Iwojima: What went wrong for the Marines?
stormy0...@my-dejanews.com
Just asking, what is the main factor that causes massive casualties of the
USMC in their assault on Iwojima? Improper planning? Underestimation of the
Japanese defenders? Or my Japanese grandfather favorite reason: The American
Infantry rely too much on firepower and lack of patience. ( He is a IJN Naval
Landing Force veteran and recently pass away )
Cheers and regards.
Reality is based on prejudice.
Get ahead or get out.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
George Hardy
stormy0...@my-dejanews.com says:
>
>Just asking, what is the main factor that causes massive casualties
>of the USMC in their assault on Iwojima? Improper planning?
A shift in Japanese tactics. They shifted to inflicting maximum
casualties on the US, not in winning, per se. We also see this
concept in their defense of Okinawa. The Japanese decided that
the war could not be "won", but that there was hope of a negotiated
settlement if casualties were high enough. And, they were correct!
Unconditional surrender was changed into unconditional surrender
of the Japanese armed forces. The Japanese government and Emperor
remained. In stark contrast to what happened in Germany.
GFH
***************************************************************
http://www.ankerstein.org/
The Anchor Stone Building Set (Anker-Steinbaukasten) Home Page
See what makes me tick.
***************************************************************
TMOliver
>
> Hello,
>
> Just asking, what is the main factor that causes massive casualties of the
> Japanese defenders? Or my Japanese grandfather favorite reason: The American
> Infantry rely too much on firepower and lack of patience. ( He is a IJN Naval
> Landing Force veteran and recently pass away )
>
>
least of which was the almost suicidal devotion to duty
of a large percentage of the Japanese defense force. One
might spend more time looking at the caliber and efforts
of the troops involved on both sides and less time
searching for "mistakes". Other than waiting a few
months to sanitize the horrible few acres with a nuclear
weapon or bypassing (neither acceptable because of the
need for a bingo field plus to cut a source for Japanese
INTEL on inbound air raids), what were the choices.
Some days ain some places there are few alternatives to
the deaths of too many men. I suspect that realists on
the Allied staffs understood quite well the potential
price of a ghastly few acres of black volcanic grit (and
the commanders were willing to pay it, for why should we
expect any lower level of dedication on the part of
'merkins than of the legendary Nipponese troops, willing
to die for the Emperor).
--
TMOliver, el pelon sinverguenza
>From a small observatory overlooking McLennan Crossing
- VESPER ADEST IUVENES CONSURGITE -
Catullus
Steve Sundberg
wrote:
>
>Unconditional surrender was changed into unconditional surrender
>of the Japanese armed forces. The Japanese government and Emperor
>remained. In stark contrast to what happened in Germany.
George, I think we've traveled this road before. There was a stark
difference between the German and Japanese wartime governments: the
former was a military dictatorship; the latter was parlimentary, led
for a time by an Army general elected to the Diet. When the German
army surrender to the Allies, that meant it's government also had to
surrender; when Japan's forces surrendered to the Allies, it's
government continued functioning per international law.
As a result of this difference, Germany was ruled post-war by a de
facto Allied military government. On the other hand, Japan's civilian
government continued ruling but under the guidance of an Allied
military occupation.
Perhaps you don't understand the subtleties of this matter?
_.,-*'`^`'*-,._.,-*'`^`'*-,._.,-*'` | Recipes From Most All Of Asia
http://www.straitscafe.com | The Straits Cafe Virtual Restaurant
Asian Cookbooks & Travel Guides | http://www.straitscafe.com/books.htm
Mike Fester
: In article <7b1dt8$137m$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
: stormy0...@my-dejanews.com says:
: A shift in Japanese tactics. They shifted to inflicting maximum
: casualties on the US, not in winning, per se. We also see this
Nope.
The Japanse didn't change tactics; other than Guadalcanal, Japanese
troops were required to hold their ground, or die trying. This did
not change throughout the war.
: concept in their defense of Okinawa. The Japanese decided that
: the war could not be "won", but that there was hope of a negotiated
: settlement if casualties were high enough. And, they were correct!
No, they weren't.
: Unconditional surrender was changed into unconditional surrender
: of the Japanese armed forces.
Uh, nope.
The Japanese surrendered under the terms announced in the Potsdam Declaration.
It was at THAT POINT Anami felt he could negotiate. He couldn't.
: The Japanese government and Emperor
: remained. In stark contrast to what happened in Germany.
Trivially, Germany didn't have an Emperor. More seriously, no, the Japanese
government did not remain. It was removed. And the Emperor had his
role changed considerably.
Really, Mr Hardy, a modicum of reading would clear up most of your
misconceptions here.
Mike (remove "@eyrie.org" to reply)
E.F.Schelby
>On 24 Feb 1999 22:43:27 GMT, George Hardy <geo...@mail.rlc.net>
>wrote:
>>Unconditional surrender was changed into unconditional surrender
>>of the Japanese armed forces. The Japanese government and Emperor
>>remained. In stark contrast to what happened in Germany.
>
>There was a stark difference between the German and Japanese wartime
>governments: the >former was a military dictatorship; the latter was
>parlimentary, led >for a time by an Army general elected to the Diet.
>When the German >army surrender to the Allies, that meant it's
>government also had to >surrender; when Japan's forces surrendered
>to the Allies, it's >government continued functioning per international law.
>As a result of this difference, Germany was ruled post-war by a de
>facto Allied military government. On the other hand, Japan's civilian
>government continued ruling but under the guidance of an Allied
>military occupation.
>
>Perhaps you don't understand the subtleties of this matter?
It's a little difficult to understand the subtleties of this matter
- and I can't claim that I do. However, is it possible that in
Germany the Allies didn't understand them either? <quote>:
"The legal consequences of the German military surrender
on May 8, 1945 are still disputed, especially with the
continued application of the Hague Regulations. The Allied
Powers repeatedly declared that the state of war with
Germany continued, but they also asserted that the
limitations imposed by the Hague Convention no longer
applied. The better view is that the Hague regulations
were intended to remain in force until a peace treaty
was signed, and not just until the cessation of
hostilities. Otherwise, die possibilities of abuse
would remain wide open."
This was followed by the general instrument of surrender, the Berlin
Declaration of June 5, 1945, which <quote>
"indicates unequivocally that complete subjugation had not
taken place, since the Allies expressly provided that their
assumption of the authority over Germany did not
constitute annexation."
As far as I know, a peace treaty didn't/couldn't materialize because
the Allied powers had a falling out with each other.
Quote from Alfred M. de Zayas, East European Quarterly, Vol. XII,
No. 1,2 - University of Colorado, 1978.
Regards,
ES
T.Young
I think the reason for the high casualty rate was due to the fact that the
japanese were deeply dug in to the Island itself,letting the marines come to
them(fighting on their terms not the marines).I dont think anything went
WRONG for the marines,they took the Island Eventually but it had a hell of a
pricetag on it.
T.Young
Steve Michaels
>
> George, I think we've traveled this road before. There was a stark
> difference between the German and Japanese wartime governments: the
> former was a military dictatorship; the latter was parlimentary, led
> for a time by an Army general elected to the Diet. When the German
> army surrender to the Allies, that meant it's government also had to
> surrender; when Japan's forces surrendered to the Allies, it's
> government continued functioning per international law.
>
Also keep in mind that although the Japanese government was allowed to
stay, they also had to adopt a new constitution that was for the lack of
a better word, forced on them by MacArthur. All industry geared for
warfare was dismantled and Japan was allowed to have a modest defense
force. On the other hand, Germany was allowed to rebuild their armed
forces to a much higher level in response to the Soviet threat. Japan
merely relies on US military for thier defense.
--
Steve Michaels
19th US Infantry
http://members.xoom.com/BillyYank
"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you find a rock."
Will Rogers
Bill Lambrukos
targets of US soldiers while they could not even see the Japanese. The
Japanese had to be dug out using dangerous tactics all over tha island. I
am fortunant enough to have a father that took part in the battle who is
still around to tell me about it...It never fails to amaze me what those
boys did !
Bill
Othmer
Bill Lambrukos wrote in message ..
>Absolutely right. You had over 20000 Japanese dug underground who had
>clear targets of US soldiers while they could not even see the Japanese.
What "US soldiers" were on Iwo? There were United States Marines on Iwo, but
United States Marines are not "US soldiers" Don't let them here you call
them "soldiers" if you don't want to have the United States Marine Corps
after you.
Jim Carew
LCDR1635
>United States Marines are not "US soldiers" Don't let them here you call
>them "soldiers" if you don't want to have the United States Marine Corps
>after you.
I agree that it is generally incorrect to refer to members of the USMC as
soldiers. They are Marines (and the capitalization is also appropriate
--"Marine" in this case is a proper noun).
A small point, though -- while Iwo was fundamentally a USMC opertion, there was
one small unit of Army support troops (African American IIRC) on IWO. I can't
recall if they were stevedores or amphibious truck drivers. And, of course,
once the first B-29 made an emergency landing on Iwo, there were members of the
Army Air Force --soldiers--on Iwo.
>
>
John Eckhardt
John D Salt
LCDR1635 <lcdr...@AOL.COM> wrote:
[snips]
>I agree that it is generally incorrect to refer to members of the USMC as
>soldiers. They are Marines (and the capitalization is also appropriate
>--"Marine" in this case is a proper noun).
How intriguing. Can anyone give a reason for making this distinction?
It seems odd to insist that a serving paid member of the regular forces
equipped and trained to engage in infantry combat is anything other
than a soldier.
As far as I know it's not distinction made with any other kind of
soldier -- e.g. the Royal Marines are soldiers, even though they're in
the Navy, and the RAF regiment are soldiers, even though they're in the
air force.
As a supplementary question, is this a new thing, or was this distinction
drawn during WW2?
All the best,
John.
--
John D Salt Dept of IS & Computing,| Barr's Law of Recursive Futility
Brunel U, Uxbridge, Middx UB8 3PH | [BLORF]: If you are smart enough
Disclaimers: I speak only for me. | to use one of these... you can
Launcher may train without warning.| probably manage without one.
sonny hays-eberts
<angieanne...@cwix.com> wrote:
> What "US soldiers" were on Iwo? There were United States Marines on Iwo, but
> United States Marines are not "US soldiers" Don't let them here you call
> them "soldiers" if you don't want to have the United States Marine Corps
> after you.
army units used as assault forces....
471st (attached to 5th marine), 473rd (attached to VAC) , 476th (attached
to 4th marine) assault truck co's and the 138th AA artillery group, which
included a reinforced field hospital, signal warning and other
communication companies and two port companies along with it's gun bttns.
the 138th had units attached to the 4th and 5th marines.
there were also army forces used to garrison the island, and which saw
action up until march 26th. primariliy the detached 147th Infantry, an
Ohio Nat'l Guard unit plus the some fighter commands and squadrons.
Steve Ewing
John D Salt wrote in message <7bjru0$lll$1...@hebe.brunel.ac.uk>...
>
>How intriguing. Can anyone give a reason for making this distinction?
>It seems odd to insist that a serving paid member of the regular forces
>equipped and trained to engage in infantry combat is anything other
>than a soldier.
>
>As far as I know it's not distinction made with any other kind of
>soldier -- e.g. the Royal Marines are soldiers, even though they're in
>the Navy, and the RAF regiment are soldiers, even though they're in the
>air force.
>
>As a supplementary question, is this a new thing, or was this distinction
>drawn during WW2?
>
>All the best,
>
>John.
>--
>John D Salt Dept of IS & Computing,| Barr's Law of Recursive Futility
>Brunel U, Uxbridge, Middx UB8 3PH | [BLORF]: If you are smart enough
>Disclaimers: I speak only for me. | to use one of these... you can
>Launcher may train without warning.| probably manage without one.
At risk of getting wildly off-topic, and openly wondering if the genesis of
an American service branch in the 18th century can be considered to be as on
topic as the genesis of the panzer force in the 1930's:
The distinction was drawn, as best I can make out, right about the time of
the Revolutionary War. At least to hear the Marines tell it. The Marines
as we know them today were established by an Act of Congress in 1798. They
were, as Col. Alexander put it in A Fellowship of Valor, to be "a separate
and distinct armed force 'in addition to the present Military
Establishment.' Further, the Corps would ever thereafter hold the special
mission, in addition to service afloat, of conducting 'any other duty on
shore, as the President, at his discretion shall direct.'" They've always
considered themselves special because of such personal service, and started
to feel real esprit de Corps during the fights with the Barbary pirates.
"To the Shores of Tripoli." According to USMC legend, the Mameluke sword,
that icon of the Marine religion, dates from this conflict. They've never
felt like mere ocean-going soldiers ever since, and if you have to put a
date on the difference, 1803 is as good as any, at least in my non-Marine
opinion.
