Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Okinawa/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

citation needed on entire British common wealth contrib

In reading the entry it states the British supplied 50 ships of which 17 were carriers. I only have one problem with this? RN only had 13 carriers during the entire war. In researching this matter, 4 RN carriers took part, fielding less then 200 aircraft. I kindly ask that the person who entered this, research and enter the correct information. Thank you. http://orbat.com/site/history/volume5/520/Note%20RN%20TF%2057%20Okinawa.pdf, http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/uk_fleet.htm. Jacob805 20:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Jacob805 20:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you do your homework before telling other people to do so. The RN had more than 13 carriers. The Royal Navy claims to have had 65 in serivce throughout the war. If you loose your loose definition and look at what they had, a mixture of Fleet, Escort, Light, and other variants. See [for further information] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe if the person the contributed the original false information, cited his or her sources, it would not raise the question. It is now, since you failed to sign your name, cited for deletion...if no one has any other remarks about this, In reviewing the royal navy web site, they only had 13 carries in service at that time. Can any find a list of Royal navy ships operating at this time 1945 pacific? Jacob805 12:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You can also look up the potions of the 17 carriers, and they were not all in the battle of Okinawa Jacob805 12:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we really want to get into this witch's brew? ;) --Yaush (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of how many British carriers were in the battle, Jacob you are wrong to state "RN only had 13 carriers during the entire war" and even "they only had 13 carries in service at that time"; spectacually wrong.
The British Pacific Fleet had 21 carriers of various types with it, and a quick 5 minute search provides the identity of ~60 aircraft carriers, of various types: Argus, Hermes, Eagle, Ark Royal, Audacity, Archer, Unicorn, Pretoria Castle escort carrier, Activity escort carrier, 3 Courageous class, 4 Illustrious class, 2 Implacable class, 3 Nairana class escort carrier, 26 Ruler class escort carrier, 8 Attacker class escort carrier, 4 Colossus-class. Thats much much more than the 13 you keep claiming ... as i said first time round do you homework first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Query Regarding Casualties

It's not clear whether the stated US dead and wounded includes naval personne. Hundreds of sailors were killed during the kamikaze attacks Al-Nofi (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

tetsu no ame ("rain of steel") or tetsu no bōfū ("violent wind of steel")

"tetsu no ame ("rain of steel") or tetsu no bōfū ("violent wind of steel") in Japanese"

tetsu no ame (鉄の雨) translates to iron rain[1][2]

kou no kaze (鋼の風) translates to steel wind[1][2]

  1. ^ a b Google Translate.
  2. ^ a b Romaji Translator at Romaji.org.

--RHesterly (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

rape allegations

"One Okinawan historian has estimated there were more than 10,000 rapes of Okinawan women by American troops during the three month campaign.[42]" - again, this historian is not named in the article, and the reference is to a REVIEW of the book from a website that may not meet Reliable Source standards. This needs to be revisited. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems a bit high by any standard. Rape is hardly a new concept in battle though, especially when civilians are close to the combat zone. Unless theres a definitive source that makes this claim, with good proof, its not really worth noting. Even with a source, we should be careful not to give it too much weight.--JOJ Hutton 03:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. The sentence should go. --Yaush (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Rm. In fact Yahara's book (on the Japanese staff) seemed to report that the civilians were dazed as they were gently rounded up after the battle that they were not subjected to rape or violence as the Japanese propaganda had foretold. Not that with so many GIs, there wasn't some. Student7 (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
As I said perviously, rape is not uncommon in battles where there is a civilian population so close to the action. My question to whomever wishes to answer it is, what is more notable about rape occurring during this battle then any other battle? Why is there an entire section on this topic?--JOJ Hutton 13:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
If some troops committed crimes, and it has an RS backing it up, it should be noted. The problem here is the statement made in the first line says historianS (who are they?) and the review from a website which doesn't meet the qualifications for a Reliable Source from what I can observe. Also, 10K rapes would have been impossible to hide - we'd have seen that reported many times over since the times of such incidents. Isolated cases of a few soldiers here and there misbehaving might be another matter. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I would think that a pull-quote from a book review in a peer reviewed online newsletter hosted by Michigan State University would meet RS in this case. Would it be better to source the actual book instead? The New York Times took no issue with repeating this claim, would that meet RS for your purposes? Or are we just trying to engage in some edits from an Anglo-American point of view while claiming to clean up the POV edits of others? Well I don't think anyone would be confused if some representative opinions on the topic are presented so long as they are properly attributed to their sources per this FAQ and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I think it would be useful for the purpose of WP:BALANCE when we happily present the argument made by the US military that no one was raped by any American soldiers during the battle of Okinawa. I'm going to edit Peter Schrijver's statements so that his opinion is properly attributed and cite the book as the source. Feel free to check out your own copy from the library if you believe my edits are not an accurate portrayal of his opinion. --Joshuaism (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

" Rape allegations Civilians and historians report that soldiers on both sides had raped Okinawan civilians during the battle. Rape by Japanese troops "became common" in June, after it became clear that the Japanese Army had been defeated.[15][42] The New York Times reported in 2000 that in the village of Katsuyama, civilians formed a vigilante group to ambush and kill a group of three black American soldiers whom they claimed frequently raped the local girls there.[43] The NYT's article stated that no one had been charged or convicted and nobody knows if those killed were the soldiers who allegedly committed the rapes.

