Talk:Battle of Okinawa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Okinawa article.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 Australian military history task force
British military history task force
Japanese military history task force
United States military history task force
World War II task force
Battle of Okinawa is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Japan To-do:

Contents

[edit] MediaWiki anniversary event

An event in this article is a April 1 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

[edit] Deleted POV statement

I just deleted:

", which never happened due to the controversial decision to use the atomic bomb."

Can we really say this for sure? -- Taku 06:39, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

That's the way I always heard it. I used to work with a guy who said the bomb saved his life - he was assigned to the force being prepared to invade Kyushu, which was expected to incur massive casualties. Stan 06:56, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
But I have heared different from Japanese. I think it is POV to state that as if it were true. -- Taku 07:28, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
Even if the Japanese disagree, that's only their POV. The alternatives to invading the bigger islands were dropping the bomb or surrendering. The latter would only be considered after American forces suffered signifcantly more casualties (in other words, after another invasion.) -- M4v3rik 15:25, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
it could also be called only American POV to state that it was the dropping of the bomb which resulted in surrender, and there are documents and witnesses who say otherwise, and that the Japanese had already offered surrender at least three times before the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima.
On the contary. Without taking a stand on the extremely complex isssues entailed in the decision to drop an atomic bomb on Japan, the fact is that the Japanese War Cabinet refused steadfastly to entertain any notion of surrender, even after being told about the extraordinarily powerful American weapon. Japanese military code of honor, which was one of the strongest in the world, refused to allow such talk, even when the Emperor himself advised in its favor at Cabinet meetings. The Emperor was more concerned with the quality of life of his subjects, while the military acted in accordance with its ancient Honor Code. Even after the atomic bombs were both dropped, the Cabinet did not want to surrender. It was only with the extraordinary broadcast of the Emperor's own voice in Japanese radio, that the decision to surrender to the Allies was rendered palatable. Again, I am not taking any stand on the decision to deploy nuclear weapons against hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. But the facts regarding the Japanese military establishment, here described briefly, surely played a role in Truman's decision. 66.108.4.183 12:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

[edit] Buckner

At the end it says that "[Buckner] was the highest ranking American to die during the war." Is that true? Leslie J. McNair was also a lieutenant general; was he junior to Buckner? —wwoods And near the beginning it says "At the very end of the campaign, Buckner was killed by ricocheting shell fragments, becoming one of the most senior US casualties in the entire war." So was he the highest ranking death? Needs to be clarified

[edit] Size/detail of article

It's surprising that this is such a short article, considering its historical significance. In particular, I think there should be more on the naval operations, which were epic and attracted a massive wave of kamikaze attacks.Grant65 (Talk) 08:30, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naval Operations

I agree with the above - what about the huge naval battle, including the involvement of the British_Pacific_Fleet? SpinnakerMagic July 27 2005

I also agree that there should be more on the naval operations.Brendenhull 13:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civilian casualties

I changed the deaths from 100,000 to 150,000 which is what i have heard repeated in the past in media. I have an academic source below.. what do folk think/does any one have the books for first-hand info? [1] -max rspct 17:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of civilian casualties, why does it say "76,000+ soldiers killed and 27,000 civilians killed, 7,455 surrendered/captured (2,300 Japanese), 150,000+ civilians killed" in the chart under Japanese casualties? --Steven 5:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The current figures do seem rather confused. John Keegan gives the following figures in The Second World War (ISBN 0-7126-7384-2):

  • Japanese:
    • 70,000-160,000 civilians died
    • 7,400 troops captured
    • 110,000 troops died
    • 16 ships lost
    • 7,800 aircraft lost
  • American:
    • 4000 died from army divisions
    • 2938 died from Marine Corps
    • 763 aircraft lost
    • 38 ships lost

-- Ewx

Okay, I changed the table using the above information. But I'm missing the date for the reference -- Steven 00:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have another book Okinawa 1945- The last Battle of Osprey is well detailed and have more accurate info about the casualties sustained and the Kamikaze attacks in the battle.

I will finish reading it and add the information i have just talked. If you have another book tell me. Miguel

[edit] Citation and POV concerns

Where are the quotes in the "Quotes" section from? Did I miss the citation completely? Also, this article feels a little POV to me, biased in favor of the Americans. Very little is mentioned about the effect of the battle on the land and people of Okinawa and other Ryukyu Islands. Turly-burly 04:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Naval Warfare and the Yamato

I draw your attention to this section:

"Shortly before the battle, the Japanese battleship Yamato was sunk, by American aircraft, on her trip to Okinawa in the disastrous Operation Ten-Go. The Japanese had a plan to beach Yamato on Okinawa's shore, and to use her as a land battery. Widespread rumors that the ship was only given enough fuel for a one-way trip are false; Feifer debunks this (references)."

That portion is in the section labeled "before April 1st". However, the Yamato was launched on April 6th and sunk on April 7th. In addition, the mention of fuel is misleading... Feifer actually tells less simple story. (the following is from memory, but its recent memory) Those fueling the Yamato were given orders to only give the Yamato fuel for a one-way trip. However, hesisant to secure a death sentence for the largest warship ever built, the fuelers frantically searched all of Kure for fuel, finally managing to get enough fuel from various sources for a return trip for the Yamato. As there is no section on naval warfare, and thus nowhere to place a revised version of the above portion, I am deleting it. Branman515 23:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates of Battle

The dates of Battle (per GlobalSecurity.org):

  • Beginning: "The invasion began on 01 April 1945 when 60,000 troops (two Marine and two Army divisions) landed with little opposition."
  • Ending: "The so called "mopping up" fighting between 23 and 29 June ..."
  • Signing: "The document ending the Battle of Okinawa was signed on what is now Kadena Air Base on 07 September 1945."

This information is the basis for a revert of a change of dates to March 23 and June 23. —ERcheck @ 14:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was hoped the Yamato could smash it's way through the US fleet's defenses in combination with support from kamikazes and destroy the US carriers before they could escape.

[edit] Sakishima

Does "Sakishima Gunto" refer to the Sakishima Islands?

[edit] "symbolic"?

"the bombs were a powerful symbolic display of American power", in the penultimate paragraph, ignores the fact that if we took the time to build more bombs we could have done vastly more damage than we did (if that is possible), at relatively little cost and very few American casualties. it was only sensible for the Japanese to correctly assume this. David R. Ingham 06:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Involment

The article does not mention the involment of the British Carrier Force TF-57, and the complex causalties section is gone!!! To made things worse the article itself is not good, it lack of important details considering such a important battle.

[edit] what ships?

I have heard that 40 carriers (including 4 from britain and her commonwealth) and 18 battleships were present. If this is so, surely this puts Okinawa as the largest amphibious assault ever. There must be a list of ships somewhere?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattle_of_Okinawa_954d.html"