As far as infantry combat, the original purposes of the USMC centered on
shipboard combat. Security, boarding, sniping, etc. The occasional landing
happened, right from the start, also, but it was nowhere near the scale in
W.W.II. Infantry combat, in the classic sense, was not their stated
purpose, which is not to say that they didn't do it, right from the start.
What do you want from 900 men? Their status as troops already embarked on
ships gave them the first taste of being a rapid reaction force "as the
President, at his discretion shall direct," and their ties to the navy were
very useful in WW1 when the army informed the Commandant that there was no
space for the Marines on the army transports. I still don't know how he
kept a straight face during that one. The army telling what is functionally
the navy that they couldn't have ships?
As another consideration, the Marines were a small force. ISTR the
Commandant of the Corps hanging a note on his door during the War of 1812,
saying something like, "Back when the war is over." They were small enough
for the entire force to go to war. As many small forces do, they began to
consider themselves elite. Part of being elite is being different. If the
other guys are "soldiers," then the marines become "Marines." As many
forces priding themselves on being elite do, they began to behave that way.
Their service as infantry (and other arms) during wars from 1776 to the
present has been fairly impressive. Not as impressive as the Marines would
have you believe, but that's another story ;-)
Yet another consideration is that they absolutely were NOT the army. If the
US wanted to flex some muscle, but show some restraint, they sent in the
Marines. It's kind of a cross between flexibility, economy of force, and
plausible deniability. "It's not like we sent in the army....." In the 33
years of "peace" the US enjoyed between 1865 and 1898, ISTR the Marines
seeing action 32 times. Latin America, the Caribbean, the Philippines,
let's repeat Latin America a few times, but you had the idea. At any rate,
this allowed them to be so different, and probably accounts for another part
of why they're not called "soldiers."
Hope this helps. Any errors are entirely mine.
Steve Ewing
defrost to reply
Georg Schwarz
> George, I think we've traveled this road before. There was a stark
> difference between the German and Japanese wartime governments: the
> former was a military dictatorship; the latter was parlimentary, led
> for a time by an Army general elected to the Diet. When the German
uh, I guess rather the opposite would be at least a bit more
appropriate. Germany was by no means a *military* dictatorship; Hitler
was not a military person in the first place, he was a professional
party politician (who, as many others, happened to have served in WW I
as a low rank in his younger years).
The military, i.e. the Wehrmacht, did not rule Germany, not at all -
unlike Japan, where the military for years had been running the show
with parliament being more and more powerless.
> army surrender to the Allies, that meant it's government also had to
> surrender; when Japan's forces surrendered to the Allies, it's
> government continued functioning per international law.
but not because of the reasons you put forward.
--
Georg Schwarz sch...@physik.tu-berlin.de, ku...@cs.tu-berlin.de
Institut fur Theoretische Physik +49 30 314-24254, FAX -21130
Technische Universitat Berlin http://home.pages.de/~schwarz/
Patterson, Dallas
>
> In article <7bjpqk$1572$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
> LCDR1635 <lcdr...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> [snips]
> >I agree that it is generally incorrect to refer to members of the USMC as
> >soldiers. They are Marines (and the capitalization is also appropriate
> >--"Marine" in this case is a proper noun).
>
> It seems odd to insist that a serving paid member of the regular forces
> equipped and trained to engage in infantry combat is anything other
> than a soldier.
>
> As a supplementary question, is this a new thing, or was this distinction
> drawn during WW2?
Here's my explanation...
The dictionaries define a soldier as a person performing military service.
They seem to emphasize this military service is usually upon land. Certainly
the earliest combatants regarded themselves as soldiers whether or not they
fought upon land or sea. The Romans sailing (and rowing) their warships out
of the naval base at Brundisium certainly considered themselves to be
soldiers of the Roman Empire and a form of naval infantry taken into battle
by their mariners, the sailor men <g>. Many a general in command of an army
and/or a fleet styled himself as a Soldier and Admiral of the Ocean
Sea, and continued to command the 'soldiers' and the 'sailors' of a battle
fleet for many periods of history. It was only in the more 'modern'
centuries that the terminology became more specialized and fixed. But that
is another story....
The dictionaries define a marine as the member of a subclass of soldiers
serving aboard a ship or with a naval force. Glossaries with a more military
point of view tend to indentify a marine as a type of soldier serving aboard
ship or with a shore establishment in the role of naval infantry.
More specifically, the dictionaries define the person of a Marine as a
soldier who is a member of the U.S. Marine Corps. The origin of the term
'marine' I've seen dated from 1669. The capitalized definition of Marine
seems to be associated with the existance of the U.S. Marine Corps, or
sometime during the past two centuries.
The WWII era Marine seems to have learned in training that he is 'more than
just a simple soldier', as they say. "He is a United States Marine!" (They
turn them out of boot camp that way, don't you know <g>.)
Now, which of the, <ahem> shall we say, more informal names for members of
the armed services were in use during WWII, i.e. doggie, octopus, airedale,
squid, gyrene, doughboy, etc.? Who would like to also provide us with
insight about the 'informal' names used among the German, British, Soviet,
and other armed forces of WWII???
Soldier, sailor, marine, airman, or Seabee; Tommy, Rupert, Boche, Hun,
or Kraut; kriegie, dogface, or Sad Sack...a soldier by any other name is a
soldier all the same???
Dallas Patterson
n...@fidalgo.net
Bill Lambrukos
their carbines and fought cave to cave as there was not need for the AA
fire.
Bill
Probe
How ridiculous!
Capitalized, "the Marine" at one time meant "the whole Body of a Navy or
Fleet" (1706). That's the way the French used the term, and they invented
it. Since the late 17th century, however, the elder brothers-at-arms who
inspired the US Marines, the English Royal Marines (who would regard any
claims by the US Marine Corps to be their equal or superiors as utterly
derisory), have always been "marine soldiers". If you look up "marine" in
the Oxford English Dictionary, the word is defined as "a soldier who serves
on board a man-of-war; one of a body of troops enlisted to do military
service on board ship, also at dockyards, or on shore under certain
circumstances."
But then marines in Britain as well as in the USA have always had a
reputation for gullability. Hence Lord Byron's note in 1824 that the phrase
"That will do for the marines -- the sailors won't believe it" was an old
saying: thereby the origins of that mocking phrase which still persists,
"Tell it to the marines!"
Still, where would they be, in a tight spot, between the devil and the deep
blue sea, without the wide-eyed esprit and boldness undeflected by thought
for which they are justly famous and which come from a century or two of
indoctrination and heads filled solid with half-remembered legends?
But why do they crave for the rest of us to take it so damned literally and
humorlessly?
John D Salt
Patterson, Dallas <n...@mail.fidalgo.net> wrote:
[Convincing response to an earlier question of mine snipped - Thanks!]
>Now, which of the, <ahem> shall we say, more informal names for members of
>the armed services were in use during WWII, i.e. doggie, octopus, airedale,
>squid, gyrene, doughboy, etc.? Who would like to also provide us with
>insight about the 'informal' names used among the German, British, Soviet,
>and other armed forces of WWII???
That sounds as if it could make an interesting thread, and it's
a subject I don't recall being kicked to death on this group
lately...
The first distinction to draw seems to be between slang terms
for friends and those for enemies.
ISTR that a British term for a Grenadier Guardsman was "Bill
Brown". The only use I have seen of it I believe was by
a pre-war regular soldier. I don't think it have been very
common, and perhaps it didn't survive the war.
British soldiers have been "Tommy Atkins" since at least the
turn of the century, but I think the habit of referring to
infantrymen as "Toms" is modern. "Tommy" seems to have
been used by the Germans, but I don't know about other
nationalities.
"Pongo", used by the other British services of the Army,
seems to be WW2 vintage, but I don't recall "crab", for
the RAF, from any WW2 sources; "fly-boy" seems more
likely. Sailors have probably been "Jack" for even longer
than soldiers have been "Tommy", and Royal Marines have
been "Jollies" at least since Kipling wrote his poem
about them.
George MacDonald Fraser mentions "Johnny" for the Gurkhas
in WW2.
I have no idea how commonly the German "Frontschwein"
and the roughly-similar Russian "Frontovik" were used,
but I believe both to be of WW2 vintage.
As to enemy forces, I understand that the Indian Army
had the most general catch-all term, "dushman" simply
meaning "the enemy".
A term used in the Italian campaign for the Germans
was "Teds", which sounds much cuddlier than the usual
words, being simply a contraction of the Italian word
for German.
The British 7th Armoured Division took pride in
the name "Desert Rats" from their jerboa badge, and
an intelligence summary from the division's war diary
indicates that a captured German used the term
"Wustenmauser", "desert mice", for the division. I'm
not at all sure about that final "r", and I don't know
if that is the correct German term for a jerboa.
I'd be very interested in further contributions on
the topic, especially from the non-Anglophone
readers of the group.
Brad Meyer
Fester) wrote:
>George Hardy (geo...@mail.rlc.net) wrote:
>: In article <7b1dt8$137m$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
>: stormy0...@my-dejanews.com says:
>
>: A shift in Japanese tactics. They shifted to inflicting maximum
>: casualties on the US, not in winning, per se. We also see this
>
>Nope.
>
>The Japanse didn't change tactics; other than Guadalcanal, Japanese
>troops were required to hold their ground, or die trying. This did
>not change throughout the war.
On the contrary, several island campaigns featured "Banzi" attacks,
the furthest thing in the world from holding one's ground. It really
wasn't until Baik that the Japanese varied the tactic. My dad helped
fight off a huge banzi on Orote Peninsula on Guam.
Brad Meyer
"It is history that teaches us to hope"
-- R.E. Lee
Louis Capdeboscq
>a subject I don't recall being kicked to death on this group
>lately...
A very interesting subject indeed. I'd love to see what others have to say
about it.
>I'd be very interested in further contributions on
>the topic, especially from the non-Anglophone
>readers of the group.
Well, first I in reference to this "marine" thread, it comes from the French
for "navy" (marine). "Troupes de marine" were initially like the British
Royal Marines: soldiers stationed aboard a ship against mutiny, to provide
additional fighting manpower in naval actions (the French tried
unsuccessfully to make good for bad crew training by adding soldiers to the
ships), to conduct raids and the like. By 1939, it was a separate body of
troops, a bit like the USMC except that it was part of the Army. For obvious
reasons, they were the troops that had conquered most of the colonies and
they were mostly stationed there. Therefore, these "troupes de marine" were
not specialized in amphibious actions, and a more accurate translation would
be "colonial troops". The branch was refered to as "La Coloniale", and they
considered themselves as a notch above the regular troops. They still exist
today and some of their units are elite: the RPIMAs (Regiments of Colonial
Paratroopers) are just as good as the Foreign Legion.
The soldier serving in "troupes de marines" is called "marsouin" (purpoise).
This is the official name today, like "seaman" or "private". Don't know when
it became official. The Navy itself was called "La Royale" (the Royal one)
either because its ministry was on Royal Street in Paris or because it was a
more aristocratic corps. The infantry was refered to as "la biffe" (it was
slang, and slightly pejorative) and the infantrymen were therefore "biffins"
(also meant "ragman" in slang). I don't remember what the other arms were
called, but people serving in the tank forces were "cavalos" a slang
derivative from cavalry. I read about "aviettes" (like a mixt between the
French for "plane" and "lark") in Closterman's book but I don't know when
exactly it was used.
As to how to call the enemy, there were of course numerous words to call the
Germans. The most common one was "Boche", so some people would refer to
Germanie as "La Bochie", but there were many others. I remember a movie
where a little boy is learning his lesson about all these names, they
include "doryphores" (means "Colorado beetle") because they took everything,
"vert-de-gris" (verdigris) after the color of their uniform, "chleus" (slang
for Germans, still used today to some extent), etc. The Italians were
"Ritals" but it was a slang term that was already used to designate the
Italian immigrants before the war, the Americans were simply "les Ricains",
and I know so many words about the British that I don't know which ones were
used at that time :) More seriously, I don't think there really was a
popular slang term for "British".
Drazen Kramaric
Fester) wrote:
>: A shift in Japanese tactics. They shifted to inflicting maximum
>: casualties on the US, not in winning, per se. We also see this
>
>Nope.
>The Japanse didn't change tactics; other than Guadalcanal, Japanese
>troops were required to hold their ground, or die trying. This did
>not change throughout the war.
As late as Saipan Japanese were concentrating their efforts to prevent
successfull landing and subsequent consolidation of bridgehead. Note
the heavy counterattack at Saipan that included tanks.
At Iwo Jma and Okinawa (except for one attempt) Japanese did not
venture in the open and were fighting the delaying battle.