Marine Corps officials in Okinawa and Washington have stated that they "knew of no rapes by American servicemen in Okinawa at the end of the war, and their records do not list war crimes committed by Marines in Okinawa".[44] Historian George Feifer, however, writes that rape in Okinawa was "another dirty secret of the campaign" in which "American military chronicles ignore [the] crimes." Few Okinawans revealed their pregnancies, as "stress and bad diet ... rendered most Okinawan women infertile. Many who did become pregnant managed to abort before their husbands and fathers returned. A smaller number of newborn infants fathered by Americans were suffocated."[45] " - some points in bold that were not put in the article that put a different flavor on the section. Does anyone have Feifer's book? Are the allegations referenced or does it all come from unnamed interviews etc.? HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder about the npov of the writer. He writes "fathered by Americans," but omits those "fathered by Japanese." One might think that the latter would escape detection because they were obviously Asian. But there is a time discrepancy. The returning troops would have been gone a long time. Any motherhood would be suspect. But he fails to mention rape by Japanese which has been noted to be "out of control" with civilians often and particularly with Okinawans who were not considered "pure" Japanese, and therefore violate-able. But he does mention Americans, whose Army was not known (and had imbedded war correspondents BTW) to be "out of control." This does not seem npov IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Student7, my comments towards HammerFilmFan apply here as well. I wouldn't worry about the POV of the writer so long as his opinions are attributed and are not given undue weight. We should be mindful that removing information about significant scholarly and journalistic research that contradicts official US government proclamations while keeping those statements made by the US government means we are pushing a Anglo-American POV through Systemic bias.--Joshuaism (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
By the way, perhaps an Okinawan husband would be upset to find his wife pregnant after having "been gone a long time", But would Okinawan fathers raise as many objections?--Joshuaism (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
(Apologies for posting the following in the article, originally. Editing error)
1) Has Fiefer written anything that was npov about America? He seems plain anti-American. This is fine, but not the type of dispassionate researcher that I would like to see here. See, for example: http://hnn.us/articles/31868.html which says that it was okay for the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor; that Perry's action in 1850-something had kind of justified it.
2) Like Subic Bay, Okinawa is a battleground for potential developers. America is occupying land that could better be used by capitalists. Everything you read about Okinawa is therefore suspect. For example, crimes by soldiers are given prominent headlines, triggering "riots in the streets." Crimes by Okinawans, which are, on average more female and older, are also higher in quantity (rate per 1000). That is the one single fact we have. But we cannot acquire official Japanese data on local crime, by year, type of felony, etc. Totally missing.
3) It seems to me that the post-war rape allegations are merely part of that sort of modern propaganda, having nothing to do with the battle.
4) Not mentioned by Yahara, who was there. Not mentioned by war correspondents who were there. After the war, certainly not bound by censorship.
5) Everyone was quite aware of the Rape of Nanking, an army run amok, not for hours or days, but for weeks. If the American army had done this, it would have been recorded. What source is Fiefer using? Was he there? Why can't we use his sources? In other words, why tertiary? Why not secondary?
6) And BTW, Asians can readily identify (for purposes of bias) American-Japanese children. Someone has a count of those somewhere. All aborted/smothered? Come on! This wasn't done elsewhere. This makes Okinawan mothers look worse than mothers elsewhere, a reportable subarticle all by itself! Student7 (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, you have some interesting thoughts on Okinawan business interests and crime coverage, but please don't use these talk pages as a WP:SOAPBOX. Yahara also makes no mention of rapes by Japanese soldiers[1], should we take this as an argument that no rapes were commited by either side in the battle? Feifer and others are cited here to provide balance to the statements sourced to the US government, the US military, and/or their employees and agents. Remove them and you are left with something that looks like US propaganda, and when you check the cited sources it would almost seem to confirm it. Balance is clearly needed in this section of the article and currently Feifer's statements provide it.--Joshuaism (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to make Yahara a prime source, but he was a staff officer. While exposed often to "danger," not really seeing first hand Japanese troop events. His main exposure was involuntary after fighting ceased, trying to "walk through" American cordons, and escape. He failed within days, but this was soon enough to view the surprise by Okinawans about how well they were handled, and not abused by Americans, nor even detained once they could prove they were "uninvolved" civilians.
Rather than WP:SOAPBOX, please re-read my comments as directly applicable to the question at hand - how reliable are assertions of rape with no count of Japanese-Americans? What is the context of these reports (how WP:RELIABLE are they? Was the American Army "out of control" generally or just for raping women? And why hasn't that been reported before? And why aren't we using WP:SECONDARY sources instead of WP:TERTIARY ones? Student7 (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
We are using secondary sources. You seem to be confused about what a secondary source is. WP:SECONDARY states (at least since November of last year),

A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.

