Talk:Operation Ten-Go

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Ten-Go article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Operation Ten-Go is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 14, 2006.
Article Milestones Date Process Result April 25, 2006 WikiProject peer review Reviewed May 7, 2006 Good article nominee Listed May 17, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	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.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Related task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Related task forces (nations and regions): Japanese military history task force United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

	Operation Ten-Go 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.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Japan To-do: edit purge Improve to Featured status Japan Improve ASIMO Burakumin and Buraku Liberation League Takako Doi Chikamatsu Monzaemon Education in Japan Japanese architecture Japanese art Japanese robotics Japanese strategic planning for the Pacific (1905-1940) List of Emperors of Japan (transl. from ja) Emperor Yozei of Japan List of Japanese artists Namioka, Aomori Nihonjinron Sadako Ogata Ōishi Yoshio Politics of Japan Yagyu Shinkage-ryu Center Shiken (大学入試センター試験) More... Review First Sino-Japanese War Hinduism in Japan Inland Sea Kigo Narihira Santosen Temple Sazae-san Stroke order Heizo Takenaka Giovanni Battista Sidotti Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion See this page, this page, and this page for lists. Grammar corrections Gaijin Takefuji Need images Every prefecture, see Subdivisions of Japan Sendai - Add demographic images More... Translate from Japanese Wikipedia Iemoto (家元) Blue Ribbon Award (Film) (ブルーリボン賞 (映画)) Gesaku (ja:戯作) More... Transliterations missing for Military ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces Wikify Ibaraki University Ikawa, Shizuoka Ima, Ai ni Yukimasu Japanese sculpture Mori Goro Organization of the Imperial Japanese Central China Army Organization of the Imperial Japanese North China Army Sangaria Shaken Takefuji Vote: Talk:Dokdo#Rename vote Watch this list — Edit this list

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

there is some sort of error in the information box, particularly related to the order of battle. I think the US and Japanese forces are reversed.

Contents 1 Lack of air cover 2 Question. 3 Confusing seasonal references 4 Interwiki title 5 Vandalism 6 In Harm's Way? 7 Questionable assertion 8 The use of nukes 9 Question on squadrons involved

[edit] Lack of air cover

The suicidal nature of the mission might be better understood by uninformed readers if two pieces of information were added. First, I would mention briefly at the beginning Japan's position in the war at this point, as well as the losses it had taken relative to the number of ships being launched by American shipyards in late '44 - '45. Second, the significance of sailing the Yamato into battle without air cover should be explained. I don't think most people appreciate that, despite their awsome firepower, the Yamato, Musashi, etc. -- and U.S. BBs as well -- were sitting ducks without fighter protection. This was especially true for the Japanese due to the number of carrier-borne aircraft in the U.S. task force.

The entry discusses the makeup of the U.S. taskforce, but mentions the number of battleships rather than aircraft. This is important because the very next sentence says Yamato took "up to twenty bomb and torpedo hits" before her magazine blew. Seems like it might be a good idea to explain where those bombs/torpedos came from.

[edit] Question.

"However, the crews at the fuel depot at Tokuyama defied orders and courageously supplied the task force with much more."

'Courageously'? I don't understand military tactics and the such; but how can fuel crews be 'courageous'?

Because disobedience was punishable by death? Just a hypothesis. :oS

MWAK--84.27.81.59 15:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

0_o Baloogan 03:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Correct, the fuel depot workers would have been in serious trouble for sending off as much fuel as they did, possibly being executed. This was some of the last (dead last) fuel oil in Japan. Gulfstorm75

[edit] Confusing seasonal references

One paragraph begins: By spring 1945 ... World War II ended well before Spring 1945? Oh! someone means the northern hemisphere spring.