It was heavy casualties at Iwo Jima and Okinawa that worried merican
generals with regard of invasion of Home Islands.
Drax
for reply, delete NOSPAM from my e-mail address
Mike Fester
: On 25 Feb 1999 10:04:12 -0800, mfe...@iisc.com@eyrie.org (Mike
: Fester) wrote:
: >The Japanse didn't change tactics; other than Guadalcanal, Japanese
: >troops were required to hold their ground, or die trying. This did
: >not change throughout the war.
: the furthest thing in the world from holding one's ground. It really
Nope.
The banzai charge is the final attempt to hold ground against the enemy. It
is not a change in tactics, simply the (il)logical extension of hold your
ground at all costs.
Again, that did not change throughout the war.
Tim Watkins
> ...what is the main factor that causes massive casualties of the USMC
> in their assault on Iwojima? Improper planning? Underestimation of
> the Japanese defenders? ...
Aside and apart from the fact that 22,000 Japanese defenders were in the
island, and not on it when the island was invaded, here are some of the
reasons I believe the USMC paid a heavy price for taking Iwo Jima. Note
that I believe that there was no main factor, but many collateral factors
that combined to produce high casualties:
1. As early as September 1944 Iwo Jima could have been invaded and taken
much easier and with fewer casualties than by February 1945. Kurabayashi
used this critical time to build up and strengthen the installations and
defenses on the island. Nimitz knew that the Navy, even with a vast
armada of ships, stores, and men, could only support one major operation
at a time, and MacArthur's Philippines operation was under way. Thus
Detachment had to be postponed, first to January, then to 19 February
1945.
2. Insufficient pre-invasion shelling from the Navy. Holland M.
"Howlin' Mad" Smith wanted a full ten days of pre-invasion shelling. He
was told by Nimitz he would get four days if the weather was good, but
only got three days of shelling. Just prior to the shelling of Iwo, part
of Nimitz's fleet was off the coast of Honshu shelling installations and
strafing airfields there. Smith felt that, as Iwo was the next big
operation and not the invasion of Japan itself, the balance of Spruance's
fleet off Japan should have been at Iwo instead. And, at the same time,
the Navy had not yet recovered the six battleships of the Seventh Fleet
supporting MacArthur's operation. Thus, Smith felt that there was not
enough 14 and 16 inch HE during the three days of shelling that Smith did
get.
3. The shelling that Iwo received did not penetrate all of the hardened
and fortified emplacements and blockhouses. Many of the walls of the
blockhouses and pillboxes were more than 3 feet thick, constructed of
steel-reinforced concrete. Of 915 major installations, less than 200 had
been knocked out by D-Day. Once ashore, Marines found that 75mm tank
shells, and 75mm and 105mm Howitzer shells could not take out these
hardened positions; it finally took 155mm Howitzers to do the job
combined with flame throwers and TNT charges. Even with satchel charges
thrown through the gun slits, the charges would only take out one room of
a bunker, and leave the other rooms intact. The higher-angle delivery of
aerial bombs had a more pronounced concussive effect on the labyrinth of
caves than the lower-angle trajectory of large-caliber shells fired from
ships offshore; however, bad weather reduced the B-17 and B-24 strikes
that were carried out on Iwo from bases in the Marianas. The main body
of the Japanese garrison force remained physically intact. To add to the
problems, almost half of the napalm bombs that Marine flyers were
dropping on Suribachi were duds; many of the gun emplacements on
Suribachi were not neutralized, and chewed up the 5th MarDiv landing
beaches of Green, Red 1 and Red 2.
4. Landing parties bogged down on the landing beaches when tanks and
vehicles hit the soft lava sand. The volcanic ash from Suribachi
rendered the sand unable to support tank treads and wheels, and this
produced a tremendous logjam. It was H+10 before steel mats were brought
in by Seabees; meanwhile the beaches became cluttered, and movement onto
and off the beaches was slow. At H+4, Kelly Turner had to shut down the
beaches for 2 hours so that the blockage could be partially cleared.
Even though whole blood was used for the first time and found to be
superior to plasma in pulling a Marine, Corpsman, or Seabee through heavy
shock, many wounded died when they could not be transported back to
hospital ships. To add to the confusion, five foot high surf was
swamping many of the LC's and DUKW's upon approach to the beaches. And,
once ashore, many Marines could not dig foxholes for cover, as the soft
lava sand would only flow back and fill in the dug-out hole.
5. Marines found they had to take Iwo the hard way, pillbox by pillbox,
bunker by bunker, and cave by cave. The Japanese conducted an effective
defense, making maximum use of their artillery, mortars, mines, and
automatic weapons, and did not waste themselves in costly banzai charges.
The Marines, utilizing frontal assaults, were forced to come to them
and, in doing so, exposed themselves to the concealed enemy. Many
Marines never even saw them.
Those are just some of the factors that made for high casualties. There
are many more. When Roosevelt was told of the staggering losses at Iwo
on D+1, he was seen to gasp in horror. Staff around FDR noted that they
had never seen him do that.
Tim Watkins
"The price has been heavy, but the military value of Iwo Jima is
inestimable. Its conquest has brought closer the day of our final
victory in the Pacific."
- Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
George Hardy
mfe...@iisc.com@eyrie.org (Mike Fester) says:
>The banzai charge is the final attempt to hold ground against the
>enemy. It is not a change in tactics, simply the (il)logical
>extension of hold your ground at all costs.
No, you are wrong. The banzai attack is an attempt to wring a
victory out of a bad situation. Read about the Cho - Yahara
strategy debate. Read about the US casualty levels (compared to
the Japanese casualties) on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, as opposed to
Saipan. Holding your ground is not a winning strategy, but one
intended to kill the enemy. It works, as far as it goes, as the
US found out on Okinawa, until Cho prevailed and attacked, saving
many American lives.
You have to know you are on the wrong track when you base your
argument on Japanese illogical thinking. Sorry, Mike.
John Lansford
>Brad Meyer (br...@ibm.net) wrote:
>: On 25 Feb 1999 10:04:12 -0800, mfe...@iisc.com@eyrie.org (Mike
>: Fester) wrote:
>
>: >The Japanse didn't change tactics; other than Guadalcanal, Japanese
>: >troops were required to hold their ground, or die trying. This did
>: >not change throughout the war.
>
>: On the contrary, several island campaigns featured "Banzi" attacks,
>: the furthest thing in the world from holding one's ground. It really
>
>Nope.
>
>The banzai charge is the final attempt to hold ground against the enemy. It
>is not a change in tactics, simply the (il)logical extension of hold your
>ground at all costs.
>
>Again, that did not change throughout the war.
At Tarawa and other atolls, the Japanese defended every inch of ground
starting at the beach.
At Iwo Jima and Okinawa and Pelieliu, they recognized that attempting
to stop the invasion at the water's edge was fruitless and began
preparing a defense in depth that concentrated on causing US
casualties and maximizing the amount of time it took to occupy the
entire island. Banzai charges were prohibited; instead, each Japanese
soldier was exhorted to kill multiple Americans before he himself was
killed, but to remain in his fortified position in any case.
John Lansford
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
George Hardy
>>: In article <7b1dt8$137m$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
>>: stormy0...@my-dejanews.com says:
>>
>>: casualties on the US, not in winning, per se. We also see this
>>The Japanse didn't change tactics; other than Guadalcanal, Japanese
>>troops were required to hold their ground, or die trying. This did
>>not change throughout the war.
>
>On the contrary, several island campaigns featured "Banzi" attacks,
>the furthest thing in the world from holding one's ground. It really
>wasn't until Baik that the Japanese varied the tactic.
I have held off commenting on this thread, after my initial
assertion of a major shift in Japanese tactics. But, it seems
few have studied the war from the Japanese military point of
view. Col Hiromichi Yahara proposed the strategy of Japanese
remaining on the defensive, not attempting to "win", but rather
put emphasis on deaths of Americans. It was clear to the
Japanese military that the war was lost well before the end of
1944. (Saipan is usually noted as the point at which that lesson
was learned.) In opposition to this new approach, was Lt. Gen.
Isamu Chu, who believed in the traditional bonzai attack. Yahara
designed a system of mutual defense, so that every lost emplacement
was well covered and sighted in by another emplacement further back.
Progressive loss of emplacements would result in major loss of life
for the attackers. One need only look at the US casualties at Iwo
Jima and Okinawa to see the truth. (Yes, Chu did get his way and
did screw up the system by persuading the Japanese to make some full
scale attacks. He could not stand the 'admit loss' strategy.
The failure of the major Japanese attack on May 4th did prove that
Chu was wrong, but proof that was too late for Okinawa, though not
too late for Kyushu.)
In short, had Chu not prevailed, the US would have lost even more.
Try reading Gudmundsson, Bruce, "Okinawa", MHQ vol 7, # 3 -- an issue
that should be in the hands of anyone who is interested in the ending
of the war in the Pacific.
Mike Fester
: In article <3707b895...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>,
: mfe...@iisc.com@eyrie.org (Mike Fester) says:
:
: >The banzai charge is the final attempt to hold ground against the
: >extension of hold your ground at all costs.
: victory out of a bad situation.
Which is a function of the "hold ground" rule the Imperial Army
lived under.
Again, only in Guadalcanal was any attempt to made to actually evacuate
troops from a lost position. Everywhere else in the Pacific, they stood
or died.
: Holding your ground is not a winning strategy, but one
: intended to kill the enemy.
Uh, I don't recall anyone claiming anything on this one way or the other.
: You have to know you are on the wrong track when you base your
: argument on Japanese illogical thinking. Sorry, Mike.
I won't even pretend you're making sense here, Mr Hardy.
John D Salt
Louis Capdeboscq <Louis.Ca...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
[Lots of interesting material snipped]
>today and some of their units are elite: the RPIMAs (Regiments of Colonial
>Paratroopers) are just as good as the Foreign Legion.
Could you tell us what RPIMA stands for? I can guess as far as
Re'giment Parachutiste d'Infanterie, but the M and A defeat me.
An oddity of British naval practice is to refer to sailors as
"matelots" (pron. "matloes"). I have no idea why we should use
the French word, nor if the practice extends to American English.
The analogous term for soldiers would be "squaddy" (one occasionally
years "swaddy"), which I think is much older than WW2.
>and I know so many words about the British that I don't know which ones were
>used at that time :) More seriously, I don't think there really was a
>popular slang term for "British".
I understand that British recruits in the Legion are generally
addressed as "Johnny"; I can't tell if this dates back to WW2,
but I would guess it was more general than just the Legion --
I seem to recall being addressed as "Johnny" by people, even before
they knew it was actually my name, during the wonderful year I spent
working in France. I understand that "Les rosbifs" is fairly
universal, and "Les godons" has declined in popularity since
Joan of Arc's time... :-)
John D Salt
who seems to be experiencing ISP troubles.
I pass it on without comment, except to say that ISTR Erika
Schelby mentioned "Michel" as being the incarnation of Germany,
or the ordinary German, and used as such in political cartoons.
Michel, John Bull, Marianne, Uncle Sam... how about a thread
on national incarnations?
John.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - cut here - - - - - - - - - - - -
Maybe you can pass this on to the WWII newsgroup for me--my service
provider doesn't seem to be letting any posts get through to the
servers lately.
I just finished reading a copy of the journal of Feldwebel Karl
Laun, a member of the 84th Flak Sturm Bn that accompanied KG Peiper
into the Bulge. He mentions that German MPs were known by the Landsers
(there's a term for you) as "Kettenhunde," or "chain dogs," because
of the long chains they wore around their necks. Similarly, rear-area
MPs of the provost marshal were known as "Bluthunde," or bloodhounds.
He disparagingly refers to members of the SS as "Herrenmenschen" and
to ordinary Germans as "Michels" or "Michaels," I don't know why.
(Context: "Those Michels always were suckers for pretty speeches.")
He also mentions that the people of the Saar valley towards the end
of the war began referring to themselves as Saarochsen, "stupid oxen
of the Saar," for having allowed themselves to be fooled into voting
for Anschluss in 1935. On one occasion he refers to some stuffy
officers as Saupreussen, or "Prussian swine."
Regards,
Jay Karamales
Louis Capdeboscq
>Re'giment Parachutiste d'Infanterie, but the M and A defeat me.
MA is for "de MArine", from the ex-colonial troops. I don't know if there
are tank regiments, but I know of RIMAs (infantry regiments) and RAMAs
(artillery) from the "Marine" arm. This is because just using "M" could (at
the time) have led to some confusion with "motorized".
And during WW2, since "M" was already taken by the motorized units and "MA"
by the colonial troops, divisions from Morocco (Maroc in French) were
grouped under the generic "DINA" for "division d'infanterie nord-africaine"
(North African Infantry Division).