WP:TERTIARY sources are encyclopedias and textbooks. Neither Schrijvers' nor Feifer's books are encyclopedias or textbooks, but they are books by military historians about World War II (well one may be a journalist, but still). So they are clearly secondary sources according to the example stated above. Yahara on the other hand, would be a WP:PRIMARY source. Your desire for more direct evidence seems to suggest a desire for more primary sources. what will it take to convince you that this information belongs? Pics or it didn't happen?
I also don't know why you think the number of war children will give you a reliable number of rapes. Rape rarely leads to pregnancy. Why do you think an army needs to be "out of control" to have members commit rape? Not every American soldier took Japanese skulls or body parts as war trophies, but some did and few objected. All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. The motives for collecting and the lack of outrage over the collection of body parts at the time may show how crimes such as rape came to be committed, accepted, and ignored as unremarkable or unmentionable. But just because these actions were ignored or went unmentioned in the past, doesn't make them unnotable. It is through acknowledgement of the past, no matter how horrible, no matter whether criminal acts are committed by enemies or allies, that we can work to make a better future. I'm not saying we should ignore the Rape of Nanking or other Japanese war crimes (although discussing it here would be a Red Herring). It's just that we should strive to remove the plank from our own eye, before we take the speck (or log as it may be) out of someone else's.--Joshuaism (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that we need to focus on "balance" per-se: the goal here (as in all the other history articles) is to cover events fairly and in line with the kind of emphasis which they've received in reliable sources. These sources state that both sides committed rapes during the battle, and so this is what we need to say in the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

0 rapes in three months

I've noticed that someone has added a reference stating the marines claim there were zero rapes by American forces during the battle of Okinawa. Meanwhile the only references to Japanese rapes on Okinawa come from the Command and General Staff College and the United States Army Center of Military History, clearly WP:NOTRELIABLE as there's a conflict of interest for them to represent the enemies of the US military in an unfavorable light. Since there are no reliable, third-party sources on the topic of Japanese rapes during the battle and the sources for American rape during the battle are clearly extreme exaggerations (reliable sources be damned, we've got common sense on our side!) the obvious solution is to remove this section entirely according to Jimmy Wales wishes, because I bet some of these supposed victims and their alleged attackers are still alive (WP:BURDEN and BLP applies, even to WP:BLPGROUPs). How dare you all slander the good name of America's fine, military members, especially those from The Greatest Generation! </sarcasm and hyperbole> --Joshuaism (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Notwithstanding your unwarranted sarcasm, your conclusion is correct. The section should go. --Yaush (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The bias and agenda of user Joshuaism aside, until a more credible source is found for such an extraordinary claim, it should be removed.HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Um, how is the paper published by the Command and General Staff College not a reliable source? It was researched and written by a qualified historian on the staff of this institution, which has an excellent reputation for publishing scholarly works on military history. Likewise, the other source given for this statement is a volume of the US Army's official history series on the war, which were also primarily written by trained historians (with the Army having no editorial control over the resulting works) and also have an excellent reputation and remain standard references for modern historians. Lots of other sources on the Battle of Okinawa note the systematic mistreatment of the civilian population by the Japanese military. Nick-D (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to the original journalist's book that claimed the 10K rapes w/o naming any sources. This whole subject is a huge muddle, and until someone publishes the data that support such claims, it shouldn't go in the article, and shame on publishing houses these days that let things like this get into print without demanding some back-up. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I was responding to Joshuaism's post; sorry for the confusion. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Many people (myself included) will think long and hard before they bite the hand that feeds them. But one may not even be aware of how our social interactions and institutional atmosphere may affect our work at the subconscious level. Editorial control or not, someone working for and within a military associated institution will be influenced consciously and/or subconsciously and it will affect their work accordingly. --Joshuaism (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with HammerFilmFan. There very well may be subconscious biases among the historians at the CGSC. Of what historian is this not true? Their affiliation is known, and the reader can take this into account when looking for possible biases. To reject the work completely as a source on the basis of the affiliation alone smacks of ad hominem. --Yaush (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for making my point for me and apologies for playing the devil's advocate. I worried from the responses in the 10,000 rapes section that some people wanted to remove sourced information because it was not supported by their original research. But now that we have established that ad hominem attacks against shameful publishing houses and respected historians should not be allowed and that readers are capable of verifying sources, lets agree that these talk pages are not a forum for WP:OR and the well sourced section on rape can stay.--Joshuaism (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Not a valid argument at all. The criticism of the original journalist's book as a source was NOT that he was a journalist, or that he has a hidden anti-American bias, but that his claim has absolutely nothing to substantiate it. This is not true of the CGSC historians. One is an ad hominem and one is not.
The section should go. --Yaush (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what do you mean by "substantiate"? The word does not appear in WP:RS or WP:Verifiability so I want to know what this higher standard is that you are applying to sourced information you don't like. Do you doubt Peter Schrijvers' WP:SCHOLARSHIP? --Joshuaism (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Um, yes. I think that's the whole point Nick-D and I are trying to make: Schrijvers provides no substantiation for his number. --Yaush (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

