared and the politicians decide not only who won or lost a war and why, but what will be written and remembered about this latest conflict or war. I try to speak up for those that are indispensable in a war but are sometimes deemed expendable during the war and often forgotten after a war, this is the grunt or infantryman, the man behind the rifle and bayonet. The Generals and politicians and the civilian winners of wars may write the history books, but sometimes these very people attempt to rewrite history, for either personal gain or to achieve in peace, what they could not gain in war or sometimes, to justify the disastrous means by which the end results were gained. Just because you won a war does not mean you were rightous and deserving of victory and just because you lose a war does not mean you are worthy of defeat only and your cause was wrong. A just cause is still a just cause and political expediency, after the fact, has been the root cause of many a future conflict or war. We never seem to learn from our past, do we ?
You mention you have an interest in the American "Civil War". Read some of my posts under this forum on this site and you will begin to understand my position on this topic. This subject is almost beyond discussion here in the states, because there is so much emotion involved and so much complete rewriting of history or omission of historical facts to substantiate immoral and illegal conduct by the faction that claims victory in this war. I am Southern by birth and by history and I have many ancestors that fought for the Confederacy, some were killed, or wounded and some were captured. I have several that died in captivity, in prisons much worst than the Confederate Andersonville Prison, in Georgia. Another one of my relatives was with the 26th North Carolina, part of General Pettigrew's (Heth's) Division at Gettysburg, on the third day, referred to by some as Pickett's charge or, the high water mark of the Confederacy during this war. As far as the term "Civil War", I prefer, "War Between the States" to be more accurate or even what many in the North officially called it, the "War of Rebellion". Whatever you call it, the war was not by very definition, a civil war. It was not a war of two factions fighting for control of the entire entity of one nation. It was two distinctive and seperate factions, one the United States of America and the other, the Confederate States of America. One tried to peacefully leave, as was allowed by the Constitution, and the other tried to maintain the union by force of arms and invasion, as was not allowed by the Constitution. Both sides had their strengths and weakness but the primary issue was about sovereign state rights and the right of secession. Slavery was only a small part of the equation that later on became the focal point of the Lincoln administration in order to keep foreign intervention away(mainly Great Britain), and to give a sense of morality to the Northern cause which was rapidly fading due to frustration and low morale and high casualties.
A book I recommend, that is probably difficult to find, but worth the effort, is: Southern History of the War by Edward A. Pollard, The Fairfax Press, New York, 1990 edition. From the book: This is a facsimile of the monumental 1866 edition and is two volumes in one. Edward A. Pollard was the Editor of the 'Richmond Examiner" newspaper during the war and was also the author of "The Lost Cause." In 1866, he wrote "Southern History of the War" in order "... to convince the North... she has obtained the alliance of a noble and cultivated people, and secured a bond of association with those she may be proud to call brethren !" In so doing, Pollard bequeathed to us an uncommon and fascinating historical record-- a staunch Confederate's account of the War Between the States.
Another book is: "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Three Rivers Press, New York, New York, 2002
Semper Fidelis
P.S. sorry for the multiple editing, I hate it when I misspell, something I excel at.
SOME LITTLE KNOWN FACTS ABOUT THE WWII BATTLE OF IWO JIMA AND SOME WHAT-IFS ?
I have often wondered why American Marines attacked and invaded Iwo Jima in the conventional way of WW II island conquest. We had already experienced the jungle fighting in Guadalcanal and the terrible losses from amphibious invasions of Bougainville, Tarawa, Saipan, Guam, Tinian, and bloody Peleliu. There were then some and are now, many who believe we should have by-passed Peleliu and isolated it and starved the Japanese until the war was over. Marine casualties were over 1,336 killed or missing and over 5,450 wounded on Peleliu. Iwo Jima, of course, proved to be even more costly and after that Okinawa awaited our arrival. The location of Iwo Jima dictated that we had to invade and control its airfields. Aerial photography confirmed that after each aerial and naval attack on Iwo, repairs were made and more defensive positions were detected than before. We knew the Japanese were underground and that our efforts to deny them defensive capabilities seemed inadequate. Conventional wisdom wasn't working.
Because of its small size and topography, I have always thought that a good idea would have been to drop thousands of gallons of gasoline on Iwo Jima and ignite it, to burn for days. The direct flames and radiated heat and lack of oxygen underground may have accomplished our goals with minimal casualties to us. My idea was never tried, with the exception of napalm and flame-tanks and flamethrowers on a smaller scale, after troops were landed. But in my research, I have discovered another idea that was considered but unfortunately never attempted by American forces.
The following is from the book "Iwo" by Richard Wheeler, 1980.
"At about this time in the United States, high-ranking Americans were secretly pondering the possibility of subduing the island with gas. Neither the United States nor Japan had signed the part of the Geneva Convention outlawing gas warfare. The plan under consideration was for Iwo to be covered with gas by means of naval shells, the ships standing off at a safe distance; the gunners would be unaware they were firing gas, especially since a few high-explosive shells would be mixed in. The job done, a short wait was to follow, while the island became safe through natural decontamination. Then the Americans were to step ashore, having won the objective without receiving a single casualty. The idea seemed to be on its way toward implementation, but when the time came for the White House to make its final decision, the secret paper was marked: "All Prior Endorsements Denied--Franklin D. Roosevelt, Commander in Chief."
The President was not, it appears, governed so much by the fear of gas retaliation as by the recollection of American outrage, expressed internationally, when the Germans launched gas warfare during World War I. To use gas against Iwo Jima would be to fly in the face of America's own propaganda".
This almost seems absurd to me now, considering that the Germans were using poison gas to murder millions of people during WW II and the Japanese never respected nor abided by any of the rules or conduct of warfare per the Geneva Convention before WW II in China or during the war, while fighting American and British forces and our allies. In addition to this, only six months later, in August of 1945, President Truman did not hesitate to drop two atomic bombs on civilian targets in Japan. The duration and intensity of the naval and air bombardment of Iwo was far longer and heavier than the pre-invasion bombardment of Normandy on D-Day, June 6th, 1944 and yet made little difference to the Marines storming ashore.
Just some food for thought.
Semper Fi
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.