>An oddity of British naval practice is to refer to sailors as
>"matelots" (pron. "matloes"). I have no idea why we should use
>the French word, nor if the practice extends to American English.
This is off-topic, but it's interesting to note the different attitudes
towards foreign words. Despite all the big deal in France that there should
be something done to prevent the language from having too many English words
(which is of course nonsense: there are just as many French words
originating from English as there are English words that come from French),
that at any given time a lot of English terms are used because it's
fashionable and because they're usually new words associated with things
only the British or the Americans could do. 100 years ago, the French would
use the word "steamer" instead of its translation. Then they are replaced,
even though not necessarily with the words the officials have come up with.
The British and Americans are obviously less afraid of their language being
vampirized...
>The analogous term for soldiers would be "squaddy" (one occasionally
>years "swaddy"), which I think is much older than WW2.
What does this term come from ?
>>and I know so many words about the British that I don't know which ones
were
>>used at that time :) More seriously, I don't think there really was a
>>popular slang term for "British".
>
>I understand that British recruits in the Legion are generally
>addressed as "Johnny";
I don't know about today's Legion but calling British soldiers "Johnny"
sounds very WW2 to me. Usually after 1944...
>I seem to recall being addressed as "Johnny" by people, even before
>they knew it was actually my name, during the wonderful year I spent
>working in France.
Either it was some time ago, or they were rather old people, or both. I have
never heard Englishmen being addressed as "Johnny" personnally.
>I understand that "Les rosbifs" is fairly
>universal, and "Les godons" has declined in popularity since
>Joan of Arc's time... :-)
Yes, lots of the people I know (including myself) use "Les rosbifs" although
it's been a while since the British Army has given up on the red coats. The
term is no longer pejorative, though... My brother took it up and shortened
it to "Les Bifs" after he spent some years studying in Cambridge.
As to "Les Godons" the British don't say "godamn" half as much as they used
to in Joan of Arc's time so it's no wonder that the term would be
forgotten... :-)
LCDR1635
>called (in translation) Naval Landing Parties. . Photos
>suggest they wore standard sailor garb, and that their heaviest
>weapons were water-cooled machineguns.
Japanese "marines" belonged to units called "Special Base Forces" as well as to
the Naval Landing Forces. IIRC the Entire Garrison at Tarawa was made up of
naval infantry personnel from these two types on units. Also, IIRC, the
Japanese Garrison on Guadalcanal was originally made up of Naval Landing Force
troops. From what I can tell, the Naval Landing Force and Special Base Force
troops wore similar uniform to the Army troops, excepting insignia. I recall
reading that on Guadalcanal, at some point in the campaign, the naval troops
were reinforced with Army units. Our first indication of this was when
Japanese casualties started showing up with army insignia (a five point white
star) on their helmets and soft caps vice the navy insignia (a crysanthemum)
that had been encountered previously.
John Eckhardt
George Hardy
<d...@christa.unh.edu> says:
>> Italian immigrants before the war, the Americans were simply
>>"les Ricains",
>Interesting. Not "Ami"?
This expression sounds a lot like the Japanese "Q-ichi". The
idea is that a non-speaker would not pick up the key syllable.
GFH
Louis Capdeboscq
>
>railroad bridges when I was stationed in France (usually followed
>by "Go Home" :). The Germans used it too. If it was intended as
>an insult, it failed singularly; I always associated it with the
>French word for friend. - Dan Ford
Well, for exactly the reason you mention, I've never heard of, nor read
about, the use of "Ami" for "Americans". That includes movies and pictures
dating from WW2 era and the early 50s.
I have no personal memories of when France was still in NATO, but I could
hazard an explanation: something painted on a railroad bridge would likely
have been painted by the railroad workers themselves, who were largely
communist sympathizers. That the communists would make up words
understandable only by themselves and their followers would make sense: most
of their slogans have until recently been mostly private (and poor) jokes.
Moscow-driven public relation efforts were not always in touch with
reality... Anyway, "Friend go home" is a pretty good joke.
John D Salt
Louis Capdeboscq <Louis.Ca...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
[Lots of interesting things snipped -- thanks for the answers]
>>The analogous term for soldiers would be "squaddy"
>What does this term come from ?
I always imagined it was derived from the word "squad", for a
formed body of men, but I undertstand that its origins are
really uncertain.
[more snips]
>>I seem to recall being addressed as "Johnny" by people, even before
>>they knew it was actually my name, during the wonderful year I spent
>>working in France.
>
>Either it was some time ago, or they were rather old people, or both. I have
>never heard Englishmen being addressed as "Johnny" personnally.
It was about twenty years ago, and some of the people I remember
talking to included veterans from both world wars; one old chap
had done the Chemin des Dames twice, and lost an arm there, and
seemed to think that young people didn't know enough about their
county's history (I agreed with him, of course!).
>Yes, lots of the people I know (including myself) use "Les rosbifs" although
>it's been a while since the British Army has given up on the red coats.
The traditional British red coat is also, I believe, commemorated
in the phrase "Les anglais ont de'barque's", with which I was
jocularly greeted by my coarser friends every time I came back
from leave in England. ;-)
>As to "Les Godons" the British don't say "godamn" half as much as they used
>to in Joan of Arc's time so it's no wonder that the term would be
>forgotten... :-)
H'mmm. Let's hope there isn't a replacement term based on the
most frequently-used obscenity of visiting Brits these days --
although "foquette" sounds as if it might be the word for a baby
seal. ;-)
Salut,
John.
PDC Sensha
Prachute Brigade. Certainly the newsreels of paras landing on the
Dutch airfield show infantry garb, not sailor caps and shirts as
in the Shanghai operation.>>
Nope. Both IJA and IJN parachute troops were used in the East Indies
operations. The Navy boys did not have a successful airlanding experience, and
only part of the unit was dropped as a result. The rest was brought in by boat
the next day or so, and the unit was never dropped again. Maybe at Kendari; my
memory isn't what it used to be.
I've got the whole story somewhere, and I'll post it when I can find it. I do
know that the IJN parachutist outfits were different from the IJA; today, I was
looking at a Japanese omnibus book on their armed services during WWII and the
coveralls were both different color and of a different style. The SNLF officer
depicted even had a badge style depiction of his naval officer's rank on the
sleeve (stripes and a loop); the petty officer had his machinist mate's emblem
on his.
As for swapping back and forth between roles, the officers at Annapolis are
"pre-real world" (for the most part), and the aviators are all flying. SNLF
duties involved acting as light infantry, a world of difference from running a
ship. Sort of going from a physical craft to something akin to booklearning, I
would think...
But, there are precedents everywhere. One of my favorites is the German naval
aviator from WWI (Christiansen), whose achievements there included capturing a
British submarine with his seaplane. He ended up the Second World War as a
Luftwaffe general in charge of the Netherlands. Another was Kesselring, who
was in the redlegs in WWI, made Luftwaffe field marshal, and ended up running a
ground campaign in Italy.
Or, for that matter, there was Master Sergeant Pennington, of my cavalry unit
in RVN, who made it to CPO in the Navy before leaving, then up to MSG in the
USA. Damn'd good tank TC, too...
Terry L. Stibal
pdcs...@aol.com
SUZUTA Yukinori
> Re: Iwojima: What went wrong for the Marines?
> mfe...@iisc.com@eyrie.org (Mike Fester) says:
>
> >The banzai charge is the final attempt to hold ground against the
> >enemy. It is not a change in tactics, simply the (il)logical
> >extension of hold your ground at all costs.
>
> No, you are wrong. The banzai attack is an attempt to wring a
I hold one another view.
At first, in Guadalcanal, charge was attempted on the ground
of pre-war army doctorin. Japanese army had posed much importance
of night battle. Simple charge had been proved its foolishness in
WWI. But if it was undertakened in night by night-diciplined troop?
This expectation does not seem irrational. Indeed fire power
overhelmed any charge, however.
Later Japanese commanders understanded the reality. But even with
better tactics they could not achieve tasks. 'Irrational' banzai
attacks were taken by despair in this fase. Every officers and
soldiers knew charge was the way to die, so the case like 'drunk
banzai attack' happened. Commanders continued to fight as long as
their might remaining, then commanded last charges just before
exhaustion. This 'just before' were perceived too sooner, you know,
but that is because soldiers could fight untill total elimination.
Many commanders regarded the limit of resistance as limit of
organizational resistance. I (and probably they also) think that
even though sometimes to die become a part of soldier's duty, it
can not been extended to live prolonged death between friend's
rotten bodies. Most lower officers and soldiers could hold battle
will in worst situation, but few top commanders could demand to do
so. I think that a frase 'give me (good) death place' is
understandable in any peoples. Japanese commanders wanted to give
it to his men.
Patrick Clancey
>I personally think that Americans picture japanese soldiers as maniacs and
>heartless murderers/suiciders due to lack of knowledge (different culture)
"Moral relativeness"? Would knowledge of that different culture have led to
a different response to bayonetting babies or caniblizing POWs? Certainly
there were cultural misunderstandings on BOTH sides, but that doesn't change
the fact that the Japanese perpetrated massive atrocities in violation of
treaty undertakings and even past practice.
>and perhaps due to a deep,well hidden feeling of inferiority.
>They like to picture their soldiers as the best in the world.Could they
>admit that japanese soldiers were more courageous than theirs?
They could, and did, acknowledge the bravery and tenacity of the Japanese
soldiers in battle; but this did not take away the revulsion at the numerous
acts of barbarism committed by those same troops. And even a perfect
understanding of the cultural imperatives that led to mass deaths among
civilians on Saipan, for instance, doesn't necessarily mean one wouldn't
continue to regard the behavior as maniacal.
>
>I think that you should be proud of you heritage.
>
>PS. I'm not a Japanese
>
>"To be defeated,but to not surrender is to be victorious"
A wonderfully comforting piece of bullshit for the loser, but psychotic
nevertheless.
Patrick
pat...@akamail.com
http://metalab.unc.edu/hyperwar/
Andrew Thomas
traditional manner. i.e. attempting to achieve given objectives whilst
minimizing casualties.
Personally i wasn't aware that the majority of Americans pictured their
soldiers as the best in the world. Anyway that's not the impression i
get from this newsgroup. Due to superior equipment, numbers and
firepower they didn't have to be the 'best' - if best is defined as
taking the highest casualties whilst attacking etc.
BTW I'm not American.
Yours
Andy
Michael wrote:
>
> I personally think that Americans picture japanese soldiers as maniacs and
> heartless murderers/suiciders due to lack of knowledge (different culture)
> and perhaps due to a deep,well hidden feeling of inferiority.
> They like to picture their soldiers as the best in the world.Could they
> admit that japanese soldiers were more courageous than theirs?
>
> I think that you should be proud of you heritage.
>
> PS. I'm not a Japanese
>
> "To be defeated,but to not surrender is to be victorious"
> Michael hwar...@polbox.com icq: 32438717
casita
>I personally think that Americans picture japanese soldiers as maniacs and
>heartless murderers/suiciders due to lack of knowledge (different culture)
>and perhaps due to a deep,well hidden feeling of inferiority.
Are you claiming the Japan of WW2 was a superior nation to other inferior
nations? Are you claiming that Japanese soldiers did not commit mass
murder in WW2 ?
Yes, I know all armies have murderers but I think more Canadians and
Americans got beheaded than Japanese.
Did Japanese not commit mass suicide during the war?
I have seen Japanese posted as "more fanatical" than Germans in the NG
and there fore requiring nuking rather than the more prosaic methods of
bombing Germany received. A more likely explanation is simply that nukes
were not quite ready in time for Germany. I would not put either nation
of ahead of the other as "more fanatical".
pkmb
Andrew Thomas wrote:
>
> Is a pointless suicide charge more courageous than fighting in the more
> traditional manner. i.e. attempting to achieve given objectives whilst
> minimizing casualties.
>
> Personally i wasn't aware that the majority of Americans pictured their
> soldiers as the best in the world. Anyway that's not the impression i
> get from this newsgroup. Due to superior equipment, numbers and
> firepower they didn't have to be the 'best' - if best is defined as
> taking the highest casualties whilst attacking etc.
>
> BTW I'm not American.
>
> Yours
>
> Andy
>
> Michael wrote:
> >
Well there is much sense in what you are saying. However I will try as
best as I can to explain why the Poles, Russians, Japanese etc. will
not agree that the best army is the one which achieves it's goal with
minimal casualties. Well many nations treated a war as a fact of life
during their history. It was an integral part of their folklore and
their national identity. Many nations believe(d?) that a great soldier
isn't the one who achieves his gole with pragmatism but the one who does
it with bravery. That's why victory isn't an essential part of being
judged as great soldiers by members of those nations. Many loses are
treated as the proudest moments of a nation's history. I think many
Japanese are very proud of their soldiers fighting to the death even
when there was no chance for victory. The Russians are proud that they
hold out against the Germans, that Leningrad and Stalingrad were hold.