10,000 rapes in three months

I've noticed that someone switched out the reference for the purported 10,000 rapes from Oshiro Masayasu to Peter Schrijvers in an effort to make the claim more reputable than it does coming from an Okinawan playwright-cum-historian publishing under a rather nationalistic-sounding pseudonym ("the island is strong"). Seeing that it is rather obviously that Schrijvers merely borrowed the exact same figure from Masayasu's "work", this strikes me as an awfully transparent attempt to lend credence to an otherwise unsupported claim.--172.191.112.218 (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Oshiro Masayasu, I erred in thinking that the work in question was published under the aforementioned pseudonym, so I apologize for that. As for the rest, assuming that Masayasu and Schrijvers managed to both miraculously come up with exactly the same number of rapes independent of one another, one still is left wondering how they came up with that number. To perhaps forestall the standard "verifiability not truth" mantra, should not verifiability be more meaningful than just allowing Wikipedia to simply wash its hands of a given matter and say, "well, it's sourced so...whatever"? To put it another way, if Wikipedia is going to tell people that American servicemen raped 122 Okinawan women a day for almost three months, it would be nice if there were more than one source to back it up. Would a claim concerning a German or Japanese atrocity be allowed (by anyone) to remain unchallenged despite such a paucity of sources? It is hard to reconcile a complete lack of documentary evidence on one hand and a claim (made over fifty years after the fact, no less) of 10,000 rapes in 82 days on the other. I'm not arguing that rapes didn't occur on Okinawa, far from it, but the 10,000 number flies in the face of common sense.--172.190.132.87 (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
If you have an issue with the reliability of a source, you can take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Wikipedia should only report what reliable sources say, and extraordinary claims should be backed by extraordinary sources. I'm not sure how extraordinary the claim is though - I don't find it mathematically incredible (nor, sadly, by human nature) that over 100,000 soldiers could commit 10,000 rapes in 82 days - but "common sense" i.e. original research is simply not usable at all. In the end, the reliability of the source is key. (Hohum @) 12:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Possible? Of course-DEPENDING on what army we're talking about. Such actions by the 13th-century Mongol armies, for instance, would be entirely plausible with their overwhelming documented behaviour. However, 10,000 rapes committed by American troops implies a complete breakdown of military discipline, and that never occurred. As has been documented extensively, after the initial shock of defeat was over, the Okinawa natives were surprised at the (basically) humane treatment they were afforded by the occupiers, which strongly contradicted what the Imperial Japanese propaganda had told them. Were there instances of some troops getting out of line? Almost certainly. But 10,000 rapes is just a fantastical number that would have been heard about and reported extensively long before now. I can tell you that no fellow professors I know take it seriously. Modifying the article to show that this claim is dubious is hardly showing any pro-American bias. American news services and historians are often amongst the most critical of American actions. What we have here is an extraordinary claim w/o sound evidence. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
There were roughly 180,000 American troops on Okinawa during the three months of the battle. 10,000 rapes would average out to 1 soldier in 18 committing a rape. Even if you assume a soldier who raped once likely raped many times, that's a high enough number of soldiers that the claim that it could have gone unnoticed by American senior officers, war correspondents, and the great majority of postwar historians qualifies as an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary supporting evidence is called for. --Yaush (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope I won't shock anyone. But otherwise reliable sources can have unreliable data in them. I've been on other controversial articles where data obtained from apparently npov sources was questioned in detail. There is no data here at all. Did the author "throw darts?" How did he arrive at that particular figure. If he says, "I wouldn't be surprised if..." that is hardly an academic statement and would not really be quotable here. Someone using polling techniques, maybe. But there is no supporting data, that I can see. Student7 (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've tracked down the source of this. Peter Schrijvers says that "the estimate of one Okinawan historian for the entire three-month period of the campaign exceeds 10,000. A figure that does not seem unlikely when one realizes that during the first 10 days of the occupation of Japan there were 1,336 reported cases of rape of Japanese women by American soldiers in Kanagawa prefecture alone". However, he also starts this passage with "exactly how many Okinawan women were raped by American troops will never be known" as many of the victims wouldn't have reported this. Schrijvers' source for the 'exceeds 10,000' figure is page 497 of George Feifer's book Tennozan : The battle of Okinawa and the Atomic Bomb. This book states that the figure is the estimate of an "Okiniawan historian commissioned by the prefectural government to investigate the battle's effects on the civilian population" who doesn't want to be named as the source of the estimate as he is "too professionally careful to be quoted without hard evidence - of which there is little about rape just because it was such a painful subject". As such, I don't think that retaining this figure in the article is sustainable; we don't know who the source of the estimate was or how it was calculated, and its ultimate author appears to not regard it as being reliable enough to put his name to. I'd suggest removing this, and replacing it with Fiefer's statement that "there were probably thousands of incidents" of rape committed by US troops but that the number can't be determined (also p. 497). Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(in agreement). There are some potential fallacies here: Argument from silence for one, Begging the question, a bit of Circular reasoning. I think fallacy of division - soldiers are capable of rape and some have been proved/reported, therefore there must a lot of rape. Fallacy of many questions - Armies rape, therefore this one must have, as well.
I think the statement "probably thousands of incidents" is fallacious reasoning. There is no reason why this could not have been measured in some way (other way) long before (e.g. number of Japanese-Americans, for example).
I know of a person who was a child in Berlin when the Russians took over after WWII. All women were repeatedly raped. There is no question in my mind and plenty of observers. Why not here? Why the vagueness? "Anonymous reliable sources?" Whoa! pov IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Given that multiple sources state that there were a large number of rapes, this needs to be included. I've removed the questionable '10,000' figure per the above discussion, and added in a summary of what Fiefer wrote. Amendments to the material or comments on it are, of course, very welcome. Nick-D (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I've also removed corresponding material from the Rape during the occupation of Japan and Occupation of Japan articles per the above. Nick-D (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fringe journalist's unsub. allegations snuck back in?

