PDA

View Full Version : The Japanese Commander On Iwo Jima,


MARINE42
10-14-2006, 11:09 AM
The Japanese Commander


LtGen Tadamichi Kuribayashi, Imperial Japanese Army. Department of Defense Photo (USMC) 152108
In the estimation of Lieutenant Colonel Justice M. Chambers, USMC, a battalion commander (3/25) whose four days ashore resulted in the Purple Heart and the Medal of Honor: "On Iwo Jima, one of their smartest generals commanded, a man who did not believe in the Banzai business; each Jap was to kill ten Marines—for awhile they were beating their quotas." Chambers was describing Lieutenant General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, Imperial Japanese Army, Commanding General, 109th Division and Commander, Ogasawara Army Group. The U.S. Marines have rarely faced a tougher opponent.

Kuribayashi, 53, a native of Nagano Prefecture, had served the Emperor as a cavalry officer since graduating from the Military Academy in 1914. He spent several years as a junior officer posted to the Japanese Embassies in America and Canada. With the advent of war in Asia, Kuribayashi commanded a cavalry regiment in combat in Manchuria and a brigade in northern China. Later, he served as chief of staff of the Twenty-third Army during the capture of Hong Kong. Favored by the Emperor, he returned from China to command the Imperial Guards Division in Tokyo. After the fall of Saipan in June 1944, he was assigned to command the defensive fortress of Iwo Jima.

Kuribayashi was a realist. He saw Iwo Jima's crude air strips as a net liability to the Empire, at best providing nuisance raids against the B-29s, certain to draw the attention of American strategic planners. Iwo Jima's airfields in American hands would pose an enormous threat to Japan. Kuribayashi saw only two options: either blow up the entire island, which proved infeasible, or defend it to the death. To do the latter effectively he adapted a radical defensive policy, foregoing the water's-edge linear tactics and suicidal Banzai attacks of previous island battles. This stirred controversy at the highest levels—Imperial Headquarters even asked the Nazis for advice on repelling American invasions—as well as among Kuribayashi's own officers. Kuribayashi made some compromises with the semi-independent naval forces on the island, but sacked 18 senior army officers, including his own chief of staff. Those who remained would implement their commander's policy to the letter.

Doomed without naval or air support, Kuribayashi nevertheless proved to be a resolute and resourceful field commander. His only tactical error was to authorize the sector commander to engage the U.S. task force covering underwater demolitions team operations on D-2. This became a gift to the attackers, for it revealed to American gunners the previously masked batteries which otherwise would have slaughtered the assault waves on D-day.

Japanese accounts indicate Kuribayashi committed hara kari, the Japanese ritual suicide, in his cave near Kitano Point on 23 March 1945, the 33d day of the battle. "Of all our adversaries in the Pacific," said General Holland M. Smith, USMC, "Kuribayashi was the most redoubtable." Said another Marine, "Let's hope the Japs don't have any more like him."

Cpl Miller
10-14-2006, 05:20 PM
we lost so many good Marines. Thanks for the article

Iron Mike USMC
10-16-2006, 11:43 AM
LtGen Kuribayashi's tactics begs the question: What if the Japanese utilized his concepts and tactics throughout the war in the Pacific?

It has been my conjecture, as well as that of many before me, that the Banzai charges and Bushido code directly led to the loss of the war by Japan, though assuredly not the only cause. The Japanese were a formidable enemy until the end. However, the practice of dying for the emperor was instrumental in the decay of the quality of the Japanese military through the course of the war.

Had the Japanese 'lived to fight another day', how could the course of the war changed?

I see two basic outcomes:
1) The Allies would still win, but over a longer period of time, based mainly on the near limitless resources in men and material.
2) The high casualties would have had a similar political effect to the losses in Vietnam, and loss of will by the US to continue to absorb the losses, and the Allied leaders being forced to seek an armistice.