Oddly in off more proud because it took so high number of casualties.
The Poles are proud of their soldiers in September of 1939. The ones
from Mlawa (Mława) who stopped a 30000 men strong Panzer Corps and whose
commander committed suicide not to surrender. The ones from Westerplatte
who hold out for 7 days against far superior forces even though it had
no real military sense. The cavalry regiments who charged on their
horses against troops equipped with machine guns. The regiments who
fought a battle of Tomaszow Lubelski fighting "for honor". The troops
from Kock and Hel who fought even though they knew the war was lost.
Those "red" polish and russian soldiers who covered bunkers with their
bodies in Pomerania to let their fellow soldiers go forward (this is a
point of pride for both russian and polish people). Well for many
nations war isn't only a strong arm of the politics. It is far more.
Pragmatism has nothing to do with it. Most people from the West don't
understand this. Of course now I say that it would be better for polish
people to switch sides after Yalta but heck I would burn from shame if
our leaders had done that. It would make much sense (pragmatists would
say) if the japanese surrendered after it was quite obvious that the war
was lost. They didn't and I am sure they are proud of it. The Russians
hold out against the enemy. No western nation would hold trough against
such a german attack. Would hold out after loosing millions of people in
battles and from hunger. Do you think that Roosevelt wouldn't have
surrendered if it happened to the US aa I forgot (hope he is frying in
hell). There is a difference in mentality between the west and the east
(Poland is east in this regard me thinks). It was summed up in a speech
by polish foreign minister J. Beck on 5 of May 1939:
"We in Poland do not know the meaning of "peace at all cost"
Peace just like everything on this Earth has it's price
high but measurable. There is only one thing in the lives of people,
nations and states which is priceless.
This thing is called honor."
Yes it is highly unpragmatic and unfashionable nowadays. Damn but I'm
proud of it.
Marcin B.
P.S. Now you may laugh :)
--
Marcin Bugajski citizen of Poland. NATO member since March the 12th
1999.
This message cannot be used for commercial or scientific purposes
without
the author's consent.
steve conway
>I think the reason for the high casualty rate was due to the fact that
>the japanese were deeply dug in to the Island itself,letting the marines
>come to them(fighting on their terms not the marines).I dont think
>anything went WRONG for the marines,they took the Island Eventually but
>it had a hell of a pricetag on it.
I think i'll agree with a few Australian vets that i have spoken to. They
all answered this question by saying that the yanks just put too many men
on the beach. Where the job reqired 5,000 men to be landed, the yanks
would land 20,000 and be surprised about the high casualtly rate.
Considering thwe amount of time the marines spent studing the mistakes of
the Gallipoli campaign between the wars, it's surprisingly stange that
they made many of the same mistakes in thier early landings.
Steve Conway
Australians at War
www.iol.net.au/~conway/index.html
HORSEMAN2
>all answered this question by saying that the yanks just put too many men
>on the beach. Where the job reqired 5,000 men to be landed, the yanks
>would land 20,000 and be surprised about the high casualtly rate.
>Considering thwe amount of time the marines spent studing the mistakes of
>the Gallipoli campaign between the wars, it's surprisingly stange that
>they made many of the same mistakes in thier early landings.
While it may be true in some cases, this was absolutely not the case for
Okinawa where the landing was unopposed. The heavy losses came from the huge
difficulty in attacking a well dug in, motivated enemy from excellent defensive
positions.
Dick Turner
Hors...@aol.com
Tim Watkins
> ...Germany was by no means a *military* dictatorship; Hitler was not
> a military person in the first place, he was a party politician ...
I would disagree that Hitler was not a "military person". He made
himself a military person after being a party politician. As head of
state not only was he the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, but on 4
February 1938 Hitler personally took command of the whole armed forces as
the Commander In Chief. As Supreme Commander, he was at the head of the
Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW). On 19 September 1941 Hitler took over
the Army as its Commander In Chief and began to personally conduct the
war in Russia.
Numerous moves by Hitler as to the conduct of the war in Russia showed
that Hitler was indeed a military person. Rather than carry out the
military objectives of Guderian and others of the OKW, Hitler split his
military forces driving on Moscow and attempted to capture Leningrad,
with the aim of joining up with the Finns to seize the Baltic; attempted
to seize and hold the raw-material regions of the Ukraine and the
armaments centers of the Donetz Basin; and then later capture the Baku
oilfields in the Caucasus. The OKW, on the other hand, wanted to first
take Moscow and cut the communications, rail, and transportation nets
before undertaking the aforementioned objectives.
Other examples by Hitler the military person: his insistence that the 3
reserve panzer divisions in France not be released to Normandy in June
1944 without his express permission; the plan Wacht am Rhein devised by
him to cut the western Allied armies in the Ardennes and take the port of
Antwerp in December 1944; and the defense of Berlin conducted by him from
the Fuehrerbunker in April of 1945.
That World War I Corporal Hitler imagined himself as the commensurate
general in WW II conducting a global war for Germany is shown through his
(mis)handling of the Heer, SS, Kriegsmarine, and Luftwaffe, from his
decision in September 1939 to attack Poland, through June 1941 to launch
Barbarossa to his final days in Berlin which ended on 30 April 1945 with
a single gunshot to the right temple.
Tim Watkins
"We shall not capitulate - no, never, we may be destroyed, but if we are,
we shall drag a world with us - a world in flames."
- Adolf Hitler, 1932
BobG
>
> I have seen Japanese posted as "more fanatical" than Germans in the NG
>and there fore requiring nuking rather than the more prosaic methods of
>bombing Germany received. A more likely explanation is simply that nukes
>were not quite ready in time for Germany. I would not put either nation
>of ahead of the other as "more fanatical".
I would. I believe that the Japanese soldiers were definitely much
more fanatical about the pride of being killed during combat for the
Emperor. This is confirmed by the fact that there were many German
prisoners taken by the Allies but very few Japanese. In one battle,
(I can't remember which one) only one Japanese soldier was taken as a
prisoner.
BobG
Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.
BobG
<Andrew...@connectfree.co.uk> wrote:
>Is a pointless suicide charge more courageous than fighting in the more
>traditional manner. i.e. attempting to achieve given objectives whilst
>minimizing casualties.
>
>Personally i wasn't aware that the majority of Americans pictured their
>soldiers as the best in the world. Anyway that's not the impression i
>get from this newsgroup. Due to superior equipment, numbers and
>firepower they didn't have to be the 'best' - if best is defined as
>taking the highest casualties whilst attacking etc.
>
>BTW I'm not American.
>
>Yours
>
>Andy
I am a 53 year old American and I have never pictured our soldiers to
be the best during World War II. We were the most powerful but that
was due to our nearly limitless production capabilities coupled with a
relatively large population.
Rich Rostrom
> On 4 March 1999 Georg Schwarz <sch...@physik.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> > Hitler was not a military person in the first place, he was a party
> > politician ...
>
> I would disagree that Hitler was not a "military person". He made
> himself a military person after being a party politician.
Calling a horse's tale a leg doesn't make it one.
History is replete with examples of political figures who appointed
themselves to command of armies, usually with disastrous results.
Was Himmler a 'military figure' because Hitler appointed him to
command of two Army Groups in 1945?
Hitler came to power through his control of the Nazi party. As
head of state he gave orders to the German military. The props
of his rule were the Gestapo and the party, neither of which
were elements of the German army; in fact the army was excluded
from the Party until 1944.
In a military dictatorship, the dictator is a soldier (not an
ex-soldier like Hitler) elevated to supreme power by action of
the army.
--
Rich Rostrom | "Ah, White Lightning, that splits the skull and
| encourages the body and the sentiments!"
R-Rostrom@ |
mcs.net | -- R. A. Lafferty, _The Reefs of Earth_
BobG
Clancey) wrote:
>>"To be defeated,but to not surrender is to be victorious"
>
>A wonderfully comforting piece of bullshit for the loser, but psychotic
>nevertheless.
I agree that is was bullshit for the loser but nevertheless, it was
believed and very much practiced throughout World War II. (Actually,
it sounds a little like religion to me.)
Along this line of thought, it has been my understanding that Japanese
pilots did not wear parachutes. However, somewhere I read of a
Japanese pilot parachuting out during the Battle of Midway. Could
someone ascertain for me whether or not Japanese pilots wore
parachutes? If not, were there any exceptions?
Thank You,
casita
>more fanatical about the pride of being killed during combat for the
>Emperor.
806,000 Japanese civilians were casualties in 9 months versus 780,000
military casualties in the entire war. The principal cause of civilian
death was burning.
Supplemental entry:
305,000 to 593,000 German "civilians" died in WW2 by Allied bombing.
Depends if you go by US or German counts ).
At least, 5,000,000 Germans died in WW2.
When you compare this to the Japanese figures, I think it speaks rather
highly of the "fanatical pride" of the German soldier, sailor and airman,
or airwoman.
Tim Watkins
> Calling a horse's tale a leg doesn't make it one.
Huh? Sorry, you will have to explain that one to me. You referring to a
horse's tail in relation to his leg or the tale of the tail and leg of
the horse?
If you are saying that Hitler was only a political figure and not a
military figure, let me repeat the essence of my last posting: Hitler the
political person crossed over into the realm of military leader when he
first became head of the OKW and then Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH) in
late 1941, AND FROM THAT POINT ON PERSONALLY CALLED THE MILITARY SHOTS IN
RUSSIA AND THE REST OF THE WAR IN THE ETO. When the head of the OKW is
in direct command of the armed forces, makes military decisions and
directs war strategy, issues war directives, moves armies, material and
equipment, plans battles huddled over maps with his generals, and wears a
military-style cap and jacket with Heer eagle thereon, that person is in
fact a military person, regardless of the political party he heads.
> History is replete with examples of political figures who
> appointed themselves to command of armies, usually with
> disastrous results.
Don't think that a political figure has to be a successful commander of
armies in order to be considered a military figure. If Hitler had been
successful after becoming head of the OKH and had conquered Russia and
the Western Allies, he would have been hailed by the Wehrmacht as a great
military strategist in conjuntion with his stature as a great political
leader. And, my bet is that Hitler would have taken the credit for all
those military victories.
> Was Himmler a 'military figure' because Hitler appointed him
> to command of two Army Groups in 1945?
Yes. When one is at the head of and commands two army groups, one is a
"military figure", despite one's lack of military training and military
knowledge. As the Waffen SS was the military arm of the Schutzstaffel,
Himmler was already at the head of this organization and had been
Reichsfuehrer-SS since 1929.
> ...The props of his rule were the Gestapo and the party, neither of
> which were elements of the German army; in fact the army was
> excluded from the Party until 1944.
Aside and apart from the Gestapo and the Party, the chief element of the
German Army was NSDAP leader Hitler himself as chief of the OKH, which
occurred on 19 December 1941, not 1944.
> In a military dictatorship, the dictator is a soldier
> (not an ex-soldier like Hitler) elevated to supreme
> power by action of the army.
Hitler consolidated his power as dictator and kept same by, among other
factors, exerting direct control of the military by becoming the Supreme
Commander and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces (OKW) as
aforementioned. Although not a "soldier" in the sense of a front-line
soldier or grenadier, Hitler commanded millions of soldiers in his
capacity as both supreme military commander and supreme political
head-of-state. It can also be said that these two power structures were
interleaved and was the buckle that inexorably held the straps of the
NSDAP and OKW together.
Tim Watkins
"Anyone can do the little job of directing operations in war. The task
of the Commander-in-Chief is to educate the army to be National
Socialists. I do not know any army general who can do this as I want it
done. I therefore decided to take over the command of the army myself."
- Adolf Hitler, 1941
casita
>more fanatical about the pride of being killed during combat for the
>Emperor.
I would prefer to stay out of discussion as to whether Japanese are more
fanatical than Germans or have more pride as soldiers.
Every human spirit has a breaking point. Some take longer to crumble
than others.
General Sepp Dietrich confirmed that about the toughest of men.
And, crack they did.
" By Dec 1944 air attacks from the Marianas against the home islands had
begun, defeats in the Phillipines had been sufferred, and the food
situation had deteriorated; 10% of the people believed Japan could not
achieve victory. By March 1945, when the night incindiary attacks began
and the food ration was reduced, this percentage had risen to 19%. In June
it was 46%, and just prior to surrender, 68%. Of those who had come to
this belief over one-half attributed the principal cause to air attacks, *
other than the atomic bombing attacks* ( my stars ), and one third to
military defeats.