Consensus was pretty much to not include Fiefer's unsubstantiated and unsupported by the majority of mainstream historian's claims. Removed it yet again. By the way, this problem exists on the Occupation of Japan article, also, and should be addressed, and a content-fork article Rape During the Occupation of Japan. I think this stuff is definitely agenda-driven POV, and editors should think long and hard about inclusion of these claims, since no data has ever been published, and this is nothing more than pure speculation that SOMEHOW avoided notice by the thousands of international press reporters on Okinawa and the Japanese main islands, in which criticism of the Allies was in no short supply on many issues.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And a bit different with Japan since it was surrendered in an orderly fashion. Military police went in. Japanese police force still intact. I will look at that article. Student7 (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Should Canada, Australia and New Zealand be in the infobox?

As far as I'm aware, the only involvement these countries had in the campaign was contributing a small number of warships to escort the carriers of the British Pacific Fleet. Some of the naval aviators in the British Fleet Air Arm squadrons were also citizens of these countries (particularly NZ). I don't think that these warships bombarded Okinawa or similar though, so I'd suggest that they be removed from the infobox. Do other editors have views on this matter? Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Number of Japanese military dead

Reading through this article and looking at the one on Okinawa, I found several different figures for the number of Japanese military who died during the battle. While some of this is probably due to different definitions of "military," as can be seen bey a careful reading of the text, I don't think this counts for all of the differences. Could some-one please check sources and square the figures?211.225.33.104 (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the exact number of Japanese military dead is known, by anyone, and ever will be. The records on the Japanese side just aren't that complete. --Yaush (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Impressed Okinawans in the infobox

I was quite confused where it said impressed Okinawans under the infobox. I thought this meant that Okinawans who were surprised by the Japanese fighting they joined too. Maybe someone could change that to be more clear about Okinawans who were forced to fight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

At the time of the American landings on Okinawa, about 20,000 Boeitai had been mobilized by the Japanese for duty as labor and service troops. Though these men were for the most part not armed, they performed valuable services as ammunition and supply carriers at the front lines and also engaged in numerous front-line and rear-area construction and other duties. Some eventually saw combat. The Boeitai are not to be confused with the Okinawan conscripts and reservists who were called up and assimilated into the regular army just as were the Japanese in the home islands. The first group of Boeitai was assembled in June 1944 to work on the construction of airfields, but the general mobilization of natives into "National Home Defense Units" was not ordered until January 1945, after the departure of the 9th Division. About 17,000 Okinawans between the ages of seventeen and forty-five were drafted to serve as Boeitai. In addition, about 750 male students of the middle schools, fourteen years of age and over, were organized into Blood and Iron for the Emperor Duty Units and trained for guerilla warfare. Further drafts of Boeitai were made at various times during the battle. In addition to the Boeitai a large number of Okinawan civilians were conscripted into the Japanese forces either to increase the strength of existing units or to organize new units. While the actual number of Okinawans serving with the 32d Army has not been determined, available evidence indicates that they represented a large proportion of the total, increasing the Japanese strength by perhaps as much as one-third or more.5 When the Americans invaded Okinawa, the total strength of the 32d Army amounted to more than 100,000 men, including the 20,000 Boeitai draftees and an unknown number of conscripted Okinawans. The army proper totaled 77,000, consisting of 39,000 Japanese troops in infantry combat units and 38,000 in special troops, artillery, and service units. http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/okinawa/chapter4.htm --Niemti (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

incorrect math

"U.S. Army records from the planning phase of the operation make the assumption that Okinawa was home to about 300,000 civilians. According to various estimates, between one tenth and one third of them died during the battle,[23] or between 42,000 and 150,000 dead." 24.239.124.140 (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Corrected this. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Reason for Japan's surrender