Seasonal references should not be used in this way, because they are likely to cause confusion. People do live south of the equator, and the seasons there are not the same as they are north of the equator. This should be reworded using hemisphere-neutral language so people everywhere who understands when 1945 was can also understand when the war reached this particular point without having to translate unnecessary seasonal references. (Imagine if it said autumn instead of spring here.) --B.d.mills 00:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it was spring for the two combatants involved in this battle. I won't, however, object if you want to remove the seasonal reference. Cla68 06:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In this battle? Perhaps. However the British Pacific Fleet and Solomon Islands campaign (which proceeds the spring 1945 bit) articles, amongst others, suggest there was New Zealand and Australian involvement in other battles even if it was primarily US... In any case, this is kind of irrelevant. Instrinsicly, this is discussing the issue in general terms. There is no reason why it should be from the POV of the combatants. It should be appropriate for the reader. I should add that even in northern hemisphere tropical countries such as Malaysia and Singapore for example, seasonal references such as spring have limited meaning for them (even if they technically have the same seasons). Indeed an inexperienced reader may not even be sure when the seasons are. I really see little reason for seasonal references in an article which isn't either related to the season or a quote (e.g. if a release date target is spring 2007 althought we should make it clear who's spring in this case). It is arguably acceptable when it only concerns a specific country or region even if it isn't connected to the season but when it concerns a world wide thing such as World War II, there is no justification for seasonal reference IMHO. Nil Einne 19:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If articles should be seasonal-neutral from the point of the reader, then your point is valid. If it's okay for an article to represent the seasonal POV from the participants in the event, then it's not as important. I don't think any of the Solomon Island battle articles mention the season, which is appropriate since, as you point out, seasons don't really happen in the same way in the south Pacific and for the participating combatants. However, spring is a culturally significant event in both Japan and the U.S., the participants in this battle. The battle also took place in an area where spring is a noticeable season (I know this is arguable). However, I can understand your point of view and won't get worked up if someone removes (if they haven't already) the seasonal references from the article. Cla68 07:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki title

This article currently links to the Japanese article called Bou-no misaki oki kaisen. There's also a Japanese article for "Operation Ten-Go" located here, but it is a shorter article. If this is appropriate, should there be an elaboration of the Japanese title being linked to? Shawnc 01:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Some idiot wrote that a B-22 hit the Japanese navy with nuclear warheads, and spelt nuclear wrong. Corrected it as best as I could. If someone knows what it originally said, please replace what I wrote. JodoYodo 04:23, Thursday September 14, 2006 (UTC)

Just revert it to the earlier version, which I'll do now if it hasn't been done already. This type of thing always happens when an article is featured on Wikipedia's front page. Cla68 06:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What is it with these sub-morons? Do they really have nothing better to do that this? If they want to screw around, why not start their own web page and leave those of us with triple digit IQs alone.

B-22? I make no claim to be an expert on WWII aircraft, but anyone with more than cursory knowledge of the war knows there was no such thing as a production model "B-22." There was an experimental plane (Douglas_XB-22) with that designation but it was never produced. See US WWII Bombers

PainMan 19:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Harm's Way?

Under Audio-Visual it is stated:

"In Harm's Way is a 1965 film which includes a dramatization of the battle from the perspective of American servicemen."

In Harm's Way is thinly veiled, highly fictionalized representation of the later parts of the Solomons Campaign that took place nearly three years before the Ten-Go operation.

I feel that this reference should be removed.

214.3.11.2 13:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Jeff Rogers 14 Sep 2006

[edit] Questionable assertion

[S]ome of the Japanese survivors reported that U.S. fighter aircraft machine-gunned Japanese survivors floating in the water.[39] This may have been a war crime or it may have been a legitimate attempt to protect downed U.S. aircrew who were floating in the water nearby awaiting rescue.[40]

To apply the phrase "war crime" with 21st century connotations to actions during WWII is anachronistic and highly inappropriate. I have no problem with the documentation of facts (my grandfather who served in the Pacific theater has confirmed to me that Japanese POWs were, in fact, shot after surrender). My problem is using this statement without putting it in context.

(The systematic execution by Canadian forces, in Europe, of captured members of the SS Hitlerjugend division is probably closer to the modern definition of a "war crime" since not every member of this elite unit was invovled in the massacre of captured Canadians in Normandy. See Keegan, The Second World War. But how much sympathy can one have for SS men? Perhaps we should ask Gunter Grass?)

Although there are numerous recorded incidents of captured Japanese soldiers being shot immediately after capture or shortly thereafter. However, it MUST be noted that many Japanese POWs, even when gravely wounded, attempted to kill or killed and wounded doctors and nurses attending to them, indeed, trying to save their lives.