64% of the population stated that they had reached a point prior to
surrender where they felt personally unable to go on with the war. Of
these, less than one-tenth attributed the cause to military defeats,
one-quarter attributed the cause to shortages of food and civilian supplies,
the largest part to air attack.
A striking aspect of the air attack was the the pervasiveness with which its
impact on morale blanketed Japan. Roughly one-quarter of all people in
cities fled or where evacuated, and these evacuees, who themselves were of
singularly low morale, helped spread discouragement and disaffection for
the war throughout the islands. This mass migration form the cities
included an estimated 8,500,000 persons. Throughout the Japanese islands,
whose people had always thought themselves remote from attack, US planes
criss crossed the skies with no effective Japanese air or antiaircraft
opposition. That this was an indication of impending defeat became as
obvious to the rural as to the urban population.
Progressively lowered morale was characterized by the loss of faith in both
military and civilian leaders, loss of confidence in Japan's military might
and increasing distrust of government news releases and propaganda. People
became short-tempered and more outspoken in their criticism of the
government, the war and affairs in general.
In the final analysis the Japanese military machine had lost its purpose
when it could no longer protect the Japanese people from destruction by air
attack. Gen Takashima, when asked by the Survey as to his reaction to the
Imperial Rescript, stated that surrender had become unavoidable; the Army,
even should it repel invasion, could no longer protect the Japanese people
from extermination."
This is in reference to the morale of the Japanese people_prior_to the
nukes.
"Air attacks" mean non-atomic. US Strategic Bombing Survey PTO.
I don't care how "fanatical" soldiers are, if stratgegic bombers are flying
over their heads, not even bothering to open their bomb bays, to rain ruin
upon their cities, it's the "civilians" who want the war to end because
they are doing the dying and getting de-housed. I think that Homefront
morale and production / supply is vital to the men, and women, in the
trenches.
806,000 Japanese civilians were casualties in 9 months versus 780,000
military casualties in the entire war. The principal cause of civilian
death was burning.
GI's only had to enter the homeland of Japan as policemen after Gen LeMay
got cracking. Their brave sacrifice had secured the airfields from which to
strike brutal blows upon the Japanese Homefront.
Airmen shot down over Japan paid a high price. It was no joke.
They were beheaded by the dozens and used for bayonet and archery practice.
They were locked in animal cages and tied to posts for passerby to torment.
They were burned alive, buried alive, disected alive, cooked and
canibalised. Airmen in both theatres carried handguns to use as they saw
fit.
BobG
>Airmen shot down over Japan paid a high price. It was no joke.
>They were beheaded by the dozens and used for bayonet and archery practice.
>They were locked in animal cages and tied to posts for passerby to torment.
>They were burned alive, buried alive, disected alive, cooked and
>canibalised. Airmen in both theatres carried handguns to use as they saw
>fit.
I've always wondered how effective a handgun is for a downed pilot.
Obviously, you are insinuating that it could be used for suicide if a
pilot so chooses. I'm wondering now if that is the primary purpose for
carrying a hand gun?
BobG
Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.
Mike Fester
: I don't care how "fanatical" soldiers are, if stratgegic bombers are flying
: over their heads, not even bothering to open their bomb bays, to rain ruin
For the case of Japan, the vast majority of the strategic bombers
did NOT fly over the heads of soldiers. The soldiers were stationed all
over the Pacific and Asia, and in the runs you're discussing here, the
planes were based out of islands to the EAST of Japan.
: upon their cities, it's the "civilians" who want the war to end because
: they are doing the dying and getting de-housed. I think that Homefront
Actually, Mr Casita, the Japanese soldiers were doing a lot of dying, too.
: GI's only had to enter the homeland of Japan as policemen after Gen LeMay
: got cracking.
Hunh?
: Airmen shot down over Japan paid a high price. It was no joke.
: They were beheaded by the dozens and used for bayonet and archery practice.
: They were locked in animal cages and tied to posts for passerby to torment.
: They were burned alive, buried alive, disected alive, cooked and
: canibalised.
Uh, do you suppose you can provide a reference for cannibalisation of US
pilots in Japan?
I know of incidents in the S Pacific, notably New Guinea, but I hadn't
heard of civilians cooking and eating pilots.
Thanks.
And the "dissected alive" sounds more like events in China, not Japan, though
for some strange reason, the Japanese were much more likely to do that to
Russians taken in border skirmishes, and from prisoners from Nomonhan than
to captive Americans. Remember, Unit 731 was in CHINA, not Japan.
P S
on fire and he came down a little to fast.
casita
>pilots in Japan?
Uh, your wish is my command, Mr Moderator, Sir.
Hope you post this. <smile>
"Meanwhile, other Japanese exacted a blood price for the raids that had
destroyed their cities. In Fukuoka, a truck drove up to army headquarters,
collected B-29 crewmen who had been shot down over Japan and drove them to a
lonely field, where one by one a lieutenant chopped off their heads with
his sword.
They were not the first to die in this manner.
The Japanese had beheaded dozens of airmen and used others for bayonet and
archery practice. They'd locked them in animal cages and tied them to posts
for passerby to torment them. They'd burned them alive, buried them alive,
disected them alive and cooked and eaten their body parts. Such atrocities
were not confined to wars end nor even to military prisoners. From the very
first day of its 14 year war, where ever it went on the continent of Asia
or in the Pacific, Imperial Japan had worked and starved and tortured its
captives to death.
'We discussed it a lot', recalled Warren Morris, then a B-29 pilot in the
313th Wing on Tinian. 'We wondered whether to bail out or not, because the
word we had was that they were executing our fliers....oh, we talked about
that. We knew they were killing prisoners.' Morris was 21 years old.
Just off the farm in Eldorado, Kansas."
Air and Space Smithsonian. August/ September 1995 by
Daniel Ford.
casita
>Obviously, you are insinuating that it could be used for suicide if a
>pilot so chooses. I'm wondering now if that is the primary purpose for
>carrying a hand gun?
It's for use how you see fit.
It was open season on Allied airmen in Germany.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judwarcr.htm#prisoners
The bail out rate on Lancasters was pathetic, and they tended to burn
easily after a Schrage Muzik attack to the fuel cells between the engines.
My uncle flew all his missions with a handgun. And a small fortune in bribe
money.
To use at his discretion.
Have you ever heard of Goolie or blood chits for airmen?
"When you're wounded and left on Afganistans Plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go to your Gawd like a soldier."
Rudyard Kipling.
"Thousands of airmen were shot out of the skies over Europe while engaged in
operations against the Third Reich on targets in occupied territory. A very
large number, sucessfully evaded capture.
An airman who gets away from his wrecked aircraft in enemy territory finds
himself in a position which is unique among fighting men. To continue his
type of fighting against the enemy, he must first return home, and to do
this, he ussually begins his travels alone; often in a state of shock, and
sometimes wounded. He knows that the alternative to a long, difficult and
nerve racking evasion will be captivity, interrogation and possibly death.
Above all, he wants, and is constantly looking for help."
General Carl A. 'Tooey' Spaatz
Commander USSAF- Europe.
Quoted from "Rendez-vous 127, the Diary of Anne Brusselmans by ACM Sir Basil
Embry.
Pinhead the Cenobite
>x-no-archive: yes
>> Along this line of thought, it has been my understanding that Japanese
>> pilots did not wear parachutes. However, somewhere I read of a
>> Japanese pilot parachuting out during the Battle of Midway. Could
>> someone ascertain for me whether or not Japanese pilots wore
>> parachutes? If not, were there any exceptions?
>
>Some did, some didn't. It seemed to be an option, though as usual
>in such cases (not limited to the Japanese) you probably elected
>to do what your squadron mates did.
[...]
The other aspect of the non-parachute vs. parachute debate, is that
the Japanese pilot was steeped in the Bushido tradition that to die in
battle was the pinnacle of perfection. Other reasons included (but
were not limited to) weight in the aircraft and cruising time due to
same. It's well known that the Mitsubishi Type Zero carrier plane had
a phenomenal range. Part of the reason for this, was that armour plate
was left off the cockpit area *and* some pilots elected to leave their
'chutes behind to save weight.
One of the other factors was the radios. Japanese arial radios in
general were pretty ineffective, sad affairs, so many pilots would
have their ground crews remove them from the aircraft and save a
couple of precious pounds which would translate into more time in the
air.
As for the "Breaking of the Jewels" tactics of the Japanese during the
war, the civilians would also partake in what was called "gyokusai"
(Sacred Battles), in which they would deny themselves to the enemy
forces by commiting mass suicide, usually with a grenade issued by the
Japanese Imperial Army. A prime example of gyokusai is the now famous
plunge of civilians off the rocky cliffs on Okinawa.
--
"At the start of the war, you seemed to *enjoy* shooting our planes
down, Saburo. At the end, it was like that for us too. It was like
shooting turkeys! We never had so much fun!"
- Unnamed American ace to Saboru Sakai,
one-eyed Japanese Ace
[Remove NOSPAM for e-mail]
Mike Fester
: The other aspect of the non-parachute vs. parachute debate, is that
: the Japanese pilot was steeped in the Bushido tradition that to die in
: battle was the pinnacle of perfection.
Actually, Bushido tradition teaches the the pinnacle of perfection is to
WIN in battle, not to die in it. By accepting one's fate unquestionably,
one becomes akin to invulnerable (or, at least, one cannot be defeated.)
Or one unfortunately dies.
MakinKid
<Interesting Spaatz quote about downed pilots snipped>
Spaatz knew whereof he spoke. In World War One, he was a fighter pilot with
the 1st Pursuit Group (which he later commanded before turning to bombers). In
one fight he shot down two Fokkers before being shot down himself. He managed
to E&E through No Man's Land and make it back to his unit. When his CO asked
if he had been able to shoot down any planes, he replied "Yes, three: Two
German and my own."
During WW2, Spaatz made sure to have his old unit, the lst Figher Group,
equipped with long-range P-38 escort fighters, accompany the 97th Bomb Group's
B-17s as the first USAAF units dispatched to Britain. As fortune would have
it, the lst was stripped away and sent to North Africa to support Operation
Torch (as were later P-38 units), leaving the B-17s to slog through German air
defenses on their own--not what Spaatz had intended. (Mets, 1988)
Makin
MakinKid
>
>>Uh, do you suppose you can provide a reference for cannibalisation of US
>>pilots in Japan?
>
>Uh, your wish is my command, Mr Moderator, Sir.
>Hope you post this. <smile>
<Confirming quote snipped>
Cannibalism and vivisection of allied flyers by the Japanese is quite well
documented. Kyushu Imperial University officials, for example, have
acknowledged vivisecting eight B-29 crewmen in experiments carried out on May
17, 23, 29 and June 3, 1945.
The experiments were arranged by the Western Japan Military Command and Prof.
Fukujiroh Ishiyama, director of external medicine at the university.
In one experiment, Ishiyama extracted an American PoW's lungs and placed them
in a surgical pan. He made an incision in the lung artery and allowed blood to
flow into the chest cavity, killing the man. In another experiment, Ishiyama
removed a prisoner's stomach, then cut five ribs and held a large artery near
the heart to determine how long he could stop the blood flow before the victim
died. In a third, another Japanese doctor made four openings in a prisoner's
skull and inserted a knife into the brain to see what the reaction would be.
The prisoner died.
(from Ienaga, 1968, citing a Japanese publication, The Degradation of Wartime
Medicine: the Complete Story on Human Vivisection by Hirako Goichi)
Makin
Mike Fester
: Casita wrote:
: >>Uh, do you suppose you can provide a reference for cannibalisation of US
: >>pilots in Japan?
: <Confirming quote snipped>
: Cannibalism and vivisection of allied flyers by the Japanese is quite well
It is indeed. I have in fact posted on this myself, and supplied references.
However, that was not the question.
The question pertained to cannibalism *IN JAPAN*.
Thus far, nobody has provided such documentation.
i...@svpal.org
As a soldier of Japan,
one's life belonged to the emperor not one's self.
That was the principle behind this neglect of things like
parachutes. If you could increase the odds of victory by
doing this, it was an obligation.
Bushido was the system that produced the warrior. Victory for
one's cause was an important concept, the survival of the individual
less so.
#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#--#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#
In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers chose to limit the powers
afforded to government. Government now wishes we would forget this.
Fat chance!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
casita
i...@svpal.org
pinh...@NOSPAM.home.com (Pinhead the Cenobite) wrote:
> On 23 Mar 1999 18:07:56 GMT, df <d...@christa.unh.edu> wrote:
[SNIP]
> --
> "At the start of the war, you seemed to *enjoy* shooting our planes
> down, Saburo. At the end, it was like that for us too. It was like
> shooting turkeys! We never had so much fun!"
> - Unnamed American ace to Saboru Sakai,
> one-eyed Japanese Ace
Pilots like Saburo Sakai were long service enlisted airmen.