Why is the Soviet invasion of Manchuria given as a reason for Japan's surrender? They didn't surrender when 80% of Tokyo was destroyed through bombing and they lost 110,000 people in a single day, but somehow being attacked well outside of Japan caused them to surrender? It's certainly not something I've come across before. 76.93.159.49 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a commonly-advanced argument - the consensus among historians is that the Soviet entry into the war was one of the main factors which influenced the Japanese decision to surrender (the rapid destruction of the Army in Manchuria - which up to that point had been considered to be of good quality - and the likelihood of Soviet invasion of the Home Islands had a considerable effect on the minds of senior Japanese officials). Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I second what User:Nick-D said. I'll add a source later today. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I've added two references; feel free to check them. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the Soviet invasion was a major reason for Japan's surrender. Plus, the Japanese had been hoping the Soviets would negotiate a peace deal with the Americans. When the Soviets invaded, Japan realized that their last hope for a negotiated peace was over.
I would add that the Potsdam Declaration of July 28, 1945 gave the Japanese an indication of what would happen to them if they surrendered and an indication that the Americans -- although we called it an "unconditional surrender" -- were willing to be somewhat generous with Japan if it surrendered promptly.Smallchief (talk 15:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Not the bloodiest US WWII battle

I clarified this to show "bloodiest battle" in terms of US combatant causalities. In terms of US and Japanese military casualties, with or without civilian casualties, the Battle of Luzon was bloodier. About 8,000 US killed, 192,000 Japanese combatants killed, and about 140,000 Philippine combatants and civilians killed, with the academic estimates at between 335,000 to 340,000 killed. 73.212.229.38 (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You should provide a source for that information. It already said "US causalities". Your statement is not appropriate for the lead CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No it did not say "US casualties," I had added that. As far as sources of overall casualties of US battles, Wikipedia itself shows a number of "bloodier" battles in which US was a principal combatant, Luzon, etc.73.212.229.38 (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
To editor 73.212.229.38: You need to stop tilting at windmills. Per WP:BRD you have already been reverted. You need to establish consensus or you will find yourself blocked. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Blocked? The Battle of Luzon Wikipedia article and all the academic sources show Battle of Luzon as higher casualty Both in range and mean estimates. That is an objective fact. The footnotes in this article are about US casualties. I already had to correct that gross error in the lede by adding "US casualties."
By US casualties to US casualties Okinawa is the largest. But it s not the bloodiest by the two more definitive metrics: either total combatant killed casualties; or, by combatant plus civilian killed casualties. Since both the lede and the main section on aftermath included statements of Japanese killed casualties, and statements of numbers of civilians killed casualties, the implicating is that is what is meant by "bloddiest." in which case the article is in error in that regard. (it I also in error in regard to using killed/injured or killed/injured/captured). It is the second bloodiest battle when counting total casualties -- and the article does in fact presents all sides casualties when making that incorrect assertion that it is the bloodiest.
MacArthur, Douglas. Reminiscences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. Morison, Samuel Eliot. History of United States Naval Operations in World War Two. Vol. 13, Liberation of the Philippines: Luzon, Mindanao, the Visayas, 1944-1945. Boston: Little, Brown, 1959. Smith, Robert Ross. The United States Army in World War II: The War in the Pacific: Triumph in the Philippines. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1963.Samuel Eliot Morison, The Liberation of the Philippines (1963). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.212.229.38 (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Your entire statement is opinion/original research. Specifically "not the bloodiest by the two more definitive metrics", why are "total combatant killed casualties; or, by combatant plus civilian killed casualties" the definitive metrics? That is your opinion. The sources the article for "bloodiest" are payed historians and seem to be trustworthy, you are some random guy on the internet.
As for the sources you provided, what do they say, specifically? CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
73.212.229.38 These three sources [1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ "Battle of Okinawa: The Bloodiest Battle of the Pacific War". HistoryNet. Retrieved April 5, 2010.
  2. ^ Manchester, William (June 14, 1987). "The Bloodiest Battle Of All". The New York Times. Retrieved March 31, 2010.
  3. ^ John Pike. "Battle of Okinawa". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved April 5, 2010.

disagree with what appears to be your WP:OR CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually the numbers in those sources all add up to LESS than the battle of Luzon. Did you aggregate the numbers in those sources? They only use US casualties to make their assertion?73.212.229.38 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Perish the thought that a book or article title might engage in some hyperbole.