Barring the argument that we would have perservered, based on the 'remember Pearl Harbor' mentality, what do you think the outcome could have been, and in what form?

Marine53
10-16-2006, 01:56 PM
I really don't think comparison to the VietNam thinking 'syndrome' would have had that much of an effect in those days. Yes, there would probably have been some serious complaining. There was after the battle of Tarawa, when the bloodiness of that epic battle was shown on the news screens, etc, in Life magazine, Time and others. But patriotism was at a fever pitch in those days. It was a constant, in my opinion. Not like the kind which faded after 9/11. That was a different generation and society in the 1940's. One thing which was different was that if you didn't join or serve in the military you were looked on by many as a society misfit. It some circles it was considered sinful not to be in the armed forces. My family lost two in combat. One of my brothers tried to enlist several times, but was disqualified each time as he had bad ear drums. Nearly every home had a blue star flag hanging in a front window. When the family member was killed, the star changed to gold.
The Japanese surrenderd because of the A bomb. Pure and simple. If we would have had to invade the main islands, we would have had estimated casualties runiing in excess of a million. I went to Japan in the 50's. Where I was the area had tunnels running form miles. From Atsugi to Yokohoma. We used them for air raid drills in those days. It was eerie going into them.
I believe they would have fought to the last man. The code of Bushido made them a fierce enemy.
Semper Fi

Iron Mike USMC
10-16-2006, 04:13 PM
I have no illusions or delusions that WWII and Vietnam could be compared. That is why I added the caveat that the remember Pearl Harbor attitude be discounted in the considersation. When the public heard of the casualties from Tarawa, Iwo and Okinawa, many doubted. Not necessarily a majority, but a voice just the same.

The consideration to be made is what if the Japanese did not fight the way they did historically? What if every battle was fought the way the Japanese commander dictated at Iwo. Could that have had a damaging affect to the home front? Would the losses create the same kind of anti-war sentiment that existed during the Vietnam War in the US?

Or, would the war have been extended well beyond the summer of '45?

MARINE42
10-16-2006, 05:34 PM
Bushido was the guiding philosophy of the samurai, or bushi (military gentry), as they were commonly called. It has often been compared to the code of chivalry followed by European knights. Perhaps bushido's aim was the same, namely to provide a code of honor and rules for living for the country's armed forces. But bushido is uniquely Eastern. It was born of a blend of Buddhism, Chu-Tsu, Confucius and Shinto, and -- though officially introduced in the seventeenth century, it was ingrained in the bushi from the time of their origin.

Following are the eight principles of bushido:

Jin - to develop a sympathetic understanding of people
Gi - to preserve the correct ethics
Chu - to show loyalty to one's master
Ko - to respect and to care for one's parents
Rei - to show respect for others
Chi - to enhance wisdom by broadening one's knowledge
Shin - to be truthful at all times
Tei - to care for the aged and those of a humble station

50 Cal
10-17-2006, 07:15 PM
That guy told the emperor that it would take a million men a thousand years to take that joint.

Fortunately he was wrong, but the 6800 plus guys that died there make it sacred ground for us 24/7/365.....

I read all of Clint's words in Parade in the Sunday paper. Every time he needed to say Marines he said soldiers concerning the men that did take Iwo from the Rising Sun. That pissed me off.

His heart is sometimes in the right place but he's still just an actor, movie maker.

He was elected Mayor of Carmel in 1984. We were in Beirut at the time and were very excited for "Dirty Harry". We went to Flight Equipment and talked the NCOIC into making two sets of Combat Aircrew Wings on leather flight jacket/suit patches.

The Wings were over two lines of words identifying him as:

Clint Eastwood
Combat Mayor.

He sent us a signature on a cartoon we submitted to him and wrote best regards..... He had no idea what we had done for him. I think he still doesn't.

He read the book and did his best with it but he needed MAJOR guidance for this movie. I hope he sought it out because the 'soldiers' thing really sets me off. But I don't think he did.

Semper Fly, Cal.