To say they were very damn good does them no justice. But...
The Japanese never got the system in place to provide for the
replacements for casualties and losing entire air wings with
their carriers didn't help either.
By the end of the war, the experienced cadre of carrier pilots
that had flown rings around many Allied air forces were mostly
dead. Sakai survived but only just.
By the end of the war the average Japanese pilot was vastly less
capable than his predecessors and was flying ( with a few exceptions
like the Ki-100 ) a machine that was obsolete.
Mike Fester
: >Uh, do you suppose you can provide a reference for cannibalisation of US
: >pilots in Japan?
: Uh, your wish is my command, Mr Moderator, Sir.
Whatever.
: Hope you post this. <smile>
You're getting the response.
It won't be what you like.
: "Meanwhile, other Japanese exacted a blood price for the raids that had
: destroyed their cities. In Fukuoka, a truck drove up to army headquarters,
This part confirms that pilots were beheaded in Fukuoka, which was NOT in
question.
: They were not the first to die in this manner.
: The Japanese had beheaded dozens of airmen and used others for bayonet and
: archery practice. They'd locked them in animal cages and tied them to posts
The above merely indicates that other airmen suffered the fates discribed;
however, that, too, is not the question.
: disected them alive and cooked and eaten their body parts. Such atrocities
I know this will come as a shock to you, but allied airmaen wer shot down all
over the Pacific area; China, New Guinea, the Philippines, Vietname, etc.
Now, there WERE confrimed incidents of cannibalism in those areas.
However, SLOWLY, that was not the question.
The question was, again.
"Uh, do you suppose you can provide a reference for cannibalisation of US
pilots in Japan?"
Not "by the Japanese" but "in Japan".
Thanks.
Lech K. Lesiak
> "Meanwhile, other Japanese exacted a blood price for the raids that had
> destroyed their cities. In Fukuoka, a truck drove up to army headquarters,
> collected B-29 crewmen who had been shot down over Japan and drove them to a
> lonely field, where one by one a lieutenant chopped off their heads with
> his sword.
The Japs did a good bit of this in Manchuria in the 30's. Usually to
civilians. I read one book by a Japanese officer who was posted to
Manchuria as a cadet. Part of his commissioning ceremony was to chop the
head off a chinese civilian.
Cheers,
Lech
Pinhead the Cenobite
>In article <36fb82e4.18961877@news>,
> pinh...@NOSPAM.home.com (Pinhead the Cenobite) wrote:
>> On 23 Mar 1999 18:07:56 GMT, df <d...@christa.unh.edu> wrote:
> [SNIP]
>> "At the start of the war, you seemed to *enjoy* shooting our planes
>> down, Saburo. At the end, it was like that for us too. It was like
>> shooting turkeys! We never had so much fun!"
>> - Unnamed American ace to Saboru Sakai,
>> one-eyed Japanese Ace
> Pilots like Saburo Sakai were long service enlisted airmen.
> To say they were very damn good does them no justice. But...
> The Japanese never got the system in place to provide for the
> replacements for casualties and losing entire air wings with
> their carriers didn't help either.
I agree wholeheartedly. From my readings on the subject, the Japanese
made some very foolish errors at some of the major turning points of
the war. Even sadder, was the fact that many of the errors were the
direct result of indecisiveness and the training style of the Japanese
with regards to their officers and taking of initiative (Adm. Nagumo
is a prime example).
> By the end of the war the average Japanese pilot was vastly less
> capable than his predecessors and was flying ( with a few exceptions
> like the Ki-100 ) a machine that was obsolete.
Here, I have to beg to differ. Of the aircraft of the IJNAF and the
IJAAF, many, many tales are told of the Misubishi Type0, A6M-2 through
A6M-5 (and in some very isolated cases the A6M-7 and 8), the B5N
'Kate" torpedo bomber and the Aichi Type-99 "Val" dive-bomber. These
were the mainstays of the combined Japanese airforces, and as such,
get a great deal of the glory. All of these were out gunned by most
conservative estimates by mid-'43.
The Japanese made some wonderful innovations in air power, but lacked
the industrial capacity and manpower to put them into action
effectively. Excellent examples of machines that, if utilized properly
and in time, could have made a great difference in the war in addition
to the Ki-100, were the Kawanishi N1K1 "George", the Ki-43 "Frank" and
the Kawasaki Type 3 fighter "Tony" (despite it's weakness via the
liquid cooled powerplant). I won't even go into the "What If..?"
possibilities of the Japanese versions of the German Me-262 and Me-162
"Komet". ;-)
The prime problem for the Japanese, was plain, old desparation.
Pilots, younger and younger, were pressed through accelerated flight
schools and could never hope to match the wisdom and skill of the
seasoned vets like Saburo Sakai. The earlier pilots had the chance at
least to hone and perfect their skills in the day when they had the
tactical advantage over any craft sent against them, and as the enemy
got better tactically and was supplied with better craft, they had a
stable of base skills on which to build. The "pilots" being churned
out towards the end of the war never had this opportunity.
--
"At the start of the war, you seemed to *enjoy* shooting our planes
down, Saburo. At the end, it was like that for us too. It was like
shooting turkeys! We never had so much fun!"
- Unnamed American ace to Saboru Sakai,
one-eyed Japanese Ace
[Remove NOSPAM for e-mail]
Othmer
>...Some of the other barbarities happened in the occupied areas,
>and the only two instances of cannibalism I know of were in Burma
>>and on an island, perhaps Rabaul?
You might add to your list the Bonion(?) Islands if Im not mistakin there
considered part of the Japanese Home Islands if Im not mistakin.
To my point a couple of months ago on the History Channel they did a
thing about President Bush's wartime experences as a Navy pilot.
President Bush said when he was shot down he landed close to an
island(the name ended with Iwo) that was occupied by the Japanese
and that commander on the island was in the habit of chopping off the
heads of downed Allied pilots, then roasting, and eating there livers.
The way he tells it when he bailed out and hit the water the wind was
blowing him straight towards the island and if the US Sub had not
picked him up(Im sure you have seen the pics of that) he could have been the
Japanese commanders lunch. After the war according to President Bush the
Japanese commander was tried and hung as a war criminal.
Jim Carew
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, pinh...@NOSPAM.home.com (Pinhead the Cenobite) says:
-snips-
>The Japanese made some wonderful innovations in air power, but lacked
>the industrial capacity and manpower to put them into action
>effectively. Excellent examples of machines that, if utilized properly
>and in time, could have made a great difference in the war in addition
>to the Ki-100, were the Kawanishi N1K1 "George", the Ki-43 "Frank" and
>the Kawasaki Type 3 fighter "Tony" (despite it's weakness via the
>liquid cooled powerplant).
Begging yer pardon but the Ki-43 carried the allied codename
"Oscar" while the "Frank" was the Ki-84. And, so far as I
know, the "Type 3' "Tony" was a prototype only and was never
introduced into service. It was the Ki-61-II which had the
unreliable Ha-140 engine (and which ultimately resulted in
the Ki-100 when engineless Ki-61-II airframes were re-engined
with the Mitsubishi radial engine.)
Still, the problems with the late model Japanese fighters such as
the "George", the "Frank" and the radial engined Ki-100 "Tony"
was not their lack of proper utilization but rather their
inferiority in numbers, their unreliability (because of material
shortages and poor quality control) and the generally low training
level of their pilots.
There were approximately 400 Ki-100s produced, about 1,400 N1K2
"Georges" and about 3,400 Ki-84 "Franks" - a bit over 5,200
"modern" fighters - only a portion of which were operational at
any one time because of reliability problems.
Compare that total with over 12,000 Corsairs - or over 12,000
Hellcats. Considering only "modern" US Naval fighters (and
ignoring the P-51s and Thunderbolts and the like), the "modern"
Japanese fighters were already outnumbered by more than four to
one.
And their pilots were much less competent. And their avgas supplies
much more restricted.
No amount of "proper utilization" could have overcome these
handicaps.
Cheers and all,
--
Bill Shatzer - bsha...@orednet.org
"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows."
-Bob Dylan-
Mike Fester
: Since I wrote the paragraph being quoted, I should make it clear
: that I was indeed referring to events taking place anywhere in
: the Japanese empire. The Fukuoka murders and the instance of
: airmen being tied to stakes for passersby to torment took place
: on the home islands.
The overall mistreatment of catpured pilots took place throughout Japan;
pilots were sometimes executed after "trials", or after air-raids, captured
pilots were pulled form prison and beaten to death.
: Some of the other barbarities happened in
: the occupied areas, and the only two instances of cannibalism I
: know of were in Burma and on an island, perhaps Rabaul?
The problem with cannibalism in the field got bad enough that the Army felt
compelled to issue injunctions against it; that it was bad, but especially
bad was to eat a JAPANESE soldier. Note that these cases almost always involved
already dead troops who were "utilized", as the Japanese troops were
almost never well-supplied.
I believe cases also occurred on the Philippines, and in Indochina. On New
Guinea, while not an "epidemic", it was widespread. Cook & Cook's _Japan At
War: An Oral History_ has an interview with an Imperial soldier who witnessed
quite a bit of it.
Alexander Eichener
> highly of the "fanatical pride" of the German soldier, sailor and airman,
> or airwoman.
I only know of two German airwomen in WW II, namely Hanna Reitsch and
Beate Uhse.
Were there more ?
--
Alexander Eichener, Heidelberg
Main address: c...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de
Alexander Eichener
> The prime problem for the Japanese, was plain, old desparation.
> Pilots, younger and younger, were pressed through accelerated flight
> schools and could never hope to match the wisdom and skill of the
> seasoned vets like Saburo Sakai. The earlier pilots had the chance at
> least to hone and perfect their skills in the day when they had the
> tactical advantage over any craft sent against them, and as the enemy
> got better tactically and was supplied with better craft, they had a
> stable of base skills on which to build. The "pilots" being churned
> out towards the end of the war never had this opportunity.
I should like to underline that the very same was true for Germany. The
old staff burned out, and the survival length of young rookie pilots
(with their shortened training) was very short.
A number of the 1939 pilots had previously acquired combat experience
("cut their teeth") in the Spanish Civil War, just as many Japanese pilots
in China. Also, planes had been field-tested in Spain to some extent. The
thorough peace-time training added to that (and the number of drafted
civilian pilots at the beginning of WW II).
Ill-fated last-ditch attempts like the (barely servicable ?) He 162
"Volksjaeger" did not do much to help the late-war situation, either.
Best regards,
casita
It was a "quote".
I posted where I got the quote from.
I don't claim anything different from what the quote says.
Mike Fester
: You might add to your list the Bonion(?) Islands if Im not mistakin there
: considered part of the Japanese Home Islands if Im not mistakin.
They aren't.
They were claimed in 1873 by Japan, and nobody objected. Returned to Japan
in 1968, and are south of the Ryuku.
: President Bush said when he was shot down he landed close to an
: island(the name ended with Iwo) that was occupied by the Japanese
?
"Iwo" refers to sulfer. Most island names end in "shima" or "jima" as in
"Iwo Jima."
Pinhead the Cenobite
wrote:
>
>In a previous article, pinh...@NOSPAM.home.com (Pinhead the Cenobite) says:
>
>-snips-
>
>>The Japanese made some wonderful innovations in air power, but lacked
>>the industrial capacity and manpower to put them into action
>>effectively. Excellent examples of machines that, if utilized properly
>>and in time, could have made a great difference in the war in addition
>>to the Ki-100, were the Kawanishi N1K1 "George", the Ki-43 "Frank" and
>>the Kawasaki Type 3 fighter "Tony" (despite it's weakness via the
>>liquid cooled powerplant).
>
>Begging yer pardon but the Ki-43 carried the allied codename
>"Oscar" while the "Frank" was the Ki-84.
Yep, realized that after I posted the article. My bad...
>And, so far as I
>know, the "Type 3' "Tony" was a prototype only and was never
>introduced into service. It was the Ki-61-II which had the
>unreliable Ha-140 engine (and which ultimately resulted in
>the Ki-100 when engineless Ki-61-II airframes were re-engined
>with the Mitsubishi radial engine.)
Since I only have the documentation I had on hand at the time
regarding the designation of the Tony's name from a model kit of the
same, I'll take your word on it. I may speak Japanese, but can't read
a Kanji charachter to save my life. I am, however, familiar with the
Ki-61-II designation. Hell, it was late and I'd just gotten off work.
My muddled mind got the Oscar befuddled with the Tony. That'll learn
me... :-)
>Still, the problems with the late model Japanese fighters such as
>the "George", the "Frank" and the radial engined Ki-100 "Tony"
>was not their lack of proper utilization but rather their
>inferiority in numbers, their unreliability (because of material
>shortages and poor quality control) and the generally low training
>level of their pilots.