Given that "bloodiest" can mean a number of things, the latest edit saying it is considered one of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific seems as good as we can do. --Yaush (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

All of those are using US casualties alone as the metric they use to define "bloodiest. This Wikipedia article mentions in both sections asserting "bloodiest" all causalities, ie US, Japanese and civilians. In that case it Luzon is the bloodies. If you follow the claim bloodiest with just US casualties, that is consistent. If you follow it with US, Japanese and civilian casualties this article is in error.17:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.212.229.38 (talk)
That sounds a lot like WP:OR you should read WP:VCombatWombat42 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
To editor Yaush:, I agree they are almost certainly engaging in hyperbole, I would much rather qualify with something like "the most US military casualties" or "most civilian deaths" or some such, like the IP was trying to do, but WP:V means we need a quality source before we can do that and I simply don't see one. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@CombatWombat42: The IP has a point. Just looking at the first source you provided, which claims that Okinawa was the "bloodiest" battle of the pacific war based on all civillian and military casualties combined, it is wrong as the sources the IP provided show greater combined casualties at Luzon. You dismissed him as presenting OR even after he provided two sources. I think the phrase "bloddiest battle" should be removed altogether. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Sturmgewehr88: He is defining bloodiest for himself which is OR. The sources say "bloodiest battle of the Pacific war" there is NO ambiguity in that. I have yet to see a single source say "Not the bloodiest battle of the Pacific war". All you and the IP have provided is casualty numbers and assertions that the sources are wrong because you defined "bloodiest" differently than them. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, here's a source that lists Luzon but not Okinawa among the bloodiest battles of World War II generally: http://www.militaryeducation.org/10-bloodiest-battles-of-world-war-ii/ And here's one claiming the honor for Tarawa: http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?11142-Tarawa-The-bloodiest-battle-of-the-Pacific
I think it is adequate to stay with "one of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War" and avoid the question of whether it is the bloodiest, and by what metric. --Yaush (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I would contest that it would be better to say "it is considered by some sources to be the bloodiest" that way we are not making assumptions. CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@CombatWombat42: I didn't say the sources say it isn't the bloodiest battle, I said that other sources claim that other battles were the bloodiest. I agree with Yaush that "one of the bloodiest" is much more appropirate than "the bloodiest", given that there are multiple sources that claim the title for different battles, unless of course you'd rather have Battle of Okinawa, Battle of Luzon, and Battle of Tarawa all claiming to be "the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War" just because we can find sources that say so? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@Sturmgewehr88:, if you read my above statement to say "one of the bloodiest" without a source that says that would violate WP:V, and be OR. Where as saying "some sources claim it was the bloodiest" is both true and verifiable. CombatWombat42 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@CombatWombat42: Then why don't we also add "but other sources claim the Battle of Luzon or the Battle of Tarawa were the bloodiest" since this is also "true and verifiable" and so we're not violating WP:NPOV? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, seems a bit out of place but not too bad. CombatWombat42 (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

An iceberg known as "Steel Rain" hit Okinawa, causing various amphibious species, native to the UK and the US, to flock to the islands.

Why does "On This Day..." get this bizarre description of the event? Yes, I get the coy connections, but it makes it look like a misdirected link. 169.230.243.177 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The jokey reference is also in really bad taste: the Battle of Okinawa was a major human tragedy which resulted in around 200,000 deaths and many more thousands of people being wounded or losing their homes. Nick-D (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead

I have made a one-word edit to the lead, from was the largest amphibious assault in the Pacific War to included the largest amphibious assault in the Pacific War as it more broadly represents the battle. Please let me know if this is requires further discussion. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Okinawa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

US casualties

The number of US wounded is 34116 (navy not included) not 55162. The detailed number of US army and marine personnel casualties can be found in Robert O Neil's 'road to victory' P 266. The 55162 figure, probably includes both psychiatric AND combat casualties so we should not list them separately. Also, I doubt the readability of the sources that indicate 20195 deaths figure. According to most sources, the figure of KIA is 12520 (7613 with no navy included). Perhaps the 20k number was the result of dying from wounds several months in the aftermath of battle. Can someone please correct that? Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex matador 666 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 23 October 2015‎

The cited sources (Keegan and the National Archives) are considered reliable and there is no reason why they should be challenged. The figure of 20,195 deaths is most likely all causes fatalities from the three services (Army, Navy, and Marines). This is different from KIAs, and that difference is acknowledged in the infobox. The figure of 55,162 probably includes wounded men who were eventually returned to duty. Giangreco and other historians note the War Department tendency to remove those less severely wounded as well as deaths from other causes from the official casualty toll, essentially as a means of propaganda. The same phenomenon is observable with the Battle of the Bulge: the US officially reported 8,607 KIA, though we know now that all-causes deaths were actually in excess of 19,000. The Pittsburgher (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Battle of Okinawa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of Okinawa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Comfort women, last line of rape section really unclear

The line before and after the citation of Comfort Women([67]) is practically incoherent, even seeming to suggest that the accusations were collectively dismissable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambchowder (talk • contribs) 04:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Battle of Okinawa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

12,520 “killed in action” actually includes missing?