The race war nature of the Pacific conflict is something that has been very rarely explored, either officially, or by private scholars of either of the two former enemies, now such close Allies. Such a study would be fascinating since there can be little question that the Pacific War was, in fact, a classic "race war" where quarter was rarely asked and ever more rarely given. Contrast this with the European theatre where, with some exceptions, the Nazis and the Allies obeyed Geneva Convention restrictions during the conflict (tho' the Germans did not do so on the Eastern Front under the flimsy pretext that the USSR had not signed the Geneva Convention).

Thus, the killing of Japanese POWs was essentially a self-defense measure--especially given that defeat was considered so shameful by Japanese custom that death, if necessary by suicide, was considered by nearly all officers and men to be preferable to surrender. This attitude, in part, explains, but cannot excuse, the terrible crimes committed against Allied POWs and civilians under Japanese occupation.

Anyone seeking further information on Japanese atrocities should definitely get a copy of

Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II by Yuki Tanaka, a Japanese historian, resident in Australia (not surprisingly since it is not unknown for Japan's tiny, extreme nationalist groups to intimidate, to the point of firing shots at the houses of, Japanese scholars who publish the truth of the military clique's almost unbelievable crimes against humanity.

The author does make a limp attempt to link Japanese crimes to the use of atomic bombs by the United States to end the war. But this is typical of Japanese WWII scholars. The Japanese establishment has successfully inculcated the idea that Imperial Japan was a victim and not a purpetrator of horrors beyond imagination.

--->Be warned this book is NOT for those with a weak stomach or for kids. Tanaka documents the Japanese military's pre-planned use of cannabalism to feed troops that could not otherwise be supplied with food. And not just of enemy POWs but even low-ranking Japanese enlisted men.

Bottom line: discussion of atrocities, whether Axis or Allied really do not have a place in article concerned strictly with a battle.

PainMan 19:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The use of nukes

"The apparent willingness of Japan to sacrifice so many of its people using suicidal tactics such as Operation Ten-Go and in the Battle of Okinawa reportedly was a factor in the Allied decision to employ nuclear weapons against Japan.[45]"

That's the dumbest excuse to use nukes I've ever heard of. 3k lives vs 200k lives? lol, maybe someone more knowledgeable can tell us the real reason why nukes were used or remove this part altogether. Thanks.

The source of that assertion is listed as a reference. I would suggest checking that book out from the library or purchasing it and then reading the author's rationale for making that assertion. According to that author, the decision was based on the entire Battle of Okinawa, no just the Ten-Go engagement. Cla68 00:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• There is a good reason that the Allies decided to drop the Atomic Bombs.

In 1945, the Allies began planning for the Invasion of Japan. There are a varity estimates as to how many lives it would cost the Allies to take Japan. Do not forget that the Allies, especially the Americans and Australians, had been invading Japanese-held Islands for two years. The Japanese fought nearly to the last man in each engagement. The close the Allies got to the Japan the harder that Japanese soldier fought and the higher the casaulty rate got for the Allies.

On April 12, 1945, Franklin D. Roosevelt died and Harry S. Truman became President. Truman had been an officer in the United States Marine in World War I. The first due of every officer in any branch of the service to the soldiers in his or her command. When goes into battle it is the goal of every officer to return with same men they left with. No matter what it takes to protect their men, the officer is will to do so. If killing a million people would save a single of the Officer's men then the officer would kill a million people.

Now left bring this back to the atomic bombs. When Truman became President of the United States he became Commander-in-Chief of all American Armed Forces. When Truman was told about the estimate casaulties for invading Japan and was than that there was a device that could save lives, he did not hesitate. As a formoer officer and now the commander of a troops,how many Amnerican lives would dropping the bomb have to save fro Truman to say "Yes." Answer: One. If the bomb saved the life of one American soldier then it was worth a try. This is the main reason Turman agreed to drop the bomb. As a officer, Truman was protecting his men. (Steve 01:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

• Just to clear up one point, Truman was an officer in the United States Army during the First World War. He actually had a huge bone to pick with the Marines because he fely they had garnered most of the positive press during the war even though the Army had the preponderance of troops in theater. After WWII he even tried to have the Marine Corps dissolved and made part of the Army but met against some stiff resistance prompting this memorable memo and this famous Marine Corps speech.--203.10.224.59 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question on squadrons involved

Was wondering if you could answer a quick question for me. Were any of the units involved US Marine Corps VMSB or VMTB squadrons? I know some of them were operating from escort carriers and were land based on Oki at the time. Did not know if any went north to participate in this. Thanks.--203.10.224.59 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)