(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
7,000 killed 26,000 wounded for a two mile island
It was used as an emergency landing runway for disabled B 29’s after bombing Japan. There were other options for that though.
You make a good point, though. Did we really have to go after Iwo Jima? Why not leapfrog it. Wasn't the Japanese Navy pretty much destroyed by then?
Or, did we need it as a landing strip for bombers for the invasion of Japan? Seems like we could have found something closer, but I make that statement in ignorance.
[Edits: After posting the above, I googled this issue. Here is the wikipedia link discussing the strategic importance (or lack thereof): Wikipedia: Battle of Iwo Jima -- Strategic Importance
Also, it seems (again, per Wikipedia) that Nimitz did make this happen: Wikipedia: Planning for the Battle of Iwo Jima -- American Planning]
(no message)
will say we shouldn’t praise him.
(no message)
(no message)
Sure, there are great leaders, but their need is minimal as Senior NCOs really run it. Ask any former officer with integrity who really runs the show.
(no message)
(no message)
[Took me a minute to realize you were referring to Robert E. Lee.]
If you accept that the South should have fought the type of battle that it fought (open battle against the north), then he was a very good general.
The main complaint against Lee is that he didn't realize that he couldn't win a war against a superior foe that way, and therefore he should have adopted guerilla tactics.
But, let's face it, if he had adopted "guerilla" tactics, the New York Times would have called him a racist.