“The Americans suffered over 82,000 casualties, including non-battle casualties (psychiatric, injuries, illnesses), of whom over 12,500 were killed or missing.” But in the info box it is simply stated 12,520 killed in action. Also, the 20,195 US dead is somewhat sketchy. I’ve only been able to check one of the three sources, the “national archives” one. It’s a website that features the figure in the background section of an article on Truman and the atomic bomb, with no primary source given for the stat, and the battle is mentioned in only one sentence.

Why isn’t the figure of 14,009 dead from the Cornerstone of Peace monument given in the casualties section used for the infobox instead? An official deathcount like that could be considered more reliable than an author, and this particular one can’t be claimed to only be killed in action, as the 12,520 number already includes both killed and missing the 14,009 must include died of wounds/indirect deaths as well to reach that number. These are just some observations I’ve made viewing the article. Input would be much appreciated. -- 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:A6 (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. If you have better sources, or don't think we can rely on current sources, please say so. Otherwise, you'll need to gain consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
It’s my understanding that you only need consensus to remove something that is already sourced, which is not what I did. I simply added information to the info box that was already given and sourced in the casualties section. -- 76.164.94.71 (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Went ahead and added the number as part of a range and gave the source. -- 76.164.94.71 (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Just a tip for the future, you should have added the source to begin with if you wanted the 14,009 figure to be represented. --Roddy the roadkill (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Okinawa

Hello, you just recently reverted my edit about the image description of Richard P. Ross Jr. as Commanding officer of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines. You had reverted my edit to the previous version, "commanding officer of 1st Battalion, 1st Marines", but in fact he was not commander of 1st Battalion at that time, because commander of 1st Battalion, 1st Marines was Lt.col. Austin C. Shofner at that time. Except the original BIO provided by USMC Military History division you can check this:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-M-Okinawa/USMC-M-Okinawa-III.html

The image description in the publication The Final Campaign: Marine Victory on Okinawa is not correct. AntonyZ (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

"In April 1945, Ross took part in the battle of Okinawa and because of the course of the battle, he held temporary command of 1st Battalion, 1st Marines for two days after its commander has been wounded in action" from Richard P. Ross Jr. via The Final Campaign: Marine Victory on Okinawa; likely accounts for the apparent discrepancy. This document mentions that he was commander of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines (see page 21) *and* commander of 1st Battalion, 1st Marines (see caption for cover). It's conceivable that he *was* indeed acting commander of 1st Battalion, 1st Marines when the photo was taken. I still see no reason to doubt the original caption because there is no other source for an alternative caption; see WP:OR. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
But the Shuri Castle, Okinawa (where the picture was taken) was attacked by Marine Forces on May 21st and the battle lasted for several days or weeks. Lieutenant colonel Ross raised the U.S. flag on the last day of May 1945 (when the photo was taken); he served as acting commander of 1st Battalion, 1st Marines just for two days (May 10-12). So that means, there is a conflict in dates and that means, he aldready served as Commanding officer of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines at the time of the photo. There is also another evidence for my claim (search: Richard P. Ross Jr. or see page 41 - "Lieutenant Colonel Richard P. Ross, commanding the 3d Battalion, 1st Marines, raised this flag in the rain on the last day of May, then took cover.":

https://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/The%20Final%20Campaign%20Marines%20in%20the%20Victory%20of%20Okinawa%20%20PCN%2019000313500_2.pdf

Let me know please, I will intend the the change of the caption of the image on the page Battle of Okinawa, but I want the complete agreement before the change. Thank you so much. AntonyZ (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The evidence you've provided seems to definitively settle the matter. Thanks for looking into this! Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

belligerents vs units involved

the belligerents section includes the Commonwealth countries but the units involved does not. I think there were some British ships there, including some that were hit by kamikazes. I have no knowledge of air or ground troops. 141.156.187.235 (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Order of Battle - contentious statement lacking citation or support

Under this page's short piece on the Allied Order of Battle there is the statement "Their mission was largely to patrol dozens of miles behind American anti-aircraft picket line ships, thus incurring minimal damage, but also having minimal effect on the Battle of Okinawa." as the last sentence of the section. This does not appear to be accurate when reviewing the actions undertaken by the British Pacific Fleet while the effect they had is a complex issue to dissect.

I propose to delete this sentence in about 2 days unless someone can support it (that would be on Friday 21 August 2020).

Doctormonkey (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's utter rubbish. Thanks for spotting this - I've just removed it. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Okinawa/Archive_2&oldid=1252134730"