Quality control indeed. There was a point where Franks were
constructed partially (or completely) of plywood. Stresses would snap
landing struts on a regular basis and so forth. At any rate, when I
stated that the Japanese "lacked the industrial capacity and manpower
to put them into action effectively" Please also note that I also said
"in time". Whatever that means to you, I think we have a different
slant. My meaning was in regards to a time before Japan was *so* far
gone in experienced men and materiel, probably at the height of
Japanese conquest around '42(?). I think, in the part of my post you
removed, that I alluded to the materiel/manpower shortage/inferiority
issue, so I took it as a "to be understood" point, though I could be
wrong
[stats]
>No amount of "proper utilization" could have overcome these
>handicaps.
Nope. But did you hear about some of he captured aircraft that were
brought back to the States? In one instance a Japanese plane (either a
Frank or a George) was pitted against about 7 US fighter planes with
experienced combat pilots in mock battle. The Japanese plane won out
against all comers. This, to me, is proof positive that the Japanese
were at least "on to something" WRT the design of combat aircraft.
>Cheers and all,
Pip pip and all that tosh!
--
Protect privacy, boycott Intel:
http://www.bigbrotherinside.org
Remove NOSPAM to send e-mail
Pinhead the Cenobite
wrote:
>df wrote in message <3705d19b...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>...
>
>>...Some of the other barbarities happened in the occupied areas,
>>and the only two instances of cannibalism I know of were in Burma
>>>and on an island, perhaps Rabaul?
>
>You might add to your list the Bonion(?) Islands
[...]
You can add New Guinea as well. The thing about New Guinea though was
that the Japanese soldiers were busy consuming *each other*. Seems
lack of protien and potable water became a real problem and the
soldiers decided that they needed to "suppliment" their diet.
Mike Fester
: >Not "by the Japanese" but "in Japan".
: It was a "quote".
I understand it was a quote.
: I posted where I got the quote from.
I saw where you got it from.
: I don't claim anything different from what the quote says.
I asked SPECIFICALLY for information about cannibalism IN JAPAN.
You replied you would "gladly" show that. You haven't.
Again, have you ANY information about cannibalism IN JAPAN during WWII?
Othmer
>Is a pointless suicide charge more courageous than fighting in the more
>traditional manner. i.e. attempting to achieve given objectives whilst
>minimizing casualties.
No courage has nothing to do with it the idea is to "stay alive to fight
another day" We were taught in Boot Camp during WW II that the Japanese
"suicide charge" from our standpoint bunched them up and made them easier to
mow down provided you have the firepower if not try to stay alive to fight
another day by what evermeans.
Most of our Company Commanders in Boot Camp(SD) had been on Guadalcanal(sp)
during WW II so they new of what they spoke.
Jim Carew
casita
I told you, I just know what I read in The Smithsonian.
"The Japanese had beheaded dozens of airmen and used others for bayonet and
archery practice. They'd locked them in animal cages and tied them to posts
for passerby to torment. They'd buried them alive, burned them alive,
Mike Fester
: >Again, have you ANY information about cannibalism IN JAPAN during WWII?
:
: I told you, I just know what I read in The Smithsonian.
You did.
However, that does not address the question.
Are we to assume you do NOT have any such information?
If so, simply state such.
Peter Frazier
just shot down over Japan. This is the info I could find:
'The Knights of Bushido' (author- Lord Russell of Liverpool, 1958)
Chapter XII Cannibalism, Vivisection and Mutilation (pp233-240)
The chapter goes into detail about the many instances of these offences. It even
includes the text of a captured Japanese order on the subject. As follows:
ORDER REGARDING EATING FLESH OF AMERICAN FLYERS
I. The battalion wants to eat the flesh of the American aviator, Lieutenant
(Junior Grade) Hall.
II. First Lieutenant Kanamuri will see to the rationing of the flesh.
III. Cadet Sakabe (Medical Corps) will attend the execution and have the liver
and gall bladder removed.
(It then continues with extracts from the interrogation of the battalion
commander).
The chapter continues with other instances of cannibalism, but it also includes
a summation by an Australian judge who investigated the atrocities in New
Guinea and the Solomons. He stated that there was clearly no doubt that
cannibalism occurred but 'However it is worthy of note that the majority of
Japanese private soldiers who were left without food preferred to starve to
death rather than resort to cannibalism.'
Lord Russell, however states that much of the cannibalism involving captured
flyers involved officers who 'sometimes made it into something of a festive
occaision in the officer's mess'. And that 'The evidence available indicates
clearly that cannibalism was frequently practised when there was other food
available, that is to say, from choice and not of necessity.'
Helluva book to read- after finishing it, you begin to understand why the hatred
was so strong against the Japanese.
Peter
casita wrote:
> >Again, have you ANY information about cannibalism IN JAPAN during WWII?
>
> I told you, I just know what I read in The Smithsonian.
Bill Chapman
woman's place was in the home, making babies for the Reich.
In Speer's book, he bitched quite a bit about the fact that the British women
were in the factories while the German women remained mostly at home.
If the Germans were slow to use women in factories, I would think German female
pilots would have been very rare -- did the 2 you mentioned fill combat roles,
or were they ferry pilots, like the American woman pilots?
Bill
Alexander Eichener wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, casita wrote:
>
> > highly of the "fanatical pride" of the German soldier, sailor and airman,
> > or airwoman.
>
> I only know of two German airwomen in WW II, namely Hanna Reitsch and
> Beate Uhse.
> Were there more ?
>
Gareth Jenkins
> mentioned fill combat roles,
There was at least one german woman combat pilot, she piloted the Rocket
powered Me163 (Komet) .... where small light pilots were necessary. Was this
one of the ones mentioned?
G Jenkins
C theworld
>pilots would have been very rare -- did the 2 you mentioned fill combat
>roles,
Hanna Reitch (I probably butchered that spelling) was an amazing pilot,
regardless of her gender. She made the first helicopter flight, flew as a test
pilot on such things as the Me-163 rocket fighter, she was the only person to
live through a flight of a manned Buzz Bomb converted to carry a tiny pilot
(most of the early test V-1s crashed and they couldnt figure out why until the
put a pilot in it to actually see why they crashed -- the first two pilots to
try died; Hanna survived....
Additionally, Hanna made the first indoor flight on record. She flew an
Autogiro (popular in the late 30s-early 40s) around the inside of a stadium,
making a perfect landing in front of the roaring crowd.
If you ask a Luftwaffe vet who their version of Chuck Yeager was, the chances
are equal that you will hear either Rudy Opitz, Colonel Spate, or this amazing
lady, Hanna R...
v/r
Gordon
<=====(A+C)====>
NAVY SAR
Its always better to lose AN engine than THE engine
history.war....@unforgettable.com
> I don't think there would have been many. The Nazi's felt emphatically that the
> woman's place was in the home, making babies for the Reich.
There was no shortage of female SS at the KZ's
Dirk Lorek
>Additionally, Hanna made the first indoor flight on record. She flew an
>Autogiro (popular in the late 30s-early 40s) around the inside of a stadium,
>making a perfect landing in front of the roaring crowd.
Mr Picky (no, not you John :-) says it wasn't an autogiro but one of
the world's first useful helicopters, the Fa 61. This machine brought
to Germany all of the helicopter world records in 1937.
>If you ask a Luftwaffe vet who their version of Chuck Yeager was, the chances
>are equal that you will hear either Rudy Opitz, Colonel Spate, or this amazing
>lady, Hanna R...
Reitsch. She became the first women to fly a glider over the Alps, the
first German woman to win a captain's license, the first female
helicopter pilot, the first female test pilot in her country, and the
first and only women to receive the Iron Cross First Class in WW2
(1942). And she was quite a Nazi. Other famous German testpilots were
Erich Warsitz and Heini Dittmar. Rudolf Opitz reached almost Mach 1
with a Me 163B V18. And Ernst Udet himself was also quite a famous
testpilot. But I've never heard of a Colonel Spate...
Dirk
_______________________________________________________________________
What am I, Life ? A thing of watery salt, held in cohesion by unresting
cells, which work they know not why, which never halt, myself unwitting
where their Master dwells. - John Masefield -
Mike Fester
[straying a bit from WWII, but...]
: with a Me 163B V18. And Ernst Udet himself was also quite a famous
: testpilot.
Udet wasn't famous for being a test pilot so much as being Germany's
2nd-ranking fighter ace in WWI (~62 kills, IIRC). I believe he also had some
fame for being the first well-known fighter pilot to save himself using a
sissy device known as a "parachute" :-)
C theworld
>
>
> Dirk
>________________________________________
Wolfgang Spate? Commander of ErboprungsKommando 16? The operational and test
unit for the Me-163 and its variants?
Also author of the book "Top Secret Bird!" about the 163. Sadly, he died two
years ago. :(
Chiggie Red Baron
<cthe...@aol.comNoJunk> writes
>
>Additionally, Hanna made the first indoor flight on record. She flew an
>Autogiro (popular in the late 30s-early 40s) around the inside of a stadium,
>making a perfect landing in front of the roaring crowd.
>
>If you ask a Luftwaffe vet who their version of Chuck Yeager was, the chances
>are equal that you will hear either Rudy Opitz, Colonel Spate, or this amazing
>lady, Hanna R...
She also flew from Rechlin to Gatow on 26th April 1945 stuffed into the
storage compartment of a two-seat Fw190, carrying Colonel Ritter von
Greim to see the Fuhrer.
>From there, von Greim and Reitsch flew in a Storch and landed on the
makeshift airstrip near the Brandenburg Gate, Reitsch having to take the
controls for the landing after von Greim was injured in the foot.
I remember seeing a BBC TV documentary about her in the 1970's, and
hearing her describe 'sharp starts' in the Me163, and test flying the
Me321 glider.
--
The Chiggie Red Baron
"I looked at the Serb Army herding women and children into a line and thought
of 'Schindlers List' and 'Sophies Choice' " - a Dutch Lt.Col (Surgeon), part
of the UN peacekeeping forces in Bosnia
Nils K Hammer
which may be more dangerous than combat. Her biography
is called "the sky my kingdom". She seemed to have a
need to be flying. She had a cockpit installed in the
V-1 for tests, and nearly had her face ripped off when
the shabby thing crashed. This is the kind of work she
got her iron cross for. Of course she went right back
to work when she got out of the hospital.
nils k. hammer
Freida Harris
DiL...@pobox.com (Dirk=A0Lorek) wrote (in part):
>Reitsch. She became the first women to fly a
>glider over the Alps, the first German woman to
>win a captain's license, the first female
>helicopter pilot, the first female test pilot in her
>country, and the first and only women to receive
>the Iron Cross First Class in WW2 (1942). And
>she was quite a Nazi.
Hannah Reitsch was also the pilot of one of the last flights in and out
of Berlin under seige in late April, 1945. At Hitler's request, she had
flown General von Greim to Berlin. The plane was hit by Russian
anti-aircraft fire (so was Greim), and she was forced to land it in a
street.
Three days later, she piloted the plane safely out of Berlin. Obviously
a much greater feat given the proximity of the Russians.
Freida Z. Harris
C theworld
>
>I remember seeing a BBC TV documentary about her in the 1970's, and
>hearing her describe 'sharp starts' in the Me163, and test flying the
>Me321 glider.
>
The director of Flight Testing for the Me-163 was amazed that, after her
near-fatal accident in the rocket fighter, she sat in the wreckage awaiting
rescue _making notes concerning the failure of the landing gear_. At the
time, he face was a mangled mash after she was smashed into the massive
gunsight by the impact. Her skull was fractured in four places and she
required over a year to heal from her wounds, but still.. she returned to test
piloting exotic aircraft. Hitler gave her almost carte blanche to participate
in any flight testing she wished. Regardless of how other women were treated
by the Third Reich, Hanna was loved, respected, and highly regarded (although
other test pilots felt that she was too much of an 'intuitive flyer', instead
of the technical specialist that is usually preferred in that job).
v/r
Erik Shilling
Erik Shilling
C theworld
>Did you know that Erich Hartmann's m other taught him to fly.
>
I would believe it. There were many flying clubs and their memberships were
not limited to males so its certainly possible. Germany knew it would need
flyers for the looming conflicts on the horizon so they encouraged as many
students as they could to become familiar with piloting and aviation
fundamentals. Similar to our Civil Air Patrol today, I would think, but
without the indoctrination....
v/r
Gordon
ps, nice to meet you Mr Shilling.
jv...@my-dejanews.com
Besides being guards, more so towards the end of the war ('44-'45), I have
never been able to ascertain if SS women were used in other roles in the
concentration camps - roles such as cooks, administrators, etc. Any
information?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own