RichTO90
Minor misunderstanding here I'm afraid Eugen. The reports show battle casualties - in the five weeks of operations, not "3 months"
You're wrong here. Appendix III records losses of the units, simply not present on Iwo Jima during the first 5 weeks of combat. On the other hand, it doesn't record losses of units, that were present on the island during the campaign.
It is not that no U.S. Marine or sailor became ill on Iwo Jima, it is that the document you refer to does not record illness.
And that is the problem - because the word "battle" before "casualties" is somehow missing, everybody is free to believe, that that's the total number of US casualties on Iwo Jima. Which is certainly not the case.
So no "fairy tales", just a fundamental misunderstanding of the terminology used.
My "fairy tale" remark was not about the data itself, but to the attempt of LWD to show this appendix as the total number of casualties.
Close, but the breakdown between combat and non combat losses was actually about 0.98:1.00, so a bare majority at best. Total was 27,629.
Let me guess - you haven't bothered to read the table and just summed the net results of battle and non-battle casualties?
If you'll read carefully data in your own post, you'll see, that only sick soldiers and officers alone amounted to over 30000.
And I'd like to add, that war on Philippine islands doesn't ended on 8 May 1945, as 8th Army report tries to imply
LWD
How often are you looking at post war data?
As often, as it's necessary to find out the truth.
The US simply wouldn't have had much access to data concerning Japanese casualties due to disease.
Those poor, poor US! They forced Japanese Army to write hundreds of books, articles and so on about war, they had access to ALL surviving Japanese records, they collected and translated tenths of thousands Japanese documents, that were found in the field - but were unable to find even rough data on Japanese casualties due to disease
Of course, taking into account, that "poor, poor" US Army historians were unable to find even the latest data on US casualties during Leyte battle, one can't help, but wonder - maybe they simply weren't interested to find out the truth?
Some post war accounts by IJA officers indicate that at higher levels they didn't have a very detailed account of even how many people they had on hand much less how many were sick.
You're confusing post-war interrogations/reminiscences with daily strength/losses returns.
You have jumped to the conclusion that there is an attempt to "deceive reader". It's at least as likely that the total Japanese casualties were the best estimate they had of battle casualties. Consider that they wouldn't have found all the Japanese dead and in some cases it would be difficult to tell just how they died.
And using Japanese records is forbidden by American religion?
The tables however are quite clearly labeled with terms like KIA and WIA. They are quite obviously not daily hospital reports.
And yet it was you who tried to show them to me in contrast with TOTAL Japanese casualties:
"This one does list most of the Japanese casualties as KIA on the other hand most of the lists on US casualties on that site also are listed as MIA, KIA, WIA, etc as the second link shows:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/Iwo/Casualties.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/US ... a